Should there be a State Electoral College?

[San Lumen]

This is an idea I have seen proposed both here and elsewhere and was even suggested by a friend of mine. In every statewide election if one gets the most votes they are elected but some have proposed that should be changed.

It is often suggested its not fair for the most populous counties to decide statewide officials like Governor, Attorney General(not all states elect these) or Senator and instead there should be a system in place to win statewide office you have to win the popular vote and a majority of counties and that this somehow fairer and everyone has a voice.

There are fundamental problems with this. Your not giving everyone a voice. Your making rural votes count more than urban votes and in effect rigging the election so only one side can win.

To show just how unfair this system would be lets use the best possible example Nevada. The state has 16 counties and one independent city Carson City which is the capital. 90 percent of the population of the state is in just two counties Clark and Washoe. To win a statewide election carry them both and you win. The other 14 counties are very red and unlikely to not vote for a Republican by wide margins. Carson City is lean republican.

How would it be fair for 10 percent of the population to decide every statewide office at the expense of everyone else? You've created a de facto dictatorship.

There is one US state that has a system like this, Mississippi. In order to be elected Governor one must get a majority of the vote and the most State House districts. If a majority of legislative districts is not received the election is thrown to the state house of representatives who could overturn the the popular vote. This is being challenged in court as a violation of one man one vote.

An election should be decided by how many votes one receives and nothing else. In theory we could apply this to congressional districts as well which would be even more unfair. Plus I would assume this idea could be applied to other countries as well and not just the US.

What are your thoughts NSG?

[Holy Tedalonia]

So this is "I want the elections different" 2.0

[San Lumen]

So this is "I want the elections different" 2.0

I dont understand. You would support this idea?

[Saturna1ia]

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say people are calling for this. Maybe a handful of individuals, but there is no widespread movement or serious group with influence pushing the idea. In fact, it's the opposite. People are content with state popular vote and there's a movement to expand that to the presidency.

[San Lumen]

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say people are calling for this. Maybe a handful of individuals, but there is no widespread movement or serious group with influence pushing the idea. In fact, it's the opposite. People are content with state popular vote and there's a movement to expand that to the presidency.

Some people on here have called for it and in Wisconsin after Scott Walker lost some in the state legislature called for it.

There is in fact one US state that has an electoral college, Mississippi. To be elected governor one must get 50 percent of the vote and a majority of state house districts. Its currently being challenged in court a a violation of one man one vote.

I support changing to direct popular vote for the president as well.

[Balticonia]

This is an idea I have seen proposed both here and elsewhere and was even suggested by a friend of mine. In every statewide election if one gets the most votes they are elected but some have proposed that should be changed.

It is often suggested its not fair for the most populous counties to decide statewide officials like Governor, Attorney General(not all states elect these) or Senator and instead there should be a system in place to win statewide office you have to win a majority of counties and that this somehow fairer and everyone has a voice.

There are fundamental problems with this. Your not giving everyone a voice. Your making rural votes count more than urban votes and in effect rigging the election so only one side can win.

To show just how unfair this system would be lets use the best possible example Nevada. The state has 16 counties and one independent city Carson City which is the capital. 90 percent of the population of the state is in just two counties Clark and Washoe. To win a statewide election carry them both and you win. The other 14 counties are very red and unlikely to not vote for a Republican by wide margins. Carson City is lean republican.

How would it be fair for 10 percent of the population to decide every statewide office at the expense of everyone else? You've created a de facto dictatorship.

An election should be decided by how many votes one receives and nothing else. In theory we could apply this to congressional districts as well which would be even more unfair. Plus I would assume this idea could be applied to other countries as well and not just the US.

What are your thoughts NSG?

I'm not sure you understand electoral colleges

[San Lumen]

This is an idea I have seen proposed both here and elsewhere and was even suggested by a friend of mine. In every statewide election if one gets the most votes they are elected but some have proposed that should be changed.

It is often suggested its not fair for the most populous counties to decide statewide officials like Governor, Attorney General(not all states elect these) or Senator and instead there should be a system in place to win statewide office you have to win a majority of counties and that this somehow fairer and everyone has a voice.

There are fundamental problems with this. Your not giving everyone a voice. Your making rural votes count more than urban votes and in effect rigging the election so only one side can win.

To show just how unfair this system would be lets use the best possible example Nevada. The state has 16 counties and one independent city Carson City which is the capital. 90 percent of the population of the state is in just two counties Clark and Washoe. To win a statewide election carry them both and you win. The other 14 counties are very red and unlikely to not vote for a Republican by wide margins. Carson City is lean republican.

How would it be fair for 10 percent of the population to decide every statewide office at the expense of everyone else? You've created a de facto dictatorship.

An election should be decided by how many votes one receives and nothing else. In theory we could apply this to congressional districts as well which would be even more unfair. Plus I would assume this idea could be applied to other countries as well and not just the US.

What are your thoughts NSG?

I'm not sure you understand electoral colleges

I understand fully how it works. What am I missing?

[Luziyca]

Doesn't seem to be a good idea, honestly. Popular vote would be much better for everyone, especially since it is far more efficient than any electoral college, what with it not being 1800 anymore.

[Satuga]

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say people are calling for this. Maybe a handful of individuals, but there is no widespread movement or serious group with influence pushing the idea. In fact, it's the opposite. People are content with state popular vote and there's a movement to expand that to the presidency.

Personally, I think a state electoral college doesn't work too well because at the state level there isn't going to be much difference in ideology or business/industry so a electoral college would just over complicate things. However when it goes to country wide it becomes much more important as many states become varied and different in ideology and industry. A mining state isn't going to have the same interests as a tourist state and so on and so forth. People who want to get rid of the presidential electoral college just want complete control over other states. Especially since a lot of people will simply vote for their party because it's their party rather than look at qualifications. Imagine California's population and thik of how many people in that state religiously vote their party, it would be way too controlling.

[San Lumen]

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say people are calling for this. Maybe a handful of individuals, but there is no widespread movement or serious group with influence pushing the idea. In fact, it's the opposite. People are content with state popular vote and there's a movement to expand that to the presidency.

Personally, I think a state electoral college doesn't work too well because at the state level there isn't going to be much difference in ideology or business/industry so a electoral college would just over complicate things. However when it goes to country wide it becomes much more important as many states become varied and different in ideology and industry. A mining state isn't going to have the same interests as a tourist state and so on and so forth. People who want to get rid of the presidential electoral college just want complete control over other states. Especially since a lot of people will simply vote for their party because it's their party rather than look at qualifications. Imagine California's population and thik of how many people in that state religiously vote their party, it would be way too controlling.

How would it overcomplicate things? If your going to use the argument of control how is it fair for NYC to decide statewide elections in New York or Cook County in Illinois or Clark and Washoe county in Nevada?

The federal electoral college was not created to prevent California from controlling the election or to make rural votes count more than urban votes. California was not a state in 1789 nor where their large urban populations like today. It was not on the Founding Fathers minds. It is quite irritating how many times people bring up this myth.

[Balticonia]

I'm not sure who you're referring to when you say people are calling for this. Maybe a handful of individuals, but there is no widespread movement or serious group with influence pushing the idea. In fact, it's the opposite. People are content with state popular vote and there's a movement to expand that to the presidency.

Some people on here have called for it and in Wisconsin after Scott Walker lost some in the state legislature called for it.

There is in fact one US state that has an electoral college, Mississippi. To be elected governor one must get 50 percent of the vote and a majority of state house districts. Its currently being challenged in court a a violation of one man one vote.

I support changing to direct popular vote for the president as well.

Ok, going back to your Nevada analogy, let's say you must win the most of Nevada's congressional districts. Out of 4 total districts, Las Vegas has its own district, the first district, and Clark County contains 80% of the 4rth District. By winning just Clark County you therefore have won half of the districts. Washoe County contains 70% of the 2nd district, so just by winning Washoe you are almost guaranteed a third county. So, in summary, by winning just the two counties you cited earlier, you have won at least three of the four districts and made it virtually impossible for another candidate to win. I didn't even mention the 3rd district, encompassing Las Vegas suburbs and currently held by democrats

[Holy Tedalonia]

So this is "I want the elections different" 2.0

I dont understand. You would support this idea?

You've advocated change with the electoral college before. It's getting repetitive

[Balticonia]

Personally, I think a state electoral college doesn't work too well because at the state level there isn't going to be much difference in ideology or business/industry so a electoral college would just over complicate things. However when it goes to country wide it becomes much more important as many states become varied and different in ideology and industry. A mining state isn't going to have the same interests as a tourist state and so on and so forth. People who want to get rid of the presidential electoral college just want complete control over other states. Especially since a lot of people will simply vote for their party because it's their party rather than look at qualifications. Imagine California's population and thik of how many people in that state religiously vote their party, it would be way too controlling.

How would it overcomplicate things? If your going to use the argument of control how is it fair for NYC to decide statewide elections in New York or Cook County in Illinois or Clark and Washoe county in Nevada?

The federal electoral college was not created to prevent California from controlling the election or to make rural votes count more than urban votes. California was not a state in 1789 nor where their large urban populations like today. It was not on the Founding Fathers minds. It is quite irritating how many times people bring up this myth.

No one said that's why they made it. But just because that was not the original purpose does not mean its not a valid reason to keep it.

[San Lumen]

How would it overcomplicate things? If your going to use the argument of control how is it fair for NYC to decide statewide elections in New York or Cook County in Illinois or Clark and Washoe county in Nevada?

The federal electoral college was not created to prevent California from controlling the election or to make rural votes count more than urban votes. California was not a state in 1789 nor where their large urban populations like today. It was not on the Founding Fathers minds. It is quite irritating how many times people bring up this myth.

No one said that's why they made it. But just because that was not the original purpose does not mean its not a valid reason to keep it.

It isnt a valid reason. its outdated and unfair. If your going use that argument why not bring it to the state level? It sound like you think it would be fairer.

[Balticonia]

How would it overcomplicate things? If your going to use the argument of control how is it fair for NYC to decide statewide elections in New York or Cook County in Illinois or Clark and Washoe county in Nevada?

The federal electoral college was not created to prevent California from controlling the election or to make rural votes count more than urban votes. California was not a state in 1789 nor where their large urban populations like today. It was not on the Founding Fathers minds. It is quite irritating how many times people bring up this myth.

No one said that's why they made it. But just because that was not the original purpose does not mean its not a valid reason to keep it.

Imagine if we decided whether or not we need a president based only on the reasons the founding fathers created the position? That would be incompetent and ridiculous!

[Balticonia]

No one said that's why they made it. But just because that was not the original purpose does not mean its not a valid reason to keep it.

It isnt a valid reason. its outdated and unfair. If your going use that argument why not bring it to the state level? It sound like you think it would be fairer.

I definitely do not think each county should have one vote. If they were to do it, they should give each district one vote or use a weighted system like the US. And I am not set on either of these. I simply think that outright dismissing the possibility is short-sighted and I don't like it when people use misleading information

[San Lumen]

It isnt a valid reason. its outdated and unfair. If your going use that argument why not bring it to the state level? It sound like you think it would be fairer.

I definitely do not think each county should have one vote. If they were to do it, they should give each district one vote or use a weighted system like the US. And I am not set on either of these. I simply think that outright dismissing the possibility is short-sighted and I don't like it when people use misleading information

Why not just have popular vote? The suggestion was not giving each county one vote it was requiring statewide candidates to win the most counties to be elected

[Balticonia]

No one said that's why they made it. But just because that was not the original purpose does not mean its not a valid reason to keep it.

It isnt a valid reason. its outdated and unfair. If your going use that argument why not bring it to the state level? It sound like you think it would be fairer.

So we should only decide whether or not to keep something based on what it was originally intended for. Talk about inflexibility!

[Balticonia]

I definitely do not think each county should have one vote. If they were to do it, they should give each district one vote or use a weighted system like the US. And I am not set on either of these. I simply think that outright dismissing the possibility is short-sighted and I don't like it when people use misleading information

Why not just have popular vote? The suggestion was not giving each county one vote it was requiring statewide candidates to win the most counties to be elected

Isn't that the same thing.....If you give each county one vote, then whoever wins the most counties wins....

[Balticonia]

I definitely do not think each county should have one vote. If they were to do it, they should give each district one vote or use a weighted system like the US. And I am not set on either of these. I simply think that outright dismissing the possibility is short-sighted and I don't like it when people use misleading information

Why not just have popular vote? The suggestion was not giving each county one vote it was requiring statewide candidates to win the most counties to be elected

I also never said I didn't support the popular vote. But you are using a strawman fallacy to "prove" your arguments and that is invalid logic

[Diopolis]

Bah. Only rural landowners should vote.

[San Lumen]

Why not just have popular vote? The suggestion was not giving each county one vote it was requiring statewide candidates to win the most counties to be elected

Isn't that the same thing.....If you give each county one vote, then whoever wins the most counties wins....

Under the proposed system you would still have a popular vote but if dont get the most counties you dont get elected.

[Balticonia]

I definitely do not think each county should have one vote. If they were to do it, they should give each district one vote or use a weighted system like the US. And I am not set on either of these. I simply think that outright dismissing the possibility is short-sighted and I don't like it when people use misleading information

Why not just have popular vote? The suggestion was not giving each county one vote it was requiring statewide candidates to win the most counties to be elected

And I agree, that suggestion is ridiculous and should not be put into effect. But using this absurd suggestion as proof we shouldn't consider any new electoral college on the state level is using the fallacy of the strawman

(A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".)

[Balticonia]

Isn't that the same thing.....If you give each county one vote, then whoever wins the most counties wins....

Under the proposed system you would still have a popular vote but if dont get the most counties you dont get elected.

Now that is funny. That's crisis waiting to happen! What happens when one candidate wins the popular vote, but another wins the most counties?

[Satuga]

How would it overcomplicate things? If your going to use the argument of control how is it fair for NYC to decide statewide elections in New York or Cook County in Illinois or Clark and Washoe county in Nevada?

The federal electoral college was not created to prevent California from controlling the election or to make rural votes count more than urban votes. California was not a state in 1789 nor where their large urban populations like today. It was not on the Founding Fathers minds. It is quite irritating how many times people bring up this myth.

I can see how you're trying to scew this, 8.623 m is the pop of NYC and 19.54 m is the total pop of NY so sure NYC is big but not controlling the entire state. Not to mention you're putting state level on the same level as country.

Also it doesn't really matter if the founding fathers knew or didn't know about the larger populations, the electoral college was created to make sure the north did not have complete control over the southern states. Which instead now apply to Republican and Democratic, two sides vs two sides.
327.2 m is the pop of USA, 40 mil in California, about 20 mil in NY, 13 mil in Illinois, all heavily left leaning so about 83 million in 3 states, out of 50... the biggest state that normally leans right but isn't confirmed is probably Texas which has a pop of about 30 million. The rest are all much smaller states that lean right. One to One voting isn't a good idea when a majority of people vote without thinking.