The Electoral College--Reform, Keep, or End?

[Lavan Tiri]

For those not in the know, here in 'Murica, we don't elect our leader by voting. The populace votes, then a number of special officials (at least 3 for every state, equal to the total number of members of Congress that state has) vote--hopefully based on the majority vote of their state, although they don't always have to. This is called the Electoral College.

Proponents of the EC say it keeps smaller states and less urban states relevant, by keeping larger and more urban states from dominating the election. Opponents say that it invalidates millions of votes and kinda doesn't really make sense at all.

The question is, where do you stand? Do you support the current system? Think a popular vote is best? Or do you think a compromise, perhaps like what Maine and Nebraska do (apportion each Congressional District separately and give the 2 "Senate" votes to whatever candidate won the popular vote statewide) makes the most sense?

Personally, I hate the Electoral College and find many arguments in favor of it to be, frankly, idiotic. Let's go through the two most common: it keeps smaller states relevant and "that's the way the Founders wanted it".

- "That's the way the Founders wanted it!"
Okay and? Do you do everything your dad says 20 years after you leave the house and he's fucking died?

- It keeps smaller states relevant!
There are 330 million people in the US. There are 8 million in our largest city, New York City. Not every person in New York City votes the same way. Same thing for every other massive city in the US: many of them have fewer than 500,000 people, which is still not 330 million. The entire urban population could vote one way and not win. One of the biggest problems with talking about the Electoral College system is that the people defending seem to literally just not understand how a popular vote would work. Cities and counties and states would no longer vote, people would. Not everyone in California is a Democrat, but there are simply more Democrats or Dem-leaning voters. Under a popular vote, Republicans in California would finally have a real say in selecting the President, as would Democrats in Kansas, and the list goes on.

This is a very disjointed OP but please discuss.

[Region of Dwipantara]

I'll just wait for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to take effect. If the result doesn't spiral into bloodshed, then the voices of "minority voters" (e.g. red Californians and blue Montanans) can finally be heard, and US presidential candidates can finally be forced to cater to the whole population as opposed to just focusing on three or four swing states.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm for ending it. It is outdated and many nations now elect the presidency through popular vote, so we should follow suit.

[Farnhamia]

I'm for ending it. It is outdated and many nations now elect the presidency through popular vote, so we should follow suit.

Okay, as long as we make it retroactive to 2000.

[Rossiyaana]

Electoral College is pointless. The Founders of our Country were very much pro slavery, anti women's rights, elitists. We should't be doing things a certain way just because they did. And the US as primarily a 'Union of States' is dated: Most Americans consider themselves Americans more than anything else. And finally, peoples interests primarily align with national parties more than State agendas.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will probably get shot down in Congress, but its more likely than an amendment abolishing the Electoral College so I guess NPOIC it is.

[Forsher]

It's a daft and antiquated feature of the pre-modern institutional design that Americans are so attached to. Okay, fine. Early modern. But it belongs to another era in necessity, values, practice and company. Yes, I'm saying that the EC is just one part of a wider package known as "American democracy" that has failed to evolve and reflect contemporary knowledge and, yes, political culture. It may, however, be a critical feature and that its removal would substantively modernise the rest of the USA's political institutions despite their equally moribund natures merely through the resultant increase in democracy.

Note that the six states that the US election in 2016 revolved around were hardly "small" and "rural". As the OP says, the reasons for keeping it are spurious... it's usually just a masochistic preference for the antique or, more commonly, naked self-interest being paraded under "acceptable" reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Never forget that before Trump, a super majority of Americans hated the EC.

[The Reformed American Republic]

The Founders of our Country were very much pro slavery, anti women's rights, elitists.

Well they wouldn't have 21st century values you NPO commie. You wouldn't if you were alive in 1776.

[Outer Sparta]

I'll just wait for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to take effect. If the result doesn't spiral into bloodshed, then the voices of "minority voters" (e.g. red Californians and blue Montanans) can finally be heard, and US presidential candidates can finally be forced to cater to the whole population as opposed to just focusing on three or four swing states.

If Texas manages to turn blue in the coming years, I bet the GOP will immediately advocate for the NPVIC.

[Lavan Tiri]

The Founders of our Country were very much pro slavery, anti women's rights, elitists.

Well they wouldn't have 21st century values you NPO commie. You wouldn't if you were alive in 1776.

No but society has changed since then.

I'll just wait for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to take effect. If the result doesn't spiral into bloodshed, then the voices of "minority voters" (e.g. red Californians and blue Montanans) can finally be heard, and US presidential candidates can finally be forced to cater to the whole population as opposed to just focusing on three or four swing states.

If Texas manages to turn blue in the coming years, I bet the GOP will immediately advocate for the NPVIC.

B-b-but then the one Democrat in North Dakota would matter.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Subvert with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

[Rossiyaana]

The Founders of our Country were very much pro slavery, anti women's rights, elitists.

Well they wouldn't have 21st century values you NPO commie. You wouldn't if you were alive in 1776.

*Socialist
And agreed: had I been alive in 1776, my views on slavery and Woman's rights would probably be very different. But I wasn't. We're living over 200 years in the future, theres no need to cling to the traditions of old just cause thats what the founding fathers did.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'll just wait for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to take effect. If the result doesn't spiral into bloodshed, then the voices of "minority voters" (e.g. red Californians and blue Montanans) can finally be heard, and US presidential candidates can finally be forced to cater to the whole population as opposed to just focusing on three or four swing states.

There's a pretty good argument to be made that the NPVIC is unconstitutional tbh

[Forsher]

I'll just wait for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to take effect. If the result doesn't spiral into bloodshed, then the voices of "minority voters" (e.g. red Californians and blue Montanans) can finally be heard, and US presidential candidates can finally be forced to cater to the whole population as opposed to just focusing on three or four swing states.

There's a pretty good argument to be made that the NPVIC is unconstitutional tbh

Then make it.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'll just wait for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to take effect. If the result doesn't spiral into bloodshed, then the voices of "minority voters" (e.g. red Californians and blue Montanans) can finally be heard, and US presidential candidates can finally be forced to cater to the whole population as opposed to just focusing on three or four swing states.

There's a pretty good argument to be made that the NPVIC is unconstitutional tbh

Doesn't it come down to compacts needing the approval of Congress?

[The Reformed American Republic]

Well they wouldn't have 21st century values you NPO commie. You wouldn't if you were alive in 1776.

*Socialist
And agreed: had I been alive in 1776, my views on slavery and Woman's rights would probably be very different. But I wasn't. We're living over 200 years in the future, theres no need to cling to the traditions of old just cause thats what the founding fathers did.

I agree with you on the Electoral College. Probably not much else though. It has served its purpose as a compromise between now long dead political factions.

[Washington Resistance Army]

There's a pretty good argument to be made that the NPVIC is unconstitutional tbh

Doesn't it come down to compacts needing the approval of Congress?

There's a couple different portions it can be said to violate. Article 2 because it fundamentally changes how electors have always functioned historically and in stark contrast to what the framers intended and it plainly violates the Compact Clause and as you said would need Congressional approval. If people want to change the Electoral College they need to do it via amendment, not the compact.

[New Bremerton]

Scrap the EC and the entire presidential system and replace it with a European-style parliamentary system with proportional representation. A party must win at least 5% of the popular vote nationally in order to be represented in the new Congress Parliament of the United States. A German-style, proportional system that encourages coalition/minority governments and consensus-building between a complex grouping of many larger and smaller parties is preferable to a divisive two-party system that encourages extremism and polarization. The President will be reduced to a mere figurehead like the Queen of England. The Prime Minister, who must be a Representative from the Lower House, will serve as the country's actual leader.

As consensus takes precedence over adversarial power struggles, voters on the "winning" side may have slightly less to gain in the short term, but more importantly, voters on the "losing" end of the stick will have far less to lose as the more moderate, centrist partner(s) in any coalition government will likely moderate the more hardline party's policies, resulting in more moderate, sensible governance.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Scrap the EC and the entire presidential system and replace it with a European-style parliamentary system with proportional representation. A party must win at least 5% of the popular vote nationally in order to be represented in the new Congress Parliament of the United States. A German-style, proportional system that encourages coalition/minority governments and consensus-building between a complex grouping of many larger and smaller parties is preferable to a divisive two-party system that encourages extremism and polarization. The President will be reduced to a mere figurehead like the Queen of England. The Prime Minister, who must be a Representative from the Lower House, will serve as the country's actual leader.

As consensus takes precedence over adversarial power struggles, voters on the "winning" side may have slightly less to gain in the short term, but more importantly, voters on the "losing" end of the stick will have far less to lose as the more moderate, centrist partner(s) in any coalition government will likely moderate the more hardline party's policies, resulting in more moderate, sensible governance.

I support this as long as the Bill of Rights are kept.

[Rossiyaana]

Scrap the EC and the entire presidential system and replace it with a European-style parliamentary system with proportional representation. A party must win at least 5% of the popular vote nationally in order to be represented in the new Congress Parliament of the United States. A German-style, proportional system that encourages coalition/minority governments and consensus-building between a complex grouping of many larger and smaller parties is preferable to a divisive two-party system that encourages extremism and polarization. The President will be reduced to a mere figurehead like the Queen of England. The Prime Minister, who must be a Representative from the Lower House, will serve as the country's actual leader.

As consensus takes precedence over adversarial power struggles, voters on the "winning" side may have slightly less to gain in the short term, but more importantly, voters on the "losing" end of the stick will have far less to lose as the more moderate, centrist partner(s) in any coalition government will likely moderate the more hardline party's policies, resulting in more moderate, sensible governance.

Moderate does not necessarily mean good.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Scrap the EC and the entire presidential system and replace it with a European-style parliamentary system with proportional representation. A party must win at least 5% of the popular vote nationally in order to be represented in the new Congress Parliament of the United States. A German-style, proportional system that encourages coalition/minority governments and consensus-building between a complex grouping of many larger and smaller parties is preferable to a divisive two-party system that encourages extremism and polarization. The President will be reduced to a mere figurehead like the Queen of England. The Prime Minister, who must be a Representative from the Lower House, will serve as the country's actual leader.

As consensus takes precedence over adversarial power struggles, voters on the "winning" side may have slightly less to gain in the short term, but more importantly, voters on the "losing" end of the stick will have far less to lose as the more moderate, centrist partner(s) in any coalition government will likely moderate the more hardline party's policies, resulting in more moderate, sensible governance.

Hard disagree on the outcome of that. A proportional system would likely shatter the left and lead to the US leaning a good bit more to the right.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Scrap the EC and the entire presidential system and replace it with a European-style parliamentary system with proportional representation. A party must win at least 5% of the popular vote nationally in order to be represented in the new Congress Parliament of the United States. A German-style, proportional system that encourages coalition/minority governments and consensus-building between a complex grouping of many larger and smaller parties is preferable to a divisive two-party system that encourages extremism and polarization. The President will be reduced to a mere figurehead like the Queen of England. The Prime Minister, who must be a Representative from the Lower House, will serve as the country's actual leader.

As consensus takes precedence over adversarial power struggles, voters on the "winning" side may have slightly less to gain in the short term, but more importantly, voters on the "losing" end of the stick will have far less to lose as the more moderate, centrist partner(s) in any coalition government will likely moderate the more hardline party's policies, resulting in more moderate, sensible governance.

Moderate does not necessarily mean good.

I think it would break the deadlock and help alleviate partisanship which can be confused with political "extremism." I don't think our politics would go to the moderates if this was implemented.

[Rossiyaana]

Scrap the EC and the entire presidential system and replace it with a European-style parliamentary system with proportional representation. A party must win at least 5% of the popular vote nationally in order to be represented in the new Congress Parliament of the United States. A German-style, proportional system that encourages coalition/minority governments and consensus-building between a complex grouping of many larger and smaller parties is preferable to a divisive two-party system that encourages extremism and polarization. The President will be reduced to a mere figurehead like the Queen of England. The Prime Minister, who must be a Representative from the Lower House, will serve as the country's actual leader.

As consensus takes precedence over adversarial power struggles, voters on the "winning" side may have slightly less to gain in the short term, but more importantly, voters on the "losing" end of the stick will have far less to lose as the more moderate, centrist partner(s) in any coalition government will likely moderate the more hardline party's policies, resulting in more moderate, sensible governance.

Also, the two party system kind of works like that already. On the left you have your moderates, blue dogs, DemSocs, communists, and all the other factions within the party. The Factions battle it out in the primaries and people are free to vote how they feel. In order to get a majority of the party vote candidates tend to aim for the middle of what their constituents want. So by the time the General Election rolls around voters will be able to choose between two candidates that are generally "moderate" for their side. Obviously there are and have been exceptions: AOC, all the KKK Congressman from antiquity (and some from the not so distant past), but for the most part the majority of the country will be somewhat happy with their representative.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Doesn't it come down to compacts needing the approval of Congress?

There's a couple different portions it can be said to violate. Article 2 because it fundamentally changes how electors have always functioned historically and in stark contrast to what the framers intended and it plainly violates the Compact Clause and as you said would need Congressional approval. If people want to change the Electoral College they need to do it via amendment, not the compact.

I disagree. Article 2 allows each state to select electors any way they want. That it's been done a certain way "always" isn't even true.

It would require consent of Congress and nothing more.

[Rossiyaana]

Moderate does not necessarily mean good.

I think it would break the deadlock and help alleviate partisanship which can be confused with political "extremism." I don't think our politics would go to the moderates if this was implemented.

I think there are easier and more effective ways to end the deadlock.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I think it would break the deadlock and help alleviate partisanship which can be confused with political "extremism." I don't think our politics would go to the moderates if this was implemented.

I think there are easier and more effective ways to end the deadlock.

I think nothing good will change in American politics until both parties fall or have the duopoly broken.