Electoral College: Keep It or Scrap It

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
I have a family member who did not vote because:
--- neither major party candidate represented his values and viewpoint
--- in his state one candidate was clearly going to win, so it did not matter

Voting democratically means every voter has a stake in the outcome and their votes have equal weight.

Hate to break it to him, but the voter's paradox tells you his individual decision to vote/not vote doesn't matter regardless of where he lives. Anyone who is basing their decision to go to the polls on their individual vote "mattering" doesn't get it. That should never, ever be a factor in one's decision to vote or abstain.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Hate to break it to him, but the voter's paradox tells you his individual decision to vote/not vote doesn't matter regardless of where he lives. Anyone who is basing their decision to go to the polls on their individual vote "mattering" doesn't get it. That should never, ever be a factor in one's decision to vote or abstain.
Yup. The only valid fill-in-the-blank to "so-and-so didn't vote because _______" is "he couldn't be bothered."
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
How much does your vote count? (Fusion)

We decided to drill down into the demographics of voters in America to better understand which voters are likely to have the most power to determine who our next president will be. We used turnout data from the U.S. Census and election forecasts based on polling data from Fivethirtyeight.com to build a model that gives a “power score” to voters. The score changes based on their age, gender, ethnicity, and where they live. It reflects the competitiveness of the state they live in and voter turnout rates for their demographic group; ultimately, it measures the statistical likelihood that a vote from that group will decide the election:

Interactive tool that let's you insert state, type of voter, age, etc. and more to determine how likely that group will be in voting and in determing the outcome of a Presidential election..
 
Last edited:

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,539
Reaction score
3,296
Hate to break it to him, but the voter's paradox tells you his individual decision to vote/not vote doesn't matter regardless of where he lives. Anyone who is basing their decision to go to the polls on their individual vote "mattering" doesn't get it. That should never, ever be a factor in one's decision to vote or abstain.

In fact I'd argue that the voter's paradox could be even more pronounced in a full popular vote election. Knowing my vote along with millions of others in PA are totally null and void thanks to California would make me want to vote less than the fact that PA is a swing state so I could help push someone over the edge in my state.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Hate to break it to him, but the voter's paradox tells you his individual decision to vote/not vote doesn't matter regardless of where he lives. Anyone who is basing their decision to go to the polls on their individual vote "mattering" doesn't get it. That should never, ever be a factor in one's decision to vote or abstain.

We agree on that. He doesn't see it that way. Voting behavior is learned and passed down within nuclear family units.

So, nationally 46% of 59% of eligible voters cast their ballot for the President-elect. Of course, a much smaller percent determined the election, which was taken as a "mandate" and representative. Neither is the case.
 
Last edited:

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,408
Reaction score
5,824
This is a challenge for a government that represents the very different regions and different mindsets of this country. It's no question that we are in an urban vs rural dilemma.

I don't discount the values and ideas of the founders because they had fundamental flaws on issues like slavery. I treasure this entire generation because their best minds and efforts were devoted to freedom and democracy. They didn't get to focus on innovation in technology and business. This was a blessed era and the resulting product is worth fighting for.

The advantage of the electoral college is that it keeps an overwhelming regional majority of a certain ideology from having a devastating effect on the rest of us. Why should running up the score in a "different minded" state like California cause the 83% of the counties in America that elected Trump to fall to their will?

The electoral college is a correction factor for the oddball areas like California. California's vote matters and they get a whole lot of electoral votes for it. But it's an area that is ideologically different from the rest of us and anything that contains their madness is good.

I think that the electoral college was created for this exact dilemma. Preventing urban mindsets from overrunning the rest of America. I don't blame the liberals for not liking the system that elected Trumpers. However, I would hope they recognize the concept of the electoral college.
 

GATTACA!

It's about to get gross
Messages
15,108
Reaction score
12,945
I think it needs to stay. Black Irish is right, with our current system candidates have no motivation to make trips to a huge list of states. Switching to a popular vote however doesn't fix this problem, it probably worsens it significantly. Instead of candidates only visiting a portion of important states they will only be visiting a handful of important CITIES.

I had this discussion with someone else so im just going to quote my reply on this subject.

If we switched the voting system then you would see a full change in the way elections and campaigns are run. California right now is a foregone conclusion but it's balanced out by a large number of western states that all amassed help balance out the western coast. Although California was a blowout like usual Trump still got over 30% of the vote, that's 3.8 million votes. Again that's more than several western states combined just in terms of people not even registered voters. So why would Trump bother going to those smaller states? He could focus his energy on California, and even in a losing effort still flip more votes in his favor than if he had gotten every single vote from Montana + Idaho + North Dakota + ect.
If Trump focused on cities in California and raised his vote total by 10% which I think is attainable based on the number of republicans that simply sit out the election because California is so blue, he would gain more votes than he would winning 100% of Maine, Rhode Island, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. You can make the same argument and say "Well what about all the voters that stay home in those small western states because they feel like their votes don't matter?" and you would be right, except the populations are just so low in those places that it wouldn't even matter if we used the full population numbers in those states.
 

IrishinSyria

In truth lies victory
Messages
6,046
Reaction score
1,924
I think it needs to stay. Black Irish is right, with our current system candidates have no motivation to make trips to a huge list of states. Switching to a popular vote however doesn't fix this problem, it probably worsens it significantly. Instead of candidates only visiting a portion of important states they will only be visiting a handful of important CITIES.

I had this discussion with someone else so im just going to quote my reply on this subject.


Flip that argument on its head. Is it really better that neither candidate spent that much time in like 40 states because they were foregone conclusions? Republicans would have to spend more time worrying about the coastal states if we did one person one vote. And Dems would have to spend more time in the south and the Midwest. Might help us get out of this polarizing funk we're in.
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Scrap the electoral college, ban political parties, and go with the popular vote. However, precede the general election with a single primary utilizing a preference style vote where you can mark the candidates as your 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice. Votes are weighted with 1st choice receiving three points, 2nd choice two points, and 3rd choice 1 point. The two candidates receiving the most preferential points will oppose each other in the general election. The general election ballot will include an option to vote for none of the above. If the "none of the above" option receives the most votes, the election will be re-held with the two general election candidates ineligible to run again. If this option had been offered this election cycle, I believe we would be holding a new election with neither Trump nor Clinton as candidates. Voters could have indicated their dis-satisfaction and frustration with a "none of the above" vote.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,995
Scrap the electoral college, ban political parties, and go with the popular vote. However, precede the general election with a single primary utilizing a preference style vote where you can mark the candidates as your 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice. Votes are weighted with 1st choice receiving three points, 2nd choice two points, and 3rd choice 1 point. The two candidates receiving the most preferential points will oppose each other in the general election. The general election ballot will include an option to vote for none of the above. If the "none of the above" option receives the most votes, the election will be re-held with the two general election candidates ineligible to run again. If this option had been offered this election cycle, I believe we would be holding a new election with neither Trump nor Clinton as candidates. Voters could have indicated their dis-satisfaction and frustration with a "none of the above" vote.

I actually LOVE your idea until we get to the bolded. The problem here is that if you had to have contingency for an indefinite amount of election days it becomes logistically impossible. So I don't think we could implement this aspect.

Any sort of single-primary preferential voting system or plurality runoff would work wonders for fixing our political system. For starters, instead of "team politics" the odds are good that whoever is elected will have been ranked somewhere on most people's ballots and engender much more good will and support instead of immediate and staunch resistance from whoever the "opposition party" is.
 

Domina Nostra

Well-known member
Messages
6,251
Reaction score
1,388
The country would never have been formed without the electoral college:

"I've got a great business idea! We need $10M capital to start. You put in your $4.9M, I'll put in my $5.1M. I'll take 51% of the stock, you take 49%. If we disagree, we'll just take a vote. Majority wins, fair and square!"

The whole issue is, how do you bring things of unequal size with disparate interests together into a single union. The electoral college was the solution people a lot smarter than us came up with. The alternative was no union at all.

To give up the electoral college would make us like France. Basically the country is a gian suburb of Paris. I have no desire to let New York and California steer the country on every issue.
 
Last edited:

Booslum31

New member
Messages
5,687
Reaction score
187
The country would never have been formed without the electoral college:

"I've got a great business idea! We need $10M capital to start. You put in your $4.9M, I'll put in my $5.1M. I'll take 51% of the stock, you take 49%. If we disagree, we'll just take a vote. Majority wins, fair and square!"

The whole issue is, how do you bring things of unequal size with disparate interests together into a single union. The electoral college was the solution people a lot smarter than us came up with. The alternative was no union at all.

To give up the electoral college would make us like France. Basically the country is a gian suburb of Paris. I have no desire to let New York and California steer the country on every issue.

Totally agree!
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,408
Reaction score
5,824
To give up the electoral college would make us like France. Basically the country is a gian suburb of Paris. I have no desire to let New York and California steer the country on every issue.

Or like those poor bastards in the blue state of Ill-Annoy.

ILgov2010.jpg
 

Shamrock Theories

New member
Messages
811
Reaction score
42
The country would never have been formed without the electoral college:

"I've got a great business idea! We need $10M capital to start. You put in your $4.9M, I'll put in my $5.1M. I'll take 51% of the stock, you take 49%. If we disagree, we'll just take a vote. Majority wins, fair and square!"

The whole issue is, how do you bring things of unequal size with disparate interests together into a single union. The electoral college was the solution people a lot smarter than us came up with. The alternative was no union at all.

To give up the electoral college would make us like France. Basically the country is a gian suburb of Paris. I have no desire to let New York and California steer the country on every issue.

I was wondering how "Off" the electoral vote distribution was, versus actual population. Just some food for thought.

California: 55 out of 538 electoral votes = 10.2%
California: 37 million out of 308 million = 12.0%

Similarly:

Texas: 8% population, 7% electoral votes

NY: 6.2% population, 5.4% electoral votes

So, it's significant.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,008
I was wondering how "Off" the electoral vote distribution was, versus actual population. Just some food for thought.

California: 55 out of 538 electoral votes = 10.2%
California: 37 million out of 308 million = 12.0%

Similarly:

Texas: 8% population, 7% electoral votes

NY: 6.2% population, 5.4% electoral votes

So, it's significant.

Is that a bad thing?
 

NDShark

Well-known member
Messages
1,343
Reaction score
563
It equalizes it. Right now small states like Connecticut or Wyoming have a disproportionately large input by the "+2" electoral votes assigned to them as a baseline.

Why is someone in Ohio more valuable than someone in Texas? Shouldn't the principle of one man one vote be carried out in an absolutely equal way?

Agreed, why the hell isn't this chart a flat line? That makes no sense to me. Tried to embed the one from Wiki, but it wouldn't work.

main-qimg-b5d713363114dde3435a59c77b7dbe07


Hate to break it to him, but the voter's paradox tells you his individual decision to vote/not vote doesn't matter regardless of where he lives. Anyone who is basing their decision to go to the polls on their individual vote "mattering" doesn't get it. That should never, ever be a factor in one's decision to vote or abstain.

Agreed -- that is lazy and un-American imo.
 

Prof K

Catholic angel
Messages
169
Reaction score
31
I believe strongly in the electoral college. It forces candidates to address the needs and interests of diverse groups across the country. Instead of winning a majority, and risking a tyranny of the majority, it empowers relatively small groups because of their geographic prevalence. Thus a national candidate with the electoral college has to win dairy farmers in Wisconsion, LDS followers in Utah, Hispanics in Arizona, etc... The candidates must build a coalition of minorities rather than just appealing to a half dozen major urban centers. It is one of the final bulwarks of our federal system.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,705
Reaction score
6,008
I believe strongly in the electoral college. It forces candidates to address the needs and interests of diverse groups across the country. Instead of winning a majority, and risking a tyranny of the majority, it empowers relatively small groups because of their geographic prevalence. Thus a national candidate with the electoral college has to win dairy farmers in Wisconsion, LDS followers in Utah, Hispanics in Arizona, etc... The candidates must build a coalition of minorities rather than just appealing to a half dozen major urban centers. It is one of the final bulwarks of our federal system.

This. Plus it gives me and mine more "power." Plus no small state in their right mind will ever give that up so it really is a pointless discussion.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Scrap the electoral college, ban political parties, and go with the popular vote. However, precede the general election with a single primary utilizing a preference style vote where you can mark the candidates as your 1st choice, 2nd choice, and 3rd choice. Votes are weighted with 1st choice receiving three points, 2nd choice two points, and 3rd choice 1 point. The two candidates receiving the most preferential points will oppose each other in the general election. The general election ballot will include an option to vote for none of the above. If the "none of the above" option receives the most votes, the election will be re-held with the two general election candidates ineligible to run again. If this option had been offered this election cycle, I believe we would be holding a new election with neither Trump nor Clinton as candidates. Voters could have indicated their dis-satisfaction and frustration with a "none of the above" vote.
BAN political parties? That's the most fascist thing I've ever heard anyone seriously suggest.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
The country would never have been formed without the electoral college:

"I've got a great business idea! We need $10M capital to start. You put in your $4.9M, I'll put in my $5.1M. I'll take 51% of the stock, you take 49%. If we disagree, we'll just take a vote. Majority wins, fair and square!"

The whole issue is, how do you bring things of unequal size with disparate interests together into a single union. The electoral college was the solution people a lot smarter than us came up with. The alternative was no union at all.

To give up the electoral college would make us like France. Basically the country is a gian suburb of Paris. I have no desire to let New York and California steer the country on every issue.

Once upon a time is no justification for not changing. Taking your business analogy further you have a corporation with a Board of Directors and shareholders. Voting stock has the responsiveness and flexibiltity to represent investors proportionately and current to any vote.

Should those shareholders be grouped geographically, for instance, with the majority in each block determing that group's vote?

Clearly you may disagree with the politics in NY and California, but how isour current system not a tyranny of the minority? Without the EC a candidate, though, they may be in the minority in those states could make up ground and have their voice heard as they joined votes for that candidate throughout the nation. Increase in turnout would be a benefit. Also proportional division of electoral votes would be a reasonable compromise.
 
Last edited:

Irishnuke

CFB Message Board Guy
Messages
8,238
Reaction score
3,950
Bottom line is if your candidate won, this thread wouldn't exist.

California and New York should not decide the vote for the other 48 states.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
I have a family member who did not vote because:
--- neither major party candidate represented his values and viewpoint
--- in his state one candidate was clearly going to win, so it did not matter

Voting democratically means every voter has a stake in the outcome and their votes have equal weight.


Apathy is a terrible thing to waste.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Bottom line is if your candidate won, this thread wouldn't exist.

California and New York should not decide the vote for the other 48 states.

I can see this is what motivates many people who "won". I think we have all been losing no matter who is elected or who will be in the future. Special interests...billions of dollars...disgust with candidates...ten states only matter
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,408
Reaction score
5,824
Bottom line is if your candidate won, this thread wouldn't exist.

California and New York should not decide the vote for the other 48 states.

NO!

That's why the electoral college opposition in 2012 was so high.

wait. no. crap.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Keep as it was designed to keep larger population centers from bullying smaller ones. It also helps protect against vote fraud.
 

ResLife Hero

Well-known member
Messages
6,737
Reaction score
190
This is a bit tangential to the electoral college issue, but why should a vote's weight matter more/less if you're in a population center? Shouldn't all votes be equal?
 

ResLife Hero

Well-known member
Messages
6,737
Reaction score
190
BAN political parties? That's the most fascist thing I've ever heard anyone seriously suggest.

I honestly am not trying to attack, but you just implied George Washington was a fascist.

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

His farewell address goes on into further detail, but our founding father DID NOT want parties in our political structures.

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=15&page=transcript
 
Last edited:
Top