Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
I've heard plenty of arguments in support of the Electoral College including the claims that NY and CA would determine every election and that small red flyover states are protected and given a voice equal to the large blue coastal states. I'm going to respond to those claims in the course of this post.
Let me take a moment before I continue to lay out a few facts:
I did not vote for Hillary.
I did not vote for Trump.
I did not develop this position as a result of either the 2000 or 2016 elections.
The Electoral College portions out electors according to population but asks the people to participate by voting for which party's electors should go to the EC on their state's behalf. There's a great deal of trouble with this, largely stemming from the facts that voter turnout is inconsistent and that 48 states plus DC use winner take all. As a result, a small number of people in a very populous state gets control over the whole population of that state, and it silences the voice of most voters in the country. This sounds contrary to the claims made by those who support the EC. It is. I'll expand on that in a bit.
There are two conditions that must be met for me to tolerate the EC.
1. The people should be completely excluded from the general election of the President of the United States. As the constitution indicates, it's up to the state legislatures how to award their states' electors to the EC. The people already vote for their legislators. Using popular vote elections, BTW.
2. The Census taken every 10 years should only count citizens.
Failing those two conditions, the EC should be abolished. And here's why.
Let's just stick to California for a moment.
8.7 million Californians voted for Clinton in 2016. But the EC isn't really concerned about that. 4,483,810 Californians voted for Trump. Which puts all 55 electors in the hands of 4,483,811 Clinton voters. (For those who need it spelled out of them, that's Trump votes + 1, the minimum requirement to win the state's electors)
4,483,811 Californians. That number represents:
- Approx half of the number of Californians who voted for Clinton.
- Almost one third of the number of Californians who voted at all.
- Just over 11% of California's population.
- 3.3% of the total US popular vote for President.
Get that? The EC gave 3.3% of the total US popular vote control over 10.2% of the whole freaking election.
Let's expand that to all Californian Clinton votes. That is still only 6.4% of the total US popular vote, compared to 10.2% of the total electoral vote.
The states only get smaller from there. What kind of voice is left for the people in small red states when the whole population of several of those states is swallowed up by that 3.8% gap of phantom voters? And this is still just California!
Let's look at the three big blue states. California, New York, and Illinois.
In 2016, Clinton voters from all three states combined for 12% of the total US popular vote.
All three states combine for 19.3% of the total electoral vote.
Now we're up to a 7.3% gap between real votes and the real power of these states, making small red states even MORE insignificant.
And the worst part is, the small states whose voices are being made mute are being told that the EC is protecting them and making their voices louder!
If I take away the swing states that voted for Trump (except Iowa because it's small), as well as red states with 10 or more electors, the 18 small red states that are left combine for 100 electors. 4 fewer electors than just the three big blue states. This means that it takes 1/3rd of this country's states just to almost balance out the big three blue states. Which means they don't matter. They're a given. Then a handful of reliably blue medium states cancel out a handful of reliably red medium states... which leaves us with less than 1/3rd of the states in this country to decide the election. And if we're being thorough and candid, the difference between Trump and Clinton was three swing states.
The EC makes it so much harder for red states to fight against a small number of blue states for no good reason.
A real direct popular vote (not this National Popular Vote Compact crap) would mean that literally every vote would count. We wouldn't be counting states against states. Red votes in California and blue votes in Texas would actually matter. Candidates would have to visit every state instead of only visiting dozen or fewer swing states. No more of this race to 270. You wouldn't even know who won until literally every vote was counted, because you wouldn't know how many total votes there are until every single vote was counted. WHICH MEANS THAT EVERY VOTE COUNTS!
This would be an incentive for more people to get out and vote because more people's votes would matter. It would also give states an incentive to crack down on voter fraud because accuracy would matter when the country cares about more than just a dozen or fewer swing states.
For at least a couple of elections, the pendulum would likely swing to the right. Then the system would balance itself out, and both sides would truly have a fair chance.
(All my numbers are based on New York Times 2016 election results)
If you want to offer a disagreement, all I ask is that you refrain from repeating slogans and unsupported talking points, and instead offer some sort of support for your claim.
And another thing. Those on the left who are likely to oppose the Electoral College, don't chime in with the "it's the only way republicans can win" nonsense. 11 of the last 13 Republican presidents were able to win the popular vote just fine.
Let me take a moment before I continue to lay out a few facts:
I did not vote for Hillary.
I did not vote for Trump.
I did not develop this position as a result of either the 2000 or 2016 elections.
The Electoral College portions out electors according to population but asks the people to participate by voting for which party's electors should go to the EC on their state's behalf. There's a great deal of trouble with this, largely stemming from the facts that voter turnout is inconsistent and that 48 states plus DC use winner take all. As a result, a small number of people in a very populous state gets control over the whole population of that state, and it silences the voice of most voters in the country. This sounds contrary to the claims made by those who support the EC. It is. I'll expand on that in a bit.
There are two conditions that must be met for me to tolerate the EC.
1. The people should be completely excluded from the general election of the President of the United States. As the constitution indicates, it's up to the state legislatures how to award their states' electors to the EC. The people already vote for their legislators. Using popular vote elections, BTW.
2. The Census taken every 10 years should only count citizens.
Failing those two conditions, the EC should be abolished. And here's why.
Let's just stick to California for a moment.
8.7 million Californians voted for Clinton in 2016. But the EC isn't really concerned about that. 4,483,810 Californians voted for Trump. Which puts all 55 electors in the hands of 4,483,811 Clinton voters. (For those who need it spelled out of them, that's Trump votes + 1, the minimum requirement to win the state's electors)
4,483,811 Californians. That number represents:
- Approx half of the number of Californians who voted for Clinton.
- Almost one third of the number of Californians who voted at all.
- Just over 11% of California's population.
- 3.3% of the total US popular vote for President.
Get that? The EC gave 3.3% of the total US popular vote control over 10.2% of the whole freaking election.
Let's expand that to all Californian Clinton votes. That is still only 6.4% of the total US popular vote, compared to 10.2% of the total electoral vote.
The states only get smaller from there. What kind of voice is left for the people in small red states when the whole population of several of those states is swallowed up by that 3.8% gap of phantom voters? And this is still just California!
Let's look at the three big blue states. California, New York, and Illinois.
In 2016, Clinton voters from all three states combined for 12% of the total US popular vote.
All three states combine for 19.3% of the total electoral vote.
Now we're up to a 7.3% gap between real votes and the real power of these states, making small red states even MORE insignificant.
And the worst part is, the small states whose voices are being made mute are being told that the EC is protecting them and making their voices louder!
If I take away the swing states that voted for Trump (except Iowa because it's small), as well as red states with 10 or more electors, the 18 small red states that are left combine for 100 electors. 4 fewer electors than just the three big blue states. This means that it takes 1/3rd of this country's states just to almost balance out the big three blue states. Which means they don't matter. They're a given. Then a handful of reliably blue medium states cancel out a handful of reliably red medium states... which leaves us with less than 1/3rd of the states in this country to decide the election. And if we're being thorough and candid, the difference between Trump and Clinton was three swing states.
The EC makes it so much harder for red states to fight against a small number of blue states for no good reason.
A real direct popular vote (not this National Popular Vote Compact crap) would mean that literally every vote would count. We wouldn't be counting states against states. Red votes in California and blue votes in Texas would actually matter. Candidates would have to visit every state instead of only visiting dozen or fewer swing states. No more of this race to 270. You wouldn't even know who won until literally every vote was counted, because you wouldn't know how many total votes there are until every single vote was counted. WHICH MEANS THAT EVERY VOTE COUNTS!
This would be an incentive for more people to get out and vote because more people's votes would matter. It would also give states an incentive to crack down on voter fraud because accuracy would matter when the country cares about more than just a dozen or fewer swing states.
For at least a couple of elections, the pendulum would likely swing to the right. Then the system would balance itself out, and both sides would truly have a fair chance.
(All my numbers are based on New York Times 2016 election results)
If you want to offer a disagreement, all I ask is that you refrain from repeating slogans and unsupported talking points, and instead offer some sort of support for your claim.
And another thing. Those on the left who are likely to oppose the Electoral College, don't chime in with the "it's the only way republicans can win" nonsense. 11 of the last 13 Republican presidents were able to win the popular vote just fine.