• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Electoral College should be abolished. And here's why...

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.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
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.

Balance is already being achieved though. At least for the last 24 years and the trend continues with Trumps election in 2016.

Democrat Bill Clinton - 2 terms.

Both terms won by popular vote and EC.


Republican George W. Bush - 2 terms

1st won by EC lost popular vote by 500,000ish votes.

2nd won by EC and popular vote.

Democrat Barack Obama - 2 terms

Both terms won by popular vote and EC.


Republican Donald Trump - 1 term so far 2nd term is likely.

Won by EC lost on popular vote.

See a trend here? By abolishing the EC, it gives an advantage to the Democrats to seize power and never have to relinquish it.

If you truly wanted balance then you would be pro-EC. :cool:
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Balance is already being achieved though. At least for the last 24 years and the trend continues with Trumps election in 2016.

Democrat Bill Clinton - 2 terms.

Both terms won by popular vote and EC.


Republican George W. Bush - 2 terms

1st won by EC lost popular vote by 500,000ish votes.

2nd won by EC and popular vote.

Democrat Barack Obama - 2 terms

Both terms won by popular vote and EC.


Republican Donald Trump - 1 term so far 2nd term is likely.

Won by EC lost on popular vote.

See a trend here? By abolishing the EC, it gives an advantage to the Democrats to seize power and never have to relinquish it.

If you truly wanted balance then you would be pro-EC. :cool:
What you seem to be saying is that it's fair because the position is shared by both parties almost evenly.
What the OP seems to be saying is that it's not fair because the method makes it possible for the rule of the minority.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
What the OP seems to be saying is that it's not fair because the method makes it possible for the rule of the minority.

Is that not fair though?

I hear all the time about how minority's have voices as well.

Are you and the OP suggesting that a minority group of people do not have a voice?
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Is that not fair though?

I hear all the time about how minority's have voices as well.

Are you and the OP suggesting that a minority group of people do not have a voice?
I don't know what the OP is suggesting since I am not them.

Personally, I don't think that rule of the minority is fair. I think that might be the whole idea behind democratic republics.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Balance is already being achieved though. At least for the last 24 years and the trend continues with Trumps election in 2016.

Democrat Bill Clinton - 2 terms.

Both terms won by popular vote and EC.


Republican George W. Bush - 2 terms

1st won by EC lost popular vote by 500,000ish votes.

2nd won by EC and popular vote.

Democrat Barack Obama - 2 terms

Both terms won by popular vote and EC.


Republican Donald Trump - 1 term so far 2nd term is likely.

Won by EC lost on popular vote.

See a trend here? By abolishing the EC, it gives an advantage to the Democrats to seize power and never have to relinquish it.

If you truly wanted balance then you would be pro-EC. :cool:
This democratic "advantage" is in reality the current national preference. It's what the voters actually want. The goal is not to make all elections "equal" regardless of what the voters want. The goal is for the voters will to be represented by the process. The EC is ignoring the voter's will, more and more, and forcing us to accept politicians that do not represent the voter's will. This is fundamentally undemocratic, and should be abolished immediately.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
This democratic "advantage" is in reality the current national preference. It's what the voters actually want. The goal is not to make all elections "equal" regardless of what the voters want. The goal is for the voters will to be represented by the process. The EC is ignoring the voter's will, more and more, and forcing us to accept politicians that do not represent the voter's will. This is fundamentally undemocratic, and should be abolished immediately.

So no minority should have a voice then?
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
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.

If a direct popular vote system were to replace the EC, then there should be a national voter identification card system in place that'd significantly ensure each vote is legit.

In 2014, researchers at Old Dominion University used data from a Cooperative Congressional Election Study, data in 2008 and 2010, as well as voter records in 2008, to conclude that more than 14 percent of non-citizens indicated that they were registered to vote. Their best guess at the portion of non-citizens who voted was about 6.4 percent, or 1.2 million illegal votes were then cast in a U.S. Presidential election.

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/wp-content/uploads/sites/760/2015/11/AnsolabehererResponse_2-8-17.pdf

If non-citizen illegal votes were significantly reduced to near zero, this would likely help Republican Presidential candidates by a margin of over three-quarters of a million votes.

When factoring out illegal non-citizen votes, President Trump may have indeed actually won the popular vote.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium 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.

The issue is not so much the Electoral College. The issue is states and how Americans traditionally relate to the concept. Ideologically, most Americans appear to want to have each state be unique, individual entities with as much independence and autonomy as is practical within the framework of the United States.

We also have a concept known as States Rights which some people view as more important than individual human rights. (Oddly enough, most of those who support States Rights do not extend that concept to include county rights or municipality rights.) This is why we also have a US Senate, with each state having two senators so each state has equal representation within the Senate.

In other words, any move to eliminate the Electoral College would require that Americans re-examine the entire concept of States and States Rights. Should states have any autonomy at all? Should there be a Senate? Should government be more centralized and state governments weakened? Would it be more efficient and practical to do so?

What practical function do States Rights actually serve?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Along with a popular vote I would prefer one more alteration. That of a runoff election of the top two candidates if only a plurality was reached. If that were to happen Clinton and Bush would have had a runoff election and since Perot was rather conservative Bush Sr. would have had a very good chance of winning. There would have been a runoff election in 1996, but Clinton would still almost certainly have won. There would have been a runoff election in 1992 and Gore would most likely have won. And in 2016 there would have been a runoff election that Hillary would most likely have won.

The benefit of having a runoff election in the case of a plurality rather than a majority win is that one could feel free to vote for whoever one thought was the best candidate the first time around without fear that a candidate that you did not want to win would win. For example in 2,000 many claimed that the Nader vote was enough to swing the election to Bush. If the population was 49% hard core Bush (it was less than that in that year), 48% hard core Gore voters (it was a bit more than that) and 3% Nader supporters there would have been a runoff. How many of the 3% Nader supporters would have switched to Bush? Probably not enough to make him the majority winner. This would give a voice to the little guy, one of the concerns that we hear all of the time. People could vote for fringe candidates without fear that they would be harming their second choice.

Once the field was limited to two one would have to put one one's big boy pants and decide of the two which would be best for the country. One could vote Libertarian, as I did last time since I was in a solid blue state where my vote did not count either way, and know that only if there was a solid majority for the candidate that they wanted to win the least that they would get another shot at voting. And since the positions of both candidates would be well known there is no reason that the second election could not be only a week after the first. If necessary there could be time given for the extremely unlikely chance of a tie for second place. But I doubt if that would ever happen.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The issue is not so much the Electoral College. The issue is states and how Americans traditionally relate to the concept. Ideologically, most Americans appear to want to have each state be unique, individual entities with as much independence and autonomy as is practical within the framework of the United States.

We also have a concept known as States Rights which some people view as more important than individual human rights. (Oddly enough, most of those who support States Rights do not extend that concept to include county rights or municipality rights.) This is why we also have a US Senate, with each state having two senators so each state has equal representation within the Senate.

In other words, any move to eliminate the Electoral College would require that Americans re-examine the entire concept of States and States Rights. Should states have any autonomy at all? Should there be a Senate? Should government be more centralized and state governments weakened? Would it be more efficient and practical to do so?

What practical function do States Rights actually serve?
States rights does not even fit into the reality of an electoral college race. Instead what we saw was massive campaigning in larger swing voter states. There was almost no campaigning in my state. There was not even that much campaigning in California. I reaped the benefit of not seeing endless political ads for both candidates. They spent their money elsewhere. But if there was a popular vote people would have to fight for every last vote all over the U.S.. The electoral college is even more disenfranchising than a simple majority. States such as Pennsylvania end up being even more critical than California or Texas. Neither of those last two would be switched regardless of money spent. The states rights argument does not apply in this case.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Along with a popular vote I would prefer one more alteration. That of a runoff election of the top two candidates if only a plurality was reached.
There's a way to do this without multiple voting days.
Voters rate all the candidates, in order of preference. If no candidate gets a majority of top ratings, the voters who rated them second choice get added to the totals. If there's still not a candidate with a majority, you add all the votes that rated them third.

There's other ways of doing this that are similar.

I'd still advocate for a parliamentary system, where the top position is chosen by a coalition of smaller groups that reach a workable consensus.
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Anyone not apart of a majority is a minority.
By your standards, shouldn't non-white people get 4× the voting power of white people, since there's 4× as many whites?

Ya know, for fairness.
The way things are now, aren't black people a voiceless minority?
Tom
 
Top