Should we reform the Electoral College?

[DS0816]

We all know that the EC is unfair. It gives cities too much influence, particularly in places like Michigan, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. Personally, I want to see it completely overhauled. The question is how. Congressional Districts? Direct popular vote instead? What do you think?

Did you think and/or feel the Electoral College was unfair with the results of Election 2000, when George W. Bush, as the Republican pickup winner of that year, did not shift the 1996/2000 far enough to win over the U.S. Popular Vote but did manage to flip enough states to win over the Electoral College?


 

[Never]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

This is actually one of the most reasonable reforms to 1. protect rural interests in presidential elections and 2. protect urban interests in the senate.  It would actually hurt Democrats in the electoral college most likely, but it might make the senate of all things very hard for R's to win.  There are currently 30 cities (excluding DC) with a larger population than Wyoming, the smallest of which being Las Vegas.  If we made each of them new states, 26 of them would reflexively vote Democratic for everything, the only exceptions being Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and possibly Fort Worth and Houston.

In the electoral college, this probably helps Republicans.  For example, after removing LA, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, the remainder of CA would still contain about 30 million people and most of the EVs.  It might be a swing state.  The remainder of IL, PA, WA, OR, MI and OH would clearly flip to R's.  However, the cities now having senator EVs of their own would offset this somewhat.

If we added these 30 new states, that would give 52 new Democratic senators, 4 new Republican senators (OKC and Jacksonville) and let's say a 1-1 split in Ft. Worth and Houston which might be generous to R's.  Now, Republicans would pick up about 15 new senate seats in existing states once the cities were removed, but that would still be a Senate in the neighborhood of a 95D/65R...

I'm kinda proud of the idea even if it's not going to happen. The current Senate system screws over urban populations, as well as groups that disproportionately live in Urban areas.

But you noted the obvious harm to Republicans. There are also would be a point where the Senate gets too big. And cities would have massive incentives to grow populations , at least pn paper, enough to qualify for representation (although there is a fairly major cutoff from Vegas to Albuquerque.) Minneapolis and St Paul would have an argument for a representative for the Twin Cities.

There are ways to avoid some of the problems, including limiting Senate representation to the an arbitrary number of popular cities (IE- ten most populous cities, or nine most populous cities plus DC.)

There might be a few more new swing states than you suggest. Indianapolis and San Diego have Republican mayors, although that's pretty much it. Though Arizona without Phoenix, and Pennsylvania without Philadelphia would be different electorates.

It does seem like a good idea to consider city-states. The cities would be able to have a say in elections, and the suburban/rural voters would not feel marginalized. It might be even better if the big cities like New York/Los Angeles/etc become self-governing, making the Mayor something along the lines of a Governor, Senators (like you mentioned), and U.S. Representatives for the city-states based on the congressional districts that already exist. Then there wouldn't be that many constitutional or logistical issues with the states splitting up their electoral college votes. The city-states would likely favor the Democrats, but I am sure that the Republicans would peel off some new Senators somehow from the new states that are more rural.

I am not sure of the precise details, but I believe that Germany has three self-governing city-states, and that the capital city of Berlin is one of them. I do not have a complete understanding of how they operate, but it might be a good thing to replicate that in America.

In short, I think that it would be a great idea to reform the Electoral College based on the proposals in this thread. However, I think a direct popular vote would be a lot simpler. If no candidate ended up with at least 50% of the vote, then there could be a runoff on the first Tuesday in December between the two highest vote recipients. That would always insure that the incoming President had majority support from the American people. Some states do Senate runoffs along these lines, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for a presidential election, as the runoff provision could be added to the necessary constitutional amendment for bringing about a national popular vote.

[International Brotherhood of Bernard]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

This is actually one of the most reasonable reforms to 1. protect rural interests in presidential elections and 2. protect urban interests in the senate.  It would actually hurt Democrats in the electoral college most likely, but it might make the senate of all things very hard for R's to win.  There are currently 30 cities (excluding DC) with a larger population than Wyoming, the smallest of which being Las Vegas.  If we made each of them new states, 26 of them would reflexively vote Democratic for everything, the only exceptions being Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and possibly Fort Worth and Houston.

In the electoral college, this probably helps Republicans.  For example, after removing LA, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, the remainder of CA would still contain about 30 million people and most of the EVs.  It might be a swing state.  The remainder of IL, PA, WA, OR, MI and OH would clearly flip to R's.  However, the cities now having senator EVs of their own would offset this somewhat.

If we added these 30 new states, that would give 52 new Democratic senators, 4 new Republican senators (OKC and Jacksonville) and let's say a 1-1 split in Ft. Worth and Houston which might be generous to R's.  Now, Republicans would pick up about 15 new senate seats in existing states once the cities were removed, but that would still be a Senate in the neighborhood of a 95D/65R...

I'm kinda proud of the idea even if it's not going to happen. The current Senate system screws over urban populations, as well as groups that disproportionately live in Urban areas.

But you noted the obvious harm to Republicans. There are also would be a point where the Senate gets too big. And cities would have massive incentives to grow populations , at least pn paper, enough to qualify for representation (although there is a fairly major cutoff from Vegas to Albuquerque.) Minneapolis and St Paul would have an argument for a representative for the Twin Cities.

There are ways to avoid some of the problems, including limiting Senate representation to the an arbitrary number of popular cities (IE- ten most populous cities, or nine most populous cities plus DC.)

There might be a few more new swing states than you suggest. Indianapolis and San Diego have Republican mayors, although that's pretty much it. Though Arizona without Phoenix, and Pennsylvania without Philadelphia would be different electorates.

It does seem like a good idea to consider city-states. The cities would be able to have a say in elections, and the suburban/rural voters would not feel marginalized. It might be even better if the big cities like New York/Los Angeles/etc become self-governing, making the Mayor something along the lines of a Governor, Senators (like you mentioned), and U.S. Representatives for the city-states based on the congressional districts that already exist. Then there wouldn't be that many constitutional or logistical issues with the states splitting up their electoral college votes. The city-states would likely favor the Democrats, but I am sure that the Republicans would peel off some new Senators somehow from the new states that are more rural.

I am not sure of the precise details, but I believe that Germany has three self-governing city-states, and that the capital city of Berlin is one of them. I do not have a complete understanding of how they operate, but it might be a good thing to replicate that in America.

In short, I think that it would be a great idea to reform the Electoral College based on the proposals in this thread. However, I think a direct popular vote would be a lot simpler. If no candidate ended up with at least 50% of the vote, then there could be a runoff on the first Tuesday in December between the two highest vote recipients. That would always insure that the incoming President had majority support from the American people. Some states do Senate runoffs along these lines, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for a presidential election, as the runoff provision could be added to the necessary constitutional amendment for bringing about a national popular vote.

A two-round system would be terrible, as if there was a second round it would be almost certain that the Republican would win. It's hard enough getting the Democratic base out just once, let alone again a month later.

[Skill and Chance]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

This is actually one of the most reasonable reforms to 1. protect rural interests in presidential elections and 2. protect urban interests in the senate.  It would actually hurt Democrats in the electoral college most likely, but it might make the senate of all things very hard for R's to win.  There are currently 30 cities (excluding DC) with a larger population than Wyoming, the smallest of which being Las Vegas.  If we made each of them new states, 26 of them would reflexively vote Democratic for everything, the only exceptions being Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and possibly Fort Worth and Houston.

In the electoral college, this probably helps Republicans.  For example, after removing LA, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, the remainder of CA would still contain about 30 million people and most of the EVs.  It might be a swing state.  The remainder of IL, PA, WA, OR, MI and OH would clearly flip to R's.  However, the cities now having senator EVs of their own would offset this somewhat.

If we added these 30 new states, that would give 52 new Democratic senators, 4 new Republican senators (OKC and Jacksonville) and let's say a 1-1 split in Ft. Worth and Houston which might be generous to R's.  Now, Republicans would pick up about 15 new senate seats in existing states once the cities were removed, but that would still be a Senate in the neighborhood of a 95D/65R...

I'm kinda proud of the idea even if it's not going to happen. The current Senate system screws over urban populations, as well as groups that disproportionately live in Urban areas.

But you noted the obvious harm to Republicans. There are also would be a point where the Senate gets too big. And cities would have massive incentives to grow populations , at least pn paper, enough to qualify for representation (although there is a fairly major cutoff from Vegas to Albuquerque.) Minneapolis and St Paul would have an argument for a representative for the Twin Cities.

There are ways to avoid some of the problems, including limiting Senate representation to the an arbitrary number of popular cities (IE- ten most populous cities, or nine most populous cities plus DC.)

There might be a few more new swing states than you suggest. Indianapolis and San Diego have Republican mayors, although that's pretty much it. Though Arizona without Phoenix, and Pennsylvania without Philadelphia would be different electorates.

It does seem like a good idea to consider city-states. The cities would be able to have a say in elections, and the suburban/rural voters would not feel marginalized. It might be even better if the big cities like New York/Los Angeles/etc become self-governing, making the Mayor something along the lines of a Governor, Senators (like you mentioned), and U.S. Representatives for the city-states based on the congressional districts that already exist. Then there wouldn't be that many constitutional or logistical issues with the states splitting up their electoral college votes. The city-states would likely favor the Democrats, but I am sure that the Republicans would peel off some new Senators somehow from the new states that are more rural.

I am not sure of the precise details, but I believe that Germany has three self-governing city-states, and that the capital city of Berlin is one of them. I do not have a complete understanding of how they operate, but it might be a good thing to replicate that in America.

In short, I think that it would be a great idea to reform the Electoral College based on the proposals in this thread. However, I think a direct popular vote would be a lot simpler. If no candidate ended up with at least 50% of the vote, then there could be a runoff on the first Tuesday in December between the two highest vote recipients. That would always insure that the incoming President had majority support from the American people. Some states do Senate runoffs along these lines, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for a presidential election, as the runoff provision could be added to the necessary constitutional amendment for bringing about a national popular vote.

As others have pointed out, any system with a December runoff = Likely R by default.  However, a May national jungle primary and then a November R vs. D one-on-one race could work.

I realized that my city-state calculations are a bit more complicated.  We need to account for some currently safe R states losing EV. I.E. Republicans lose 10 EV off of TX, 2 off of TN and 1 each off of KY, IN, AZ and NC (although NC would be safe R without Charlotte, so it wouldn't be a bad trade).  So it's actually D+117 vs. R+87 in the electoral college.  But if Republicans can regularly get the 46 EV from CA minus its cities they would still come out ahead.

[Never]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

This is actually one of the most reasonable reforms to 1. protect rural interests in presidential elections and 2. protect urban interests in the senate.  It would actually hurt Democrats in the electoral college most likely, but it might make the senate of all things very hard for R's to win.  There are currently 30 cities (excluding DC) with a larger population than Wyoming, the smallest of which being Las Vegas.  If we made each of them new states, 26 of them would reflexively vote Democratic for everything, the only exceptions being Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and possibly Fort Worth and Houston.

In the electoral college, this probably helps Republicans.  For example, after removing LA, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, the remainder of CA would still contain about 30 million people and most of the EVs.  It might be a swing state.  The remainder of IL, PA, WA, OR, MI and OH would clearly flip to R's.  However, the cities now having senator EVs of their own would offset this somewhat.

If we added these 30 new states, that would give 52 new Democratic senators, 4 new Republican senators (OKC and Jacksonville) and let's say a 1-1 split in Ft. Worth and Houston which might be generous to R's.  Now, Republicans would pick up about 15 new senate seats in existing states once the cities were removed, but that would still be a Senate in the neighborhood of a 95D/65R...

I'm kinda proud of the idea even if it's not going to happen. The current Senate system screws over urban populations, as well as groups that disproportionately live in Urban areas.

But you noted the obvious harm to Republicans. There are also would be a point where the Senate gets too big. And cities would have massive incentives to grow populations , at least pn paper, enough to qualify for representation (although there is a fairly major cutoff from Vegas to Albuquerque.) Minneapolis and St Paul would have an argument for a representative for the Twin Cities.

There are ways to avoid some of the problems, including limiting Senate representation to the an arbitrary number of popular cities (IE- ten most populous cities, or nine most populous cities plus DC.)

There might be a few more new swing states than you suggest. Indianapolis and San Diego have Republican mayors, although that's pretty much it. Though Arizona without Phoenix, and Pennsylvania without Philadelphia would be different electorates.

It does seem like a good idea to consider city-states. The cities would be able to have a say in elections, and the suburban/rural voters would not feel marginalized. It might be even better if the big cities like New York/Los Angeles/etc become self-governing, making the Mayor something along the lines of a Governor, Senators (like you mentioned), and U.S. Representatives for the city-states based on the congressional districts that already exist. Then there wouldn't be that many constitutional or logistical issues with the states splitting up their electoral college votes. The city-states would likely favor the Democrats, but I am sure that the Republicans would peel off some new Senators somehow from the new states that are more rural.

I am not sure of the precise details, but I believe that Germany has three self-governing city-states, and that the capital city of Berlin is one of them. I do not have a complete understanding of how they operate, but it might be a good thing to replicate that in America.

In short, I think that it would be a great idea to reform the Electoral College based on the proposals in this thread. However, I think a direct popular vote would be a lot simpler. If no candidate ended up with at least 50% of the vote, then there could be a runoff on the first Tuesday in December between the two highest vote recipients. That would always insure that the incoming President had majority support from the American people. Some states do Senate runoffs along these lines, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for a presidential election, as the runoff provision could be added to the necessary constitutional amendment for bringing about a national popular vote.

As others have pointed out, any system with a December runoff = Likely R by default.  However, a May national jungle primary and then a November R vs. D one-on-one race could work.

I realized that my city-state calculations are a bit more complicated.  We need to account for some currently safe R states losing EV. I.E. Republicans lose 10 EV off of TX, 2 off of TN and 1 each off of KY, IN, AZ and NC (although NC would be safe R without Charlotte, so it wouldn't be a bad trade).  So it's actually D+117 vs. R+87 in the electoral college.  But if Republicans can regularly get the 46 EV from CA minus its cities they would still come out ahead.

Well, if America had the December runoff in the past, the most recent election in which it would have been necessary is 2000. Bush might have won, but without Nader in the runoff, Gore probably would have had  a fair chance at winning.  In 1992/1996, I think that Clinton would have defeated Bush 41/Dole head to head, although it could have been a close race in 1992. I don't think that a runoff would immediately be Likely R, because I think that people are still going to turn out for a presidential election regardless of the circumstances. In my opinion, there would be enough focus on a runoff from the media and the nation in general that people would still vote.

For example, in France's most recent election, Nicolas Sarkosy was on the right of the political spectrum, while current President Francois Hollande was on the left. Because of far-right Marine Le Pen, the election went to a runoff, and Hollande won. I recognize that France is not like America politically, but I just used that example to show that Democrats in the United States probably would not have a drop in turnout unless the Republcans did.

I am sure that there would be several city-states that would change the political calculus, but the fact that CA would end up competitive and that Texas' cities would go Democratic would bring plenty of support from both sides of the aisle, as election results would better reflect the will of the people.

[Skill and Chance]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

This is actually one of the most reasonable reforms to 1. protect rural interests in presidential elections and 2. protect urban interests in the senate.  It would actually hurt Democrats in the electoral college most likely, but it might make the senate of all things very hard for R's to win.  There are currently 30 cities (excluding DC) with a larger population than Wyoming, the smallest of which being Las Vegas.  If we made each of them new states, 26 of them would reflexively vote Democratic for everything, the only exceptions being Oklahoma City, Jacksonville, and possibly Fort Worth and Houston.

In the electoral college, this probably helps Republicans.  For example, after removing LA, San Diego, San Francisco and San Jose, the remainder of CA would still contain about 30 million people and most of the EVs.  It might be a swing state.  The remainder of IL, PA, WA, OR, MI and OH would clearly flip to R's.  However, the cities now having senator EVs of their own would offset this somewhat.

If we added these 30 new states, that would give 52 new Democratic senators, 4 new Republican senators (OKC and Jacksonville) and let's say a 1-1 split in Ft. Worth and Houston which might be generous to R's.  Now, Republicans would pick up about 15 new senate seats in existing states once the cities were removed, but that would still be a Senate in the neighborhood of a 95D/65R...

I'm kinda proud of the idea even if it's not going to happen. The current Senate system screws over urban populations, as well as groups that disproportionately live in Urban areas.

But you noted the obvious harm to Republicans. There are also would be a point where the Senate gets too big. And cities would have massive incentives to grow populations , at least pn paper, enough to qualify for representation (although there is a fairly major cutoff from Vegas to Albuquerque.) Minneapolis and St Paul would have an argument for a representative for the Twin Cities.

There are ways to avoid some of the problems, including limiting Senate representation to the an arbitrary number of popular cities (IE- ten most populous cities, or nine most populous cities plus DC.)

There might be a few more new swing states than you suggest. Indianapolis and San Diego have Republican mayors, although that's pretty much it. Though Arizona without Phoenix, and Pennsylvania without Philadelphia would be different electorates.

It does seem like a good idea to consider city-states. The cities would be able to have a say in elections, and the suburban/rural voters would not feel marginalized. It might be even better if the big cities like New York/Los Angeles/etc become self-governing, making the Mayor something along the lines of a Governor, Senators (like you mentioned), and U.S. Representatives for the city-states based on the congressional districts that already exist. Then there wouldn't be that many constitutional or logistical issues with the states splitting up their electoral college votes. The city-states would likely favor the Democrats, but I am sure that the Republicans would peel off some new Senators somehow from the new states that are more rural.

I am not sure of the precise details, but I believe that Germany has three self-governing city-states, and that the capital city of Berlin is one of them. I do not have a complete understanding of how they operate, but it might be a good thing to replicate that in America.

In short, I think that it would be a great idea to reform the Electoral College based on the proposals in this thread. However, I think a direct popular vote would be a lot simpler. If no candidate ended up with at least 50% of the vote, then there could be a runoff on the first Tuesday in December between the two highest vote recipients. That would always insure that the incoming President had majority support from the American people. Some states do Senate runoffs along these lines, so I don't see why it wouldn't work for a presidential election, as the runoff provision could be added to the necessary constitutional amendment for bringing about a national popular vote.

As others have pointed out, any system with a December runoff = Likely R by default.  However, a May national jungle primary and then a November R vs. D one-on-one race could work.

I realized that my city-state calculations are a bit more complicated.  We need to account for some currently safe R states losing EV. I.E. Republicans lose 10 EV off of TX, 2 off of TN and 1 each off of KY, IN, AZ and NC (although NC would be safe R without Charlotte, so it wouldn't be a bad trade).  So it's actually D+117 vs. R+87 in the electoral college.  But if Republicans can regularly get the 46 EV from CA minus its cities they would still come out ahead.

Well, if America had the December runoff in the past, the most recent election in which it would have been necessary is 2000. Bush might have won, but without Nader in the runoff, Gore probably would have had  a fair chance at winning.  In 1992/1996, I think that Clinton would have defeated Bush 41/Dole head to head, although it could have been a close race in 1992. I don't think that a runoff would immediately be Likely R, because I think that people are still going to turn out for a presidential election regardless of the circumstances. In my opinion, there would be enough focus on a runoff from the media and the nation in general that people would still vote.

For example, in France's most recent election, Nicolas Sarkosy was on the right of the political spectrum, while current President Francois Hollande was on the left. Because of far-right Marine Le Pen, the election went to a runoff, and Hollande won. I recognize that France is not like America politically, but I just used that example to show that Democrats in the United States probably would not have a drop in turnout unless the Republcans did.

I am sure that there would be several city-states that would change the political calculus, but the fact that CA would end up competitive and that Texas' cities would go Democratic would bring plenty of support from both sides of the aisle, as election results would better reflect the will of the people.

I'm still not sure city-states or NPV are better than EV proportionality, though.  City-states would produce many more "safe" entities than today on the electoral map.  And the proliferation of 3 and 4 EV states would skew the Senate much more than today.  With NPV you have the runoff issue and the likelihood that the entire Dem campaign becomes about getting MN level turnout in NYC/LA/Chicago.  In a proportional system, Republicans in San Francisco and Democrats on the rural Plains would actually get some attention because losing those areas 70/30 would be materially better than losing them 80/20.

[Free Bird]

Big cities should be treated as "city-states" during presidential elections. This would make things fair for non-city folk in states like California and Pennsylvania, where rural people have no say.

There's an argument for giving cities with a big enough population (let's say one in excess of the least populated state) more representation, including Senators. That would also include some electoral college benefits.

Though it would probably end up favoring Democrats.

Why not keep the EC, but allocating the votes with the popular vote in the states?

Examples: Wyoming  GOP 64%; DEM 32% --> GOP 2 EV; DEM 1 EV

Might even make third party votes more interresting.

That could make it tougher to find out who won the presidential election, and by how much.

Right now, it's enough to know that a state was won. But now we'd have to wait for the full results to determine how many EVs a candidate won.

I'm saying pull a DC and give them their own electorals, not Senators