This map explains a lot.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It was decided by electoral college votes because the popular vote went to Hillary.

I'm not just talking about the most recent election. The current system encourages candidates to focus only on "swing states" and largely ignore the others? Why do you want the voters who don't live in "swing states" to be ignored? Why should winning a state by a single vote be worth as much as overwhelmingly sweeping a state?

If we went to popular vote then that voter in Nebraska wouldn't matter.

Under a popular vote system, a voter in Nebraska would matter exactly as much as a voter anywhere else; no more, no less.

It is because of the electoral college that Mr/Mrs/Miss voter in Nebraska matters.

It's because of the electoral college that they matter disproportionately. Under a popular vote system, they would matter just as much as anyone else.

And I may have picked a bad example with Nebraska, since it splits its electoral college vote. Go one state over to Kansas to see the worst part of the electoral college. Here's how the vote went down:

- Trump: 57% (671,018 votes)
- Clinton: 36% (427,005 votes)
- Johnson: 5% (53,648 votes)
- Stein: 2% (23,506 votes)

Trump took the state, obviously, and got all the state's electoral votes... just as he would have if he had only gotten 1 more vote than Clinton. Those surplus 244,012 votes for Trump aren't reflected in the result at all; their votes didn't matter. Same with all the Clinton, Johnson & Stein voters: if they hadn't voted at all, the result would have been exactly the same. Even though the state overall has a disproportionate say, only about 36% of the people who voted actually had their vote count.

Even if you're a Trump supporter, ask yourself this: should a state where he got 244,013 votes more than the second place candidate matter no more than if he had won by a 1-vote margin?

Dividing the country up into a series of first-past-the-post contests disenfranchised most voters, including a huge amount who vote for the winning candidate.

 

[Kenny]

Many dislike the fact that we're a republic, & that less populous states are represented too.
They should consider that it's analogous to the UN (one vote per country), but with more
weight upon individual voters. We certainly wouldn't want China & India to have a greater
vote than we have (just because they have so gosh darn many people), eh.

EXACTLY!!

 

[Kenny]

I'm not just talking about the most recent election. The current system encourages candidates to focus only on "swing states" and largely ignore the others? Why do you want the voters who don't live in "swing states" to be ignored? Why should winning a state by a single vote be worth as much as overwhelmingly sweeping a state?

???

Are you for real?

Hillary ignored some states and lost because of it. And you are suggesting that a Democratic candidate (and visa versa) spend equal time in an area that are all democrats as he would where voters are still swinging?

I think you need to think that one through.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not just talking about the most recent election. The current system encourages candidates to focus only on "swing states" and largely ignore the others? Why do you want the voters who don't live in "swing states" to be ignored? Why should winning a state by a single vote be worth as much as overwhelmingly sweeping a state?


Under a popular vote system, a voter in Nebraska would matter exactly as much as a voter anywhere else; no more, no less.



It's because of the electoral college that they matter disproportionately. Under a popular vote system, they would matter just as much as anyone else.

And I may have picked a bad example with Nebraska, since it splits its electoral college vote. Go one state over to Kansas to see the worst part of the electoral college. Here's how the vote went down:

- Trump: 57% (671,018 votes)
- Clinton: 36% (427,005 votes)
- Johnson: 5% (53,648 votes)
- Stein: 2% (23,506 votes)

Trump took the state, obviously, and got all the state's electoral votes... just as he would have if he had only gotten 1 more vote than Clinton. Those surplus 244,012 votes for Trump aren't reflected in the result at all; their votes didn't matter. Same with all the Clinton, Johnson & Stein voters: if they hadn't voted at all, the result would have been exactly the same. Even though the state overall has a disproportionate say, only about 36% of the people who voted actually had their vote count.

Even if you're a Trump supporter, ask yourself this: should a state where he got 244,013 votes more than the second place candidate matter no more than if he had won by a 1-vote margin?

Dividing the country up into a series of first-past-the-post contests disenfranchised most voters, including a huge amount who vote for the winning candidate.

Any system we come up with will be seen as unfair to someone.
(With the popular vote approach, rural areas would become irrelevant.)
I dislike the EC system, but it's approximately fair.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many dislike the fact that we're a republic, & that less populous states are represented too.

The electoral college is not an inevitable result of being a republic.

They should consider that it's analogous to the UN (one vote per country), but with more
weight upon individual voters. We certainly wouldn't want China & India to have a greater
vote than we have (just because they have so gosh darn many people), eh.

The Senate already gives a voter in a smaller state more representation than a voter in a larger state. Why isn't that enough?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any system we come up with will be seen as unfair to someone.
(With the popular vote approach, rural areas would become irrelevant.)
I dislike the EC system, but it's approximately fair.

Rural areas wouldn't become irrelevant; a rural area would be just as relevant and influential as an urban area with the same population.

Edit: what's really irrelevant are the rural areas (and urban areas) in the non-swing states in the current system.

Edit 2: also, since states base their electoral college votes on the popular vote within each state, the current system doesn't address your concern anyway. Does it really matter to, say, a rural voter in Georgia whether their vote is balanced against the votes of urban voters in Atlanta or urban voters in Miami?

 

[Stevicus]

The problem is not the electoral college as much as it's the primary system and how candidates are chosen and nominated.

 

[Revoltingest]

The electoral college is not an inevitable result of being a republic.

Of course.
But it is a reasonable approach for a republic negotiating its assemblage.
And thus, it became our law.

The Senate already gives a voter in a smaller state more representation than a voter in a larger state. Why isn't that enough?

Because the Constitution says so.
I'm not an EC fan, but neither do I oppose it.
It just is.
And alternatives have their problems too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rural areas wouldn't become irrelevant; a rural area would be just as relevant and influential as an urban area with the same population.

But rural areas don't have the same population as urban ones.
A pol would be foolish to go to WY or ND. Time would be more
profitably spent in a few mega-cities & environs.

Edit: what's really irrelevant are the rural areas (and urban areas) in the non-swing states in the current system.

Edit 2: also, since states base their electoral college votes on the popular vote within each state, the current system doesn't address your concern anyway. Does it really matter to, say, a rural voter in Georgia whether their vote is balanced against the votes of urban voters in Atlanta or urban voters in Miami?

There are good arguments for the popular vote.
I only point out that it's not entirely fair either (in the eyes of some).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But rural areas don't have the same population as urban ones.
A pol would be foolish to go to WY or ND. Time would be more
profitably spent in a few mega-cities & environs.

Do you think presidential candidates spend a lot of time on Wyoming or North Dakota under the current system?

And I'm not sure what the issue would be with them focusing on cities: lots of voters live in them. But in a close race where every vote counts, a candidate would ignore rural areas at their own peril.

Also remember that, in practical terms, a presidential candidate's role isn't just about getting themselves elected. They're the nominees of political parties and are expected to serve their party's interest. No party would want voters to take out a perceived snub by the party's presidential candidate on the party's candidates for other federal or state offices. Presidential candidates will still end up, say, making appearances in contested districts to support candidates for the House or Senate, which could happen in any district, urban or rural.

It isn't in a party's interest to end up with a lame-duck president.

There are good arguments for the popular vote.
I only point out that it's not entirely fair either (in the eyes of some).

You're going to have to do some pretty clever arguing before you'll convince me that equal representation is unfair.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think presidential candidates spend a lot of time on Wyoming or North Dakota under the current system?

Even when pols don't visit, their aparatchiks expend resources there.

You're going to have to do some pretty clever arguing before you'll convince me that equal representation is unfair.

I'm not trying to convince you it's unfair.
Only that the EC isn't so unfair.

 

[BSM1]

Do you think presidential candidates spend a lot of time on Wyoming or North Dakota under the current system?

And I'm not sure what the issue would be with them focusing on cities: lots of voters live in them. But in a close race where every vote counts, a candidate would ignore rural areas at their own peril.

Also remember that, in practical terms, a presidential candidate's role isn't just about getting themselves elected. They're the nominees of political parties and are expected to serve their party's interest. No party would want voters to take out a perceived snub by the party's presidential candidate on the party's candidates for other federal or state offices. Presidential candidates will still end up, say, making appearances in contested districts to support candidates for the House or Senate, which could happen in any district, urban or rural.

It isn't in a party's interest to end up with a lame-duck president.


You're going to have to do some pretty clever arguing before you'll convince me that equal representation is unfair.

Even in a perfect world this has already been shown to be bogus. Hillary received more popular votes based on the most populous cities in CA. If the election were 'popular vote' then there would have been very little incentive for her to campaign--or spend campaign money--in the least populated states. She, or any other candidate, could go to these big cities and promise them the moon if elected and may be able to steal every election. Also, the EC is not there just to mirror each state's vote; the EC can decide NOT to elect a person as well. Suppose we have a bona fide self-proclaimed white supremacist running for president and he gets exactly one more vote than the other candidate. In your scenario we would be stuck with this maniac. The EC has the power to reject this person if their conscientious' so dictate.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

View attachment 18269

Cities explain a lot?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even when pols don't visit, their aparatchiks expend resources their.

And why do you think this wouldn't continue?

I'm not trying to convince you it's unfair.
Only that the EC isn't so unfair.

At its best, it's a system that was at one time necessary but is now obsolete: when information moves at the speed of a horse, it makes a certain amount of sense to compile them at a state level, then send trusted representatives who can deal with issues as they arise (e.g. the candidate most of your state voted for dying just before the election, but word not reaching your state in time for the vote).

At its worse, the electoral college's use of middlemen that are only sorta compelled to vote as their state orders them to is an affront to democracy.

Either way, its method where each state (with 2? exceptions) is assign all-or-nothing in its own first-past-the-post contest has all of the problems of unfairness and disenfranchisement inherent in first-past-the-post systems.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even in a perfect world this has already been shown to be bogus. Hillary received more popular votes based on the most populous cities in CA. If the election were 'popular vote' then there would have been very little incentive for her to campaign--or spend campaign money--in the least populated states.

IOW, if every vote was worth the same, candidates would value votes equally and pick strategies to maximize the number of total votes they get.

Why would this be a problem?

She, or any other candidate, could go to these big cities and promise them the moon if elected and may be able to steal every election.

When a candidate wins an election by getting the most votes, this isn't "stealing"; it's just called "winning."

Also, the EC is not there just to mirror each state's vote; the EC can decide NOT to elect a person as well. Suppose we have a bona fide self-proclaimed white supremacist running for president and he gets exactly one more vote than the other candidate. In your scenario we would be stuck with this maniac. The EC has the power to reject this person if their conscientious' so dictate.

So the Electoral College exists as a way to potentially undermine the will of the voters? It seems you agree with me: the Electoral College is anti-democratic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I didn't realize Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, and South Bend were that heavily populated.

It was decided by electoral college votes because the popular vote went to Hillary. If we went to popular vote then that voter in Nebraska wouldn't matter. It is because of the electoral college that Mr/Mrs/Miss voter in Nebraska matters.

Because of the EC, my vote didn't matter. Essentially, it went up in smoke and was counted towards not a goddamned thing.

 

[Revoltingest]

And why do you think this wouldn't continue?

I'd expect less effort in low population density areas.

At its best, it's a system that was at one time necessary but is now obsolete: when information moves at the speed of a horse, it makes a certain amount of sense to compile them at a state level, then send trusted representatives who can deal with issues as they arise (e.g. the candidate most of your state voted for dying just before the election, but word not reaching your state in time for the vote).

At its worse, the electoral college's use of middlemen that are only sorta compelled to vote as their state orders them to is an affront to democracy.

Either way, its method where each state (with 2? exceptions) is assign all-or-nothing in its own first-past-the-post contest has all of the problems of unfairness and disenfranchisement inherent in first-past-the-post systems.

I could live with ditching the EC (which I dislike) in favor of the popular vote.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd expect less effort in low population density areas.

And why would this be worse than less effort in high population density areas?

I could live with ditching the EC (which I dislike) in favor of the popular vote.

Fair enough.

 

[Revoltingest]

And why would this be worse than less effort in high population density areas?

Comparing one system with another, there will always be differences.
Some will benefit, while others will lose influence.
Which is entirley fair?
I'd say that neither is.
(All I demand is something which is fair enuf.)
We is pick the system which best serves us.
For now, the EC is the choice (since those who'd replace it have failed to convince others).

 

[bobhikes]

Cities explain a lot?

To me but not the cities but how the population is grouped. Half of the US population lives in less than a 10th of the area of the US the other half lives in 90% of the area of the US.

I did phone service for a year and never really understood why a person is South Dakota was willing to travel to North Dakota (6 hrs by car) to get there computer printer fixed happily yet a person from Edison NJ wanted my manager because they had to go to Piscataway, NJ (6 miles by car) because there should be a service organization in Edison. Just one of many examples of the differences this map put to rest.