Should the American Electoral College System be abolished?

[American Legionaries]

By comparison to State and municipal governments, and even Congress, the President has basically zero control over your personal life. As for all those bureaucratic organizations you named, Congress could abolish any of them, dictate a particular mode of administration, or add new ones essentially on a whim. Possibly the only one they couldn't do this with would be the military.

Again the president has a lot of effects and control on an average persons life, that other groups have more control/effect can also be true. The President can order agencies of the executive branch to create new regulations, discard old ones, conduct new investigations, or to stop investigations basically at a whim. There are some constraints and legal action would likely be inevitable but that doesn't change the fact that what the president does has huge implications for every citizen. While congress can abolish or create any new agencies, that would require them to vote on something, which in practical terms takes time and is not guaranteed to happen

FPTP is a massive problem, but I don't see why a state wouldn't consolidate all its power to select a president. It seems counterproductive to split your vote.

They have no reasons to give up FPTP. That doesn't stop making it terrible.

"it is very easy for a president who a majority of voters voted against to win in the electoral college"
The statement "voted against" is a pretty loose term, especially when there are more than two candidates on the ballot. Going by the 2016 election, you could argue a majority of voters were "against" both Trump and Clinton, based on the fact that neither won a majority: Clinton won 48%, Trump won 45.9%, and the remaining 6.1% voted for someone else. I think it is safe to assume anyone who voted for Clinton was against Trump, and anyone who voted for Trump was against Clinton. But the other 6.1% is interesting. Arguably, those voters were voting against both Trump and Clinton, and therefore a majority voted against both major party candidates. By your statement it is a travesty either of them won.

Yes. People shouldn't be winning the presidency if the majority of votes are cast against them. Hence why I would say a instantaneous runoff system would be a good idea.

We've successfully elected a president for over two hundred years, this system seems to work just fine.

This system is terribly flawed, that we continue to use it to elect president mostly just says we are to lazy/divided to make a change even when we know it is flawed.

Divided, for certain. What you see as a flaw, I see as a feature.

[Spirit of Hope]

Again the president has a lot of effects and control on an average persons life, that other groups have more control/effect can also be true. The President can order agencies of the executive branch to create new regulations, discard old ones, conduct new investigations, or to stop investigations basically at a whim. There are some constraints and legal action would likely be inevitable but that doesn't change the fact that what the president does has huge implications for every citizen. While congress can abolish or create any new agencies, that would require them to vote on something, which in practical terms takes time and is not guaranteed to happen



They have no reasons to give up FPTP. That doesn't stop making it terrible.



Yes. People shouldn't be winning the presidency if the majority of votes are cast against them. Hence why I would say a instantaneous runoff system would be a good idea.



This system is terribly flawed, that we continue to use it to elect president mostly just says we are to lazy/divided to make a change even when we know it is flawed.

Divided, for certain. What you see as a flaw, I see as a feature.

What do you see as a feature? The president campaigning in only a limited number of states? The ability to win the Presidency with less than a third of the votes? The way that first past the post and winner takes all combine?

About the only argument for a "feature" in the electoral college is that it currently favors the Republican party. But that is a quirk of current voting patterns and it could just as easily elect a Democrat to office who loses the popular vote in the future.

[San Lumen]

Divided, for certain. What you see as a flaw, I see as a feature.

What do you see as a feature? The president campaigning in only a limited number of states? The ability to win the Presidency with less than a third of the votes? The way that first past the post and winner takes all combine?

About the only argument for a "feature" in the electoral college is that it currently favors the Republican party. But that is a quirk of current voting patterns and it could just as easily elect a Democrat to office who loses the popular vote in the future.

Seems unlikely a Democrat could win the electoral college but lose the popular vote.

[Spirit of Hope]

What do you see as a feature? The president campaigning in only a limited number of states? The ability to win the Presidency with less than a third of the votes? The way that first past the post and winner takes all combine?

About the only argument for a "feature" in the electoral college is that it currently favors the Republican party. But that is a quirk of current voting patterns and it could just as easily elect a Democrat to office who loses the popular vote in the future.

Seems unlikely a Democrat could win the electoral college but lose the popular vote.

As I said, the view that the electoral college is good for Republicans, and thus bad for Democrats, is based on basically the last4 Presidential election cycles. It isn't that hard to imagine a Democrat wins small majorities in swing states, doesn't do that well in safe Democrat states (but still wins them), and gets trashed in traditionally Republican states. Thus winning the electoral college but loosing the popular vote.

[Amary]

Maybe it would be fair divide the states in electoral districts (like what already happens) and who wins in each district get the delegate (or delegates depending of the population) from that district. In the current sistem in a hypothetical situation where a candidate wins in Illinois only one vote ahead from the other candidate, all the 19 (or 20) delegates from Illinois goes to him. In what I'm thinking if one candidate wins in one district he gets the delegates from that district only, not all in the state, I think this already happens to some extent in Maine and Nebraska.

I don't know if it would be logistically viable to divide the US electoral college like that, maybe it would make the situation even more complicated, but it would seem fairer because in the current situation if in a state only the capital district (which would be the most populous) a candidate wins, but on every other districts other candidate wins, all state delegates would go for the first candidate anyway. If it changed, the first candidate would probably still win in that state, but delegates from other districts would go to the candidate who actually won in them.

Terrible idea. The presidency could be mitt
In no state is winning the capital city enough to carry the state. There are only 17 states where the capital is the largest city.

The metro area though there might be a few.

It would also distort popular will even more. For example, mitt Romney would have won in 2012.

[American Legionaries]

Seems unlikely a Democrat could win the electoral college but lose the popular vote.

As I said, the view that the electoral college is good for Republicans, and thus bad for Democrats, is based on basically the last4 Presidential election cycles. It isn't that hard to imagine a Democrat wins small majorities in swing states, doesn't do that well in safe Democrat states (but still wins them), and gets trashed in traditionally Republican states. Thus winning the electoral college but loosing the popular vote.

Sure, it's a possible scenario. Bit an unlikely one. With present voting patterns the EC is far more likely to pull a GOP win from a pop vote loss than a Democrat win.

[Galiantus III]

By comparison to State and municipal governments, and even Congress, the President has basically zero control over your personal life. As for all those bureaucratic organizations you named, Congress could abolish any of them, dictate a particular mode of administration, or add new ones essentially on a whim. Possibly the only one they couldn't do this with would be the military.

Again the president has a lot of effects and control on an average persons life, that other groups have more control/effect can also be true. The President can order agencies of the executive branch to create new regulations, discard old ones, conduct new investigations, or to stop investigations basically at a whim. There are some constraints and legal action would likely be inevitable but that doesn't change the fact that what the president does has huge implications for every citizen. While congress can abolish or create any new agencies, that would require them to vote on something, which in practical terms takes time and is not guaranteed to happen

Again, my position is limit presidential power, and have congress do their actual jobs. If congress is refusing to meet and vote on stuff, they need to be replaced. They shouldn't be giving the president ever more power - especially not in the realm of creating or discarding regulations. That is in the realm of dictatorship. The president should not be going around congress to do whatever he wants; "I've got a pen and a phone" is possibly the most authoritarian, monstrous thing a president has ever said.

FPTP is a massive problem, but I don't see why a state wouldn't consolidate all its power to select a president. It seems counterproductive to split your vote.

They have no reasons to give up FPTP. That doesn't stop making it terrible.

Sorry, I wasn't saying consolidation of state power was a result of FPTP. I was asking why a state would send delegates to give a split vote, which would diminish the vote of said state.

"it is very easy for a president who a majority of voters voted against to win in the electoral college"
The statement "voted against" is a pretty loose term, especially when there are more than two candidates on the ballot. Going by the 2016 election, you could argue a majority of voters were "against" both Trump and Clinton, based on the fact that neither won a majority: Clinton won 48%, Trump won 45.9%, and the remaining 6.1% voted for someone else. I think it is safe to assume anyone who voted for Clinton was against Trump, and anyone who voted for Trump was against Clinton. But the other 6.1% is interesting. Arguably, those voters were voting against both Trump and Clinton, and therefore a majority voted against both major party candidates. By your statement it is a travesty either of them won.

Yes. People shouldn't be winning the presidency if the majority of votes are cast against them. Hence why I would say a instantaneous runoff system would be a good idea.

IRV would be better than what we have now for sure.

[San Lumen]

Terrible idea. The presidency could be mitt
In no state is winning the capital city enough to carry the state. There are only 17 states where the capital is the largest city.

The metro area though there might be a few.

It would also distort popular will even more. For example, mitt Romney would have won in 2012.

Hence why it’s a terrible idea.

[Thermodolia]

Maybe it would be fair divide the states in electoral districts (like what already happens) and who wins in each district get the delegate (or delegates depending of the population) from that district. In the current sistem in a hypothetical situation where a candidate wins in Illinois only one vote ahead from the other candidate, all the 19 (or 20) delegates from Illinois goes to him. In what I'm thinking if one candidate wins in one district he gets the delegates from that district only, not all in the state, I think this already happens to some extent in Maine and Nebraska.

I don't know if it would be logistically viable to divide the US electoral college like that, maybe it would make the situation even more complicated, but it would seem fairer because in the current situation if in a state only the capital district (which would be the most populous) a candidate wins, but on every other districts other candidate wins, all state delegates would go for the first candidate anyway. If it changed, the first candidate would probably still win in that state, but delegates from other districts would go to the candidate who actually won in them.

Terrible idea. The presidency could be gerrymandered.

In no state is winning the capital city enough to carry the state. There are only 17 states where the capital is the largest city.

The metro area though there might be a few.

Arizona. You win Phoenix and the rest of the metro you win the state

[San Lumen]

Terrible idea. The presidency could be gerrymandered.

In no state is winning the capital city enough to carry the state. There are only 17 states where the capital is the largest city.

The metro area though there might be a few.

Arizona. You win Phoenix and the rest of the metro you win the state

Hence why I said metro area. The city itself? No

[Thermodolia]

Arizona. You win Phoenix and the rest of the metro you win the state

Hence why I said metro area. The city itself? No

The city itself is practically the metro anyway. Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the nation and makes up nearly 2/5ths of the metro and 2/7ths of the state population.

[San Lumen]

Hence why I said metro area. The city itself? No

The city itself is practically the metro anyway. Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the nation and makes up nearly 2/5ths of the metro and 2/7ths of the state population.

Hasn’t the city been blue for awhile? It’s the suburbs that haven’t?

[Thermodolia]

The city itself is practically the metro anyway. Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the nation and makes up nearly 2/5ths of the metro and 2/7ths of the state population.

Hasn’t the city been blue for awhile? It’s the suburbs that haven’t?

No. The city really hasn’t that blue it only voted blue in 2016.

Hell the joke was that Birchers went to Phoenix while hippies went to Tucson

[Forsher]

Not really. He said the electoral college made it easier for candidates the majority votes against to win. Which is false, because that is not a consequence of the electoral college so much as it is FPTP.

No.

Just because A has X outcome, that does not mean B cannot also have X outcome.

For example, clapping your hands together makes a sound. That does not mean that no other sounds exist.

If the US had a single FPP electorate... the single national popular vote... then you wouldn't need a majority to win. You would, however, need what Americans call a plurality. Most votes win. That would be better.

Now, suppose that every US state assigned electoral votes using an IRV system. In each individual state, the final tally would have someone with at least 50% of the votes. But these states could all still give all their votes to that winner. Thus, even though FPP is gone, the US could still end up with someone who lost the popular vote but won the EC.

The EC exacerbates FPP's problems. Indeed, it creates the standard issues of safe seats and wasted vote and depressed turnout and so on, for a single winner election problem. It's quite the achievement, really. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a worse system.

[Spirit of Hope]

Again the president has a lot of effects and control on an average persons life, that other groups have more control/effect can also be true. The President can order agencies of the executive branch to create new regulations, discard old ones, conduct new investigations, or to stop investigations basically at a whim. There are some constraints and legal action would likely be inevitable but that doesn't change the fact that what the president does has huge implications for every citizen. While congress can abolish or create any new agencies, that would require them to vote on something, which in practical terms takes time and is not guaranteed to happen

Again, my position is limit presidential power, and have congress do their actual jobs. If congress is refusing to meet and vote on stuff, they need to be replaced. They shouldn't be giving the president ever more power - especially not in the realm of creating or discarding regulations. That is in the realm of dictatorship. The president should not be going around congress to do whatever he wants; "I've got a pen and a phone" is possibly the most authoritarian, monstrous thing a president has ever said.

Congress can do their job and the President will still have a lot of power, the two are not mutually exclusive. To be powerful the President needs congress to work, so that they can appoint various different jobs that require Congressional approval.

They have no reasons to give up FPTP. That doesn't stop making it terrible.

Sorry, I wasn't saying consolidation of state power was a result of FPTP. I was asking why a state would send delegates to give a split vote, which would diminish the vote of said state.

A couple of states already do, but again there is little reason for states to give up FPTP because it diminishes the power of the state, and reduces the likelihood of the outcome the legislature most prefers. That doesn't stop it from combining to create bad outcomes nationwide. It would likely require Congressional intervention or a constitutional amendment to get things changed.

As I said, the view that the electoral college is good for Republicans, and thus bad for Democrats, is based on basically the last4 Presidential election cycles. It isn't that hard to imagine a Democrat wins small majorities in swing states, doesn't do that well in safe Democrat states (but still wins them), and gets trashed in traditionally Republican states. Thus winning the electoral college but loosing the popular vote.

Sure, it's a possible scenario. Bit an unlikely one. With present voting patterns the EC is far more likely to pull a GOP win from a pop vote loss than a Democrat win.

And if your reasons for supporting the electoral college is it currently gives you a narrow partisan advantage, that is a stupid reason for supporting it. Again it could easily change in the future and is terrible for our democracy in general.

[American Legionaries]

Again, my position is limit presidential power, and have congress do their actual jobs. If congress is refusing to meet and vote on stuff, they need to be replaced. They shouldn't be giving the president ever more power - especially not in the realm of creating or discarding regulations. That is in the realm of dictatorship. The president should not be going around congress to do whatever he wants; "I've got a pen and a phone" is possibly the most authoritarian, monstrous thing a president has ever said.

Congress can do their job and the President will still have a lot of power, the two are not mutually exclusive. To be powerful the President needs congress to work, so that they can appoint various different jobs that require Congressional approval.

Sorry, I wasn't saying consolidation of state power was a result of FPTP. I was asking why a state would send delegates to give a split vote, which would diminish the vote of said state.

A couple of states already do, but again there is little reason for states to give up FPTP because it diminishes the power of the state, and reduces the likelihood of the outcome the legislature most prefers. That doesn't stop it from combining to create bad outcomes nationwide. It would likely require Congressional intervention or a constitutional amendment to get things changed.

Sure, it's a possible scenario. Bit an unlikely one. With present voting patterns the EC is far more likely to pull a GOP win from a pop vote loss than a Democrat win.

And if your reasons for supporting the electoral college is it currently gives you a narrow partisan advantage, that is a stupid reason for supporting it. Again it could easily change in the future and is terrible for our democracy in general.

The sandwich I ate for lunch would almost certainly be spoiled and disgusting far into the future, that doesn't mean it wasn't tasty today.

[Spirit of Hope]

Congress can do their job and the President will still have a lot of power, the two are not mutually exclusive. To be powerful the President needs congress to work, so that they can appoint various different jobs that require Congressional approval.



A couple of states already do, but again there is little reason for states to give up FPTP because it diminishes the power of the state, and reduces the likelihood of the outcome the legislature most prefers. That doesn't stop it from combining to create bad outcomes nationwide. It would likely require Congressional intervention or a constitutional amendment to get things changed.



And if your reasons for supporting the electoral college is it currently gives you a narrow partisan advantage, that is a stupid reason for supporting it. Again it could easily change in the future and is terrible for our democracy in general.

The sandwich I ate for lunch would almost certainly be spoiled and disgusting far into the future, that doesn't mean it wasn't tasty today.

You don't make sandwiches for decades in the future, you do build electoral systems for that. But of course I already know you don't care about creating the best democratic results but in achieving partisan victories.

[American Legionaries]

The sandwich I ate for lunch would almost certainly be spoiled and disgusting far into the future, that doesn't mean it wasn't tasty today.

You don't make sandwiches for decades in the future, you do build electoral systems for that. But of course I already know you don't care about creating the best democratic results but in achieving partisan victories.

These are the same thing.

[Ifreann]

The electoral college, obviously.

Do you mean the electors of the electoral college? Because they pledge before the election to vote a certain way, they are chosen by the people, and there are laws against faithless electors.

So you see, you do understand. The electors elect the president, they serve no purpose but allowing the clearly expressed wishes of the people to be rejected. Just directly elect the president.

[Patriotguard]

Absolutely not. Democrats want to do this for the same reason they do everything else -- to seize and maintain power.

It's why the Democrat National Committee used a former MI6 agent to compile a false dossier from two Russian intelligence agents to falsely frame Donald Trump and impeach him.

It's why they made up a quid pro quo in Ukraine and impeached him over that falsely, when Joe Biden has admitted to doing precisely that.

It's why they talk about eliminating the filibuster in the Senate, packing the Supreme Court, and circumventing decisions and elections they disagree with.

It's why they say with a straight face that a 71-year old obese man leapt from the backseat of his limousene, tried to choke a Secret Service agent, grabbed the steering wheel, and I guess pushed the accelerator with his tongue to try to go back to the Capitol on Jan 6.

They want their extreme-left big cities to be the sole voting centers, whereas our Founders -- in their brilliance -- saw fit to give us all representation. Besides, anyone who wants the country run like NY, LA, or Chicago, clearly isn't paying attention to how poorly those liberal strangleholds are run. And the left has run them for at least 70 years.

My respectful suggestion to the left would be simply "be better." You don't get to change the rules because you don't like the outcome. (But that's what they ALWAYS do.)

[Ifreann]

Absolutely not. Democrats want to do this for the same reason they do everything else -- to seize and maintain power.

So you admit that the Republicans could not win the presidency if the contest was a simple popular vote.

[San Lumen]

Absolutely not. Democrats want to do this for the same reason they do everything else -- to seize and maintain power.

It's why the Democrat National Committee used a former MI6 agent to compile a false dossier from two Russian intelligence agents to falsely frame Donald Trump and impeach him.

It's why they made up a quid pro quo in Ukraine and impeached him over that falsely, when Joe Biden has admitted to doing precisely that.

It's why they talk about eliminating the filibuster in the Senate, packing the Supreme Court, and circumventing decisions and elections they disagree with.

It's why they say with a straight face that a 71-year old obese man leapt from the backseat of his limousene, tried to choke a Secret Service agent, grabbed the steering wheel, and I guess pushed the accelerator with his tongue to try to go back to the Capitol on Jan 6.

They want their extreme-left big cities to be the sole voting centers, whereas our Founders -- in their brilliance -- saw fit to give us all representation. Besides, anyone who wants the country run like NY, LA, or Chicago, clearly isn't paying attention to how poorly those liberal strangleholds are run. And the left has run them for at least 70 years.

My respectful suggestion to the left would be simply "be better." You don't get to change the rules because you don't like the outcome. (But that's what they ALWAYS do.)

Amazing everything you just said in that statement was wrong.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Absolutely not. Democrats want to do this for the same reason they do everything else -- to seize and maintain power.

[irrelevant]

They want their extreme-left big cities to be the sole voting centers, whereas our Founders -- in their brilliance -- saw fit to give us all representation. Besides, anyone who wants the country run like NY, LA, or Chicago, clearly isn't paying attention to how poorly those liberal strangleholds are run. And the left has run them for at least 70 years.

My respectful suggestion to the left would be simply "be better." You don't get to change the rules because you don't like the outcome. (But that's what they ALWAYS do.)

we’re not changing it because we don’t want to loose, we’re changing it because it’s unfair. it gives more representation to small states. you’re the one trying to maintain your power. and even with the popular vote, “extreme-left” big cities wouldn’t be controlling the government. the top 50 cities probably have less than 10% of the US population. I don’t know if you can tell, but you’re currently justifying tyranny by minority. if the Republicans want to win the popular vote, they should try having policies people actually like.

[Galiantus III]

Not really. He said the electoral college made it easier for candidates the majority votes against to win. Which is false, because that is not a consequence of the electoral college so much as it is FPTP.

No.

Just because A has X outcome, that does not mean B cannot also have X outcome.

For example, clapping your hands together makes a sound. That does not mean that no other sounds exist.

If the US had a single FPP electorate... the single national popular vote... then you wouldn't need a majority to win. You would, however, need what Americans call a plurality. Most votes win. That would be better.

Now, suppose that every US state assigned electoral votes using an IRV system. In each individual state, the final tally would have someone with at least 50% of the votes. But these states could all still give all their votes to that winner. Thus, even though FPP is gone, the US could still end up with someone who lost the popular vote but won the EC.

The EC exacerbates FPP's problems. Indeed, it creates the standard issues of safe seats and wasted vote and depressed turnout and so on, for a single winner election problem. It's quite the achievement, really. You'd be hard pressed to come up with a worse system.

Concerning the election of a representative or local official, I agree. But I really don't think just going by the raw numbers makes sense anymore when you go beyond the state level. Distribution is also important, especially if we're talking about a position that will be dealing with state governments. Again, the President is not your representative, but the commander-in-chief.

Even if we accept the suggestion that the president ought to be concerned with everyone's personal lives (he shouldn't), I still prefer the electoral college. The long and short of it is, I would rather have a president with decent support throughout many states than one with more total support concentrated in a few states. The President shouldn't be geographically biased. And I know what you're thinking "oh, but by playing at the state level, geography must be very important. If you want a geographically unbiased president, choose him using a geographically unbiased method". However, it is actually the reverse of that:

Under national popular vote, if a president campaigns on an issue that appeals to one geographic area of the country, he can potentially win on fumes elsewhere. What I mean is, if he's getting 80% of the vote on the East Coast, and 10% all the way out in California, he would still be a very viable candidate. But could you really call such a candidate president "of the United States"? I don't think so. The most viable candidates should appeal to issues with far more generality. And the electoral college enforces this by discouraging candidates from trying to rack up votes in geographic areas where they are already popular. For a president to win under the electoral college, they need to have pockets of supporters throughout basically the whole United States.

I'll say it again: The president is not your representative. He's an administrator. His purpose is implementation. Now of course, politics is politics, and people have agendas, but the point of having a president is implementation, not agenda-setting. That is the job of congress. Or another way to put it: the President is like the CEO of a company, and Congress is like the board of directors. The CEO runs the company from day to day, but the board of directors has him on a leash and can pull him around wherever they like. So in reality, who the president is should matter a whole lot less to us than who controls congress. And as a country we've made a huge mistake directing so much power and attention to the office of the president.

[Rusozak]

Absolutely not. Democrats want to do this for the same reason they do everything else -- to seize and maintain power.

It's why the Democrat National Committee used a former MI6 agent to compile a false dossier from two Russian intelligence agents to falsely frame Donald Trump and impeach him.

It's why they made up a quid pro quo in Ukraine and impeached him over that falsely, when Joe Biden has admitted to doing precisely that.

It's why they talk about eliminating the filibuster in the Senate, packing the Supreme Court, and circumventing decisions and elections they disagree with.

It's why they say with a straight face that a 71-year old obese man leapt from the backseat of his limousene, tried to choke a Secret Service agent, grabbed the steering wheel, and I guess pushed the accelerator with his tongue to try to go back to the Capitol on Jan 6.

They want their extreme-left big cities to be the sole voting centers, whereas our Founders -- in their brilliance -- saw fit to give us all representation. Besides, anyone who wants the country run like NY, LA, or Chicago, clearly isn't paying attention to how poorly those liberal strangleholds are run. And the left has run them for at least 70 years.

My respectful suggestion to the left would be simply "be better." You don't get to change the rules because you don't like the outcome. (But that's what they ALWAYS do.)

It still baffles my mind that people think the party that's only won the popular vote in a presidential election once in 30 years couldn't have lost without cheating.