The End of the Electoral College

[Mr. Perfect]

Because the balance between the interests of the residents of the more populous states and the less populous states has tilted a great deal over time toward the interests of the residents of the less populous states, causing one side to dominate, when the point of the original arrangement was for there to be balance.

This is based on what data, or observances? What is Wyoming shoving down California's throat through the WH?

I don't disagree with the founder's intent. You do. I doubt they would consider the present system, where, in a Presidential election, the vote of someone from Wyoming counts as much as the votes as four people from California, democratic.

But they designed it to be that way, why would they oppose something they designed? The electoral college was designed to be dynamic, with electoral votes growing or shrinking with the population.

They designed it for change Azrael, I cannot see how they would oppose something they designed.

Back then, having a state with only one one thousandth of the population have the same number of senators as a state with one tenth would be considered absurd.

How do you know this? How is this relevant? What state has one thousandth the population of the country? The founders knew that very small states and very large states would receive the same representation and made the Senate the way it is on purpose.

The purpose of the electoral college was to mitigate the possibility of the tyranny of large populations against small populations. A popular vote, regardless of the distribution of the population would reintroduce the possibility of such abuses today. Therefore the electoral college will remain, as it should. The people in the states who benefit from it will not give up their protection.

Your proposals would quite obviously overturn any impedance for a majority abusing a minority via the ballot box, therefore they are quite clearly against the founding principles embodied in the Constitution and I think will easily continue to enjoy the support of most of our citizens who retain their rights and protections because of them.

[Azrael]

Because the balance between the interests of the residents of the more populous states and the less populous states has tilted a great deal over time toward the interests of the residents of the less populous states, causing one side to dominate, when the point of the original arrangement was for there to be balance.

This is based on what data, or observances? What is Wyoming shoving down California's throat through the WH?

You were just going on about the "tyranny" of cities over the rural areas, with absolutely no evidence (in fact, the evidence goes the other way).

Rural states like Wyoming get massive agricultural subsidies.

I don't disagree with the founder's intent. You do. I doubt they would consider the present system, where, in a Presidential election, the vote of someone from Wyoming counts as much as the votes as four people from California, democratic.

But they designed it to be that way, why would they oppose something they designed? The electoral college was designed to be dynamic, with electoral votes growing or shrinking with the population.

They designed it for change Azrael, I cannot see how they would oppose something they designed.

They designed the Constitution to be changed. Perhaps you've noticed that the Constitution has been amended more than two dozen times.

Back then, having a state with only one one thousandth of the population have the same number of senators as a state with one tenth would be considered absurd.

How do you know this?

Its pretty absurd for you to assume that their "crystal ball" was perfect. Things changed a lot over the years. Thankfully, it is possible to amend the Constitution.

How is this relevant?

One person one vote isn't relevant?

What state has one thousandth the population of the country?

Wyoming. You should stop making a fool of yourself.

The founders knew that very small states and very large states would receive the same representation and made the Senate the way it is on purpose.

The difference in population size between Virginia and Delaware is much less than the difference between California and Wyoming.

The purpose of the electoral college was to mitigate the possibility of the tyranny of large populations against small populations.

What about the tyranny of small populations against large populations? You only call it tyranny if your side loses.

A popular vote, regardless of the distribution of the population would reintroduce the possibility of such abuses today.

A lot of people were abused by Bush, who got fewer votes than Gore. But Iran says thanks for putting a more friendly regime in Iraq.

Therefore the electoral college will remain, as it should. The people in the states who benefit from it will not give up their protection.

They need protection because a majority of Americans generally vote for nazis and communists.

Your proposals would quite obviously overturn any impedance for a majority abusing a minority via the ballot box,

aka "voting"

therefore they are quite clearly against the founding principles embodied in the Constitution

Yeah, they were definitely against voting back then.

and I think will easily continue to enjoy the support of most of our citizens who retain their rights and protections because of them.

Yeah, the folks from Wyoming protected us from the PATRIOT ACT, the Iraq War, etc. Thanks for protecting us.

[crashtech]

I guess some people have forgotten what "republic" means. It doesn't mean direct democracy, thank goodness.

[Azrael]

I guess some people have forgotten what "republic" means.

I haven't "forgotten" what republic means. A country doesn't have to have an electoral college to be a republic, but it's very cute and parochial for you to think so.

It doesn't mean direct democracy, thank goodness.

No kidding. I wasn't calling for direct democracy. I was calling for one person, one vote. What other country has a goofy electoral college like ours?

[Mr. Perfect]

You were just going on about the "tyranny" of cities over the rural areas, with absolutely no evidence (in fact, the evidence goes the other way).

In other words you cannot back up your original claim.

Rural states like Wyoming get massive agricultural subsidies.

Comparative data please. Agricultural subsidies are due to the electoral college?

They designed the Constitution to be changed. Perhaps you've noticed that the Constitution has been amended more than two dozen times.

Well sure. Does that mean any Constitutional change is a good change?

Its pretty absurd for you to assume that their "crystal ball" was perfect. Things changed a lot over the years. Thankfully, it is possible to amend the Constitution.

Thankfully it is in the best interests of the states who benefit fro the ec to keep it, making your efforts sure to fail.

One person one vote isn't relevant?

My highest priority is preserving my natural rights, and seek to do so by setting severe limits and checks and balances on our government. Have the House, Senate and EC set up to do just that appeals to me very well.

It is our heritage. There are lots of countries set up more to your liking. I do not find them better than us, and you are free to go there if you like non-electoral college countries.

Wyoming. You should stop making a fool of yourself.

Azrael, Wyoming has more than half a million people living in it, which is more than 1/1000th of our population.

Wy has 3 electoral votes, CA has 55. Where is the fire exactly?

The founders knew that very small states and very large states would receive the same representation and made the Senate the way it is on purpose.

The difference in population size between Virginia and Delaware is much less than the difference between California and Wyoming.

What about the tyranny of small populations against large populations? You only call it tyranny if your side loses.

We have the house of representatives for that. CA and NY dominate that body. The House is the arm of the population centers, the Senate for the small states, and the EC for the medium sizes. It works very well.

A lot of people were abused by Bush, who got fewer votes than Gore. But Iran says thanks for putting a more friendly regime in Iraq.

All the more reason to keep our restrictions on government, rather than loosen them. They get away with plenty as is.

They need protection because a majority of Americans generally vote for nazis and communists.

If you say so.

aka "voting"

I don't know Az, what state you live in, but here I am voting all the time. I wonder where you live.

Yeah, they were definitely against voting back then.

Yes, I did a quick search, apparently in Democrats states no one has ever been allowed to vote! I did not know this, we vote all the time out here.

Yeah, the folks from Wyoming protected us from the PATRIOT ACT, the Iraq War, etc. Thanks for protecting us.

Certainly could be worse. Not even the Democrats protected you from that (Democrats largely supported what you cited, and continued both even thought they had the power to stop it since the election of 2006). Maybe you are blaming the wrong things Azrael.

[crashtech]

I guess some people have forgotten what "republic" means.

I haven't "forgotten" what republic means. A country doesn't have to have an electoral college to be a republic, but it's very cute and parochial for you to think so.

It doesn't mean direct democracy, thank goodness.

No kidding. I wasn't calling for direct democracy. I was calling for one person, one vote. What other country has a goofy electoral college like ours?

Ever reverting to insults. Your game is stale. Try something new, like persuasion.

Who says we need to be like other countries?

If you can delineate an alternate system that balances the wish for a popular vote against the tried and established character of our federal system, go for it. A straight popular vote goes against the Founder's intent for the Union, and when and if the time comes for the people to vote on such a change, I believe the Founders original vision will again prevail.

[Mr. Perfect]

I guess some people have forgotten what "republic" means.

I haven't "forgotten" what republic means. A country doesn't have to have an electoral college to be a republic, but it's very cute and parochial for you to think so.

It doesn't mean direct democracy, thank goodness.

No kidding. I wasn't calling for direct democracy. I was calling for one person, one vote. What other country has a goofy electoral college like ours?

Could be why they are so inferior.

[Enki]

But that's not how it actually works. Elections are decided by Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, three of the top ten most populous states.

No, Potus elections are decided by swing states, sometimes they are larger, but not always.

California and NY are largely neutralized from disproportionate influence on the EC outcome. The small states are protected because CA and NY do not have disproportionate influence.

The Senate gives disproportionate power to small states, the House gives huge power to the large states. The electoral college gives power to the medium states.

It works great and it will not change. The only thing I would change is going to a run off system. That is our only systematic problem, pretty much.

As a Republican you should be for it considering it would give tens of millions more votes to Republican candidates than we have now.

[Enki]

Tyrannies like a President kowtowing to large population cneters at the expense of small population centers.

You mean like spending as much money in Dade County as he did in many of the smallest states combined?

What's funny about this is, every argument made against the popular vote already applies, it already works that way. Presidents already do spend most of their focus on major population centers. They spend lots of time fundraising in cities with a million or more people, and then they spend that money influencing the smaller states.

The argument that the electoral college protects small rural states is totally and completely laughable. It doesn't and anyone who does the math at all would see that it doesn't.

[Enki]

672030 People per Elector in California
181423 People per Elector in Wyoming

Very fair, very balanced. A citizen of Wyoming has 3.5 votes for every one vote in California.

[Enki]

If you can delineate an alternate system that balances the wish for a popular vote against the tried and established character of our federal system, go for it. A straight popular vote goes against the Founder's intent for the Union, and when and if the time comes for the people to vote on such a change, I believe the Founders original vision will again prevail.

Since the Electoral College is a state issue, it will be decided at the state level.

[Azrael]

I guess some people have forgotten what "republic" means.

I haven't "forgotten" what republic means. A country doesn't have to have an electoral college to be a republic, but it's very cute and parochial for you to think so.

It doesn't mean direct democracy, thank goodness.

No kidding. I wasn't calling for direct democracy. I was calling for one person, one vote. What other country has a goofy electoral college like ours?

Ever reverting to insults.

Like accusing me of forgetting what "republic" means. Take a look at a mirror.

Your game is stale. Try something new, like persuasion.

That's what I've been doing. Perhaps you should try it.

Who says we need to be like other countries?

I never did. You implied that without the Electoral College, we wouldn't be a Republic. I shot down your argument by reminding you (hopefully you already knew) that there are plenty of republics without one who do just fine.

If you can delineate an alternate system that balances the wish for a popular vote against the tried and established character of our federal system, go for it. A straight popular vote goes against the Founder's intent for the Union,

They didn't all have the same intent. It was a compromise between different factions with different interests at a time with different conditions from now.

and when and if the time comes for the people to vote on such a change, I believe the Founders original vision will again prevail.

They didn't all have the same vision. The status quo during the Continental Congress was each state had equal representation. The states with larger and/or faster growing populations, mainly Virginia and the southern states, wanted representation based on population. Eventually, a compromise was reached that the smaller states and larger states could accept. There were other compromises they made at the time that reflected conditions at that time, which no longer exist, such as the decision to have slaves count as 3/5ths of a free man in representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. It's a good thing the founders realized that they didn't create a perfect document that would be acceptable for all time, which is why they set up a procedure to amend the Constitution. They would probably find your deification of them and their document to be amusing.

[Azrael]

Tyrannies like a President kowtowing to large population cneters at the expense of small population centers.

You mean like spending as much money in Dade County as he did in many of the smallest states combined?

What's funny about this is, every argument made against the popular vote already applies, it already works that way. Presidents already do spend most of their focus on major population centers. They spend lots of time fundraising in cities with a million or more people, and then they spend that money influencing the smaller states.

The argument that the electoral college protects small rural states is totally and completely laughable. It doesn't and anyone who does the math at all would see that it doesn't.

Indeed. Most money is spent on swing states, especially the large swing states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, home of Dade County.

Very little campaign cash is spent in Wyoming, Idaho, etc., which are very reliably Republican.

[Azrael]

If you can delineate an alternate system that balances the wish for a popular vote against the tried and established character of our federal system, go for it. A straight popular vote goes against the Founder's intent for the Union, and when and if the time comes for the people to vote on such a change, I believe the Founders original vision will again prevail.

Since the Electoral College is a state issue, it will be decided at the state level.

Yes. States can pass this law, which would technically preserve the Electoral College, while insuring that the winner of the popular vote would get elected.

[crashtech]

Should Senators be chosen by national popular vote?

[Enki]

Should Senators be chosen by national popular vote?

No, it's a state level position. So they should obviously be chosen by state popular vote.

[Enki]

If you can delineate an alternate system that balances the wish for a popular vote against the tried and established character of our federal system, go for it. A straight popular vote goes against the Founder's intent for the Union, and when and if the time comes for the people to vote on such a change, I believe the Founders original vision will again prevail.

Since the Electoral College is a state issue, it will be decided at the state level.

Yes. States can pass this law, which would technically preserve the Electoral College, while insuring that the winner of the popular vote would get elected.

Yes, that's what the Original Post was about.

[crashtech]

Ever reverting to insults.

Like accusing me of forgetting what "republic" means. Take a look at a mirror.

and when and if the time comes for the people to vote on such a change, I believe the Founders original vision will again prevail.

They didn't all have the same vision. The status quo during the Continental Congress was each state had equal representation. The states with larger and/or faster growing populations, mainly Virginia and the southern states, wanted representation based on population. Eventually, a compromise was reached that the smaller states and larger states could accept. There were other compromises they made at the time that reflected conditions at that time, which no longer exist, such as the decision to have slaves count as 3/5ths of a free man in representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. It's a good thing the founders realized that they didn't create a perfect document that would be acceptable for all time, which is why they set up a procedure to amend the Constitution. They would probably find your deification of them and their document to be amusing.

Sorry if you took my comment about forgetting what a republic is personally. I think I get into a very reactive mode when attempting to converse with you, because I anticipate insults and condescension from you. To the extent that I am engaging in exactly the same behavior which I find so irritating on your part, I am sorry. Sometimes I do wonder if you have personal animosity towards me and the other posters with which you disagree, or if it's just your style. For my part, I have no quarrel with you in particular except for the contempt you seem to hold for any other opinion but your own.

[Azrael]

Ever reverting to insults.

Like accusing me of forgetting what "republic" means. Take a look at a mirror.

and when and if the time comes for the people to vote on such a change, I believe the Founders original vision will again prevail.

They didn't all have the same vision. The status quo during the Continental Congress was each state had equal representation. The states with larger and/or faster growing populations, mainly Virginia and the southern states, wanted representation based on population. Eventually, a compromise was reached that the smaller states and larger states could accept. There were other compromises they made at the time that reflected conditions at that time, which no longer exist, such as the decision to have slaves count as 3/5ths of a free man in representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. It's a good thing the founders realized that they didn't create a perfect document that would be acceptable for all time, which is why they set up a procedure to amend the Constitution. They would probably find your deification of them and their document to be amusing.

Sorry if you took my comment about forgetting what a republic is personally. I think I get into a very reactive mode when attempting to converse with you, because I anticipate insults and condescension from you. To the extent that I am engaging in exactly the same behavior which I find so irritating on your part, I am sorry.

Apology accepted. Since I've done the same thing myself, I also apologize.

Sometimes I do wonder if you have personal animosity towards me and the other posters with which you disagree, or if it's just your style. For my part, I have no quarrel with you in particular

Nor do I with you.

except for the contempt you seem to hold for any other opinion but your own.

I don't hold contempt for your opinion. If it seems that way, perhaps it is because of the "reactive mode" we've gotten in to at times.

[crashtech]

OK, fair enough!

I wonder what position supporters of the National Popular Vote have on our bicameral system in general. The way that I interpret the implementation of the Electoral College is as a compromise between the systems of the two houses of Congress. It would seem to follow that if one believes the Electoral College to be obsolete, the method of selecting Senators, or even the Senate itself should be on the chopping block.

[crashtech]

Should Senators be chosen by national popular vote?

No, it's a state level position. So they should obviously be chosen by state popular vote.

But the argument can be made that Senators of other states than my own affect my life even more than the POTUS. Why should a Senator from a podunk state have this kind of disproportionate power?

[Mr. Perfect]

You mean like spending as much money in Dade County as he did in many of the smallest states combined?

Dade county is in a swing state, that is the way it is supposed to work.

What's funny about this is, every argument made against the popular vote already applies, it already works that way. Presidents already do spend most of their focus on major population centers. They spend lots of time fundraising in cities with a million or more people, and then they spend that money influencing the smaller states.

I don't care about fundraising.

The argument that the electoral college protects small rural states is totally and completely laughable. It doesn't and anyone who does the math at all would see that it doesn't.

People in small states aren't laughing. As you said, their vote counts way more than yours. They love the EC, I'm sure in part because of the information you provide.

[Mr. Perfect]

672030 People per Elector in California
181423 People per Elector in Wyoming

Very fair, very balanced. A citizen of Wyoming has 3.5 votes for every one vote in California.

Tinker, the EC has overturned the popular vote, what, 3 times in our history?

Where is the fire?

[Enki]

Should Senators be chosen by national popular vote?

No, it's a state level position. So they should obviously be chosen by state popular vote.

But the argument can be made that Senators of other states than my own affect my life even more than the POTUS. Why should a Senator from a podunk state have this kind of disproportionate power?

Because it's a state level position. The more reasonable argument would be to ask if it truly is fair to have as many Senators in small states as large ones. Fundamentally it really isn't, and the vast numbers of people in the rural areas that are pushed out of state and national politics in large states that vastly outnumber the number of people who are enfranchised in rural small states are really the ones who get the shaft ultimately.

[Enki]

Dade county is in a swing state, that is the way it is supposed to work.

When those rules were devised they never imagined that one state would outnumber another by 35m people. Florida has near as many people as the colonies at the devising of the Constitution.

I don't care about fundraising.

That's because you don't understand politics. They raise lots of money from rich urban liberal elites (both parties) in order to buy really fancy psychologists and ad men who know exactly what buttons to press and what buzzwords to say in order to get rural people in rural states to vote for a big city candidate like Mitt Romney (Boston), George W. Bush(DC/Boston/New Haven/Austin), George HW Bush(New Haven/DC), Ronald Reagan(LA), Richard Nixon(LA)...etc...etc...

People in small states aren't laughing. As you said, their vote counts way more than yours. They love the EC, I'm sure in part because of the information you provide.

Of course they aren't laughing, they don't know how badly they are getting shut out of the vote under the current system. In all likelihood they probably believe it actually protects them. They don't see the information that I provide. And the only person who does, who cares and likely participates in politics to some degree, doesn't understand it most of the time.