IMO, in the unlikely event the Democratic candidate wins the EC but loses the PV

[McGovernForPrez]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Their votes count just as much as everybody else's in their state. The electoral college protects our geographical diversity. I mean look at 2016, Hillary got trounced anywhere that wasn't part of the new economy. She ignored those regions and was punished for it. You can damn well bet politicians won't ignore that region of the country any longer in 2020.

There is no region of the country that should be privileged over others. There ought be no categories of Americans that are better than others.

It doesn't have to do with "regions" being better than others. It's about preventing regional candidates from dominating our politics. Dems in 2016 have proven themselves to be an extremely regional party. The vast base of their support comes from urban and coastal areas. Regional candidates are a problem because they don't represent the best interests of a country equally. Had Hillary won, even though I wanted her to win, we would have continued to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. The 2016 election will force Democrats to acknowledge a message that has wider geographical appeal.

Trump is a regional candidate heading an extremely regional party. He doesn't represent the best interests of the country equally, if at all. And he continues to ignore the growing frustration of vast geographic regions. All of these are even more true of Trump than of Hillary. In my own city, which cast some 300,000 votes, Trump got 4% of the vote. Can you name any region of the country with 300,000 people where Hillary got only 4% of the vote? Go ahead, I dare you.

Yeah Trump isn't as much of a regional candidate as Hillary was. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countymaprb1024.png

From that map, which one would you expect to have more geographically diverse constituents? I'd bet its the one that literally covers the entire country. You can walk coast to coast without stepping foot in a Democratic county.

Your example actually proves my point. Generally if the majority of counties you're winning are by 80+ point margins you're a regional party. Look at the solid south. South Carolina often voted in excess of 96% for the Democratic candidate. Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia often went the same way.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying we should completely ignore popular vote, but there's a balance. The electoral college forces candidates to have a more geographically appealing message and that's valuable.

[SWE]

Because it's not like the electoral college allows candidates to ignore entire geographic regions of the countries in favor of ten states or anything like that.

[Kamala]

The EC is stupid.

Small states already get overrepresented in the senate, and rural areas are usually over represented in the House. At least give the majority population irregardless of how urban an area they live in or how big their state is their own President.

It isn't about making small states overrepresented, it's about protecting geographical interests. If it were simply about representation levels than it's hard to say since of the 10 smallest states both parties took 5 each. It's not even necessarily about the urban vs rural divide either. If a certain geographical region is continuously ignored then it can lead to all sorts of messy legitimacy problems. I think the Electoral college needs some sort of reform, such as a 3 EV PV award, but I don't think we should so callously jump to national popular vote.

But what the hell is a "geographic interest"? Even in the Midwest, Minnesota and Illinois still voted for Clinton. In the West, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado voted one way while Utah, Arizona, Montana, and a Idaho voted the other way. Hell, even in New England, Maine-02 voted the other way. There's no such thing as a uniform regional interest.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The EC is stupid.

Small states already get overrepresented in the senate, and rural areas are usually over represented in the House. At least give the majority population irregardless of how urban an area they live in or how big their state is their own President.

It isn't about making small states overrepresented, it's about protecting geographical interests. If it were simply about representation levels than it's hard to say since of the 10 smallest states both parties took 5 each. It's not even necessarily about the urban vs rural divide either. If a certain geographical region is continuously ignored then it can lead to all sorts of messy legitimacy problems. I think the Electoral college needs some sort of reform, such as a 3 EV PV award, but I don't think we should so callously jump to national popular vote.

There were 30 Trump states vs 20 Clinton states and yet he lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. That's a sh!tty system.

As I've already stated, the structure of both the House and Senate ensure that rural areas and different regions of the country are represented well in our political system. At the very least we (the majority or plurality of voters) should at least be represented in the White House.

[Beet]

I'm not saying geographical diversity is paramount to none but it certainly matters. Tyranny of the majority can be a thing and we need safeguards against it.

Tyranny of the majority? I see no majority. I'm against tyranny of the minority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Electoral College is not a measure of regionality. You can win more Electoral Votes while winning less land, as measured by counties or states. Further, why should any "popular vote award" not be proportional to the size of the win? Hillary won the popular vote by more than five times what Gore won, so she would deserve a bigger reward, under this reasoning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You still haven't shown why a regional, or rather geocratic, form is government is at all meritous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is precisely why we don't do any of those things, and further, I would support a filibuster to make sure the interests of the minority are always given attention. But the Electoral College doesn't protect the interests of political minorities. In most elections it magnifies the majority's win. The Electoral College merely tilts the playing field on completely arbitrary bases.

[Kringla Heimsins]

The EC is the only legitimate way to elect a President atm. But if that happens, the Republicans will be out for blood, and they will call for the immediate abolition of the EC. Their rage would shine with the power of a thousand sun, especially if a single state decide everything by a few hundred votes.

By the way, the Electoral College is an absurd way of electing the Head of State. An absolute majority with universal direct suffrage should be the one and only legitimacy of a Head of State. But that must be the french republican in me speaking...

Edit: I'll add that One can't pretend to wield national sovereignty without the will of the people. And Donald Trump is president despite the will of the people.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Yeah, that won't happen. Not with the direction California's been heading.

I could see it if they just get blown out in Texas and lose Ohio by double digits while winning Illinois and New York by an underwhelming margin but pulling out razor-thin victories in Pennsylvania and Florida through higher turnout in their urban areas.

And even then. probably not given the margins Democrats usually get in California.

[Figueira]

Whaat about the geographical interests of people in Downstate Illinois, or in Austin? The electoral college doesn't give them a voice.

Which is the real reason Trump won by the way. Not because "small states."

[McGovernForPrez]

Whaat about the geographical interests of people in Downstate Illinois, or in Austin? The electoral college doesn't give them a voice.

Which is the real reason Trump won by the way. Not because "small states."

First of all they did get a voice in the way the state awarded it's electoral votes. Some states will over represented urban voters and others will over represent rural and suburban voters. I think Donald Trump's win in the electoral college is large enough that it really isn't fair to blame this on the electoral college. I actually do think the popular vote should be accounted for in the electoral college. In narrow elections like '00 there can be a slight mismatch between popular vote and electoral college vote. In a situation that narrow I think a good idea is to award 3 electoral votes to the popular vote winner. This means in the infamous 268-270 electoral college split, or the 269-269 split, we have a way of determining who should truly win. I think the other thing that would help is adding the Wyoming rule to our house seats. I also think adopting the Wyoming rule would be nice.

[Beet]

Whaat about the geographical interests of people in Downstate Illinois, or in Austin? The electoral college doesn't give them a voice.

Which is the real reason Trump won by the way. Not because "small states."

First of all they did get a voice in the way the state awarded it's electoral votes. Some states will over represented urban voters and others will over represent rural and suburban voters.

First, even if rural representation is what's important, the rational way to do it would be to award a bonus for geographical dispersion. That would be more equitable than the electoral college, which actually makes some rural areas, like upstate New York or rural Kentucky, less important than they otherwise would be.

Second, you still haven't explained why geographic dispersion is by itself important enough to make someone else's vote more important than mine simply because I choose to live in a more densely populated area.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, first of all, your example of 2000 wouldn't apply, because it would result in a 271-269 Bush win, thus changing nothing. Secondly, why 3 electoral votes? And why not take into account the size of the win? If the goal is just to break ties, the smallest odd number would make more sense.

[Skill and Chance]

He/she should take office, but call for abolishing the EC as the first priority of his/her new term.  If the EC screwed opposite sides in two elections in a row, that's the best possible scenario to get a constitutional amendment through.

[Kringla Heimsins]

I really hope one day we'll have a 269/269 split. Think about the drama!

[Figueira]

First of all they did get a voice in the way the state awarded it's electoral votes.

Couldn't this argument just as easily be used in favor of the national popular vote, though? Under that system, people in Ohio "get a voice" in deciding who wins, just like everyone else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

OK?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That sentence makes no sense, and this argument isn't really about Trump anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, it would be better to just have the national popular vote and be done with it.

[Figueira]

Come to think of it, I would be fine with the proposal in the OP if it permanently gets rid of the electoral college. If it just becomes "If there's a difference between the EC and PV, we'll go with the one that benefits the Republicans" then no thanks.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Come to think of it, I would be fine with the proposal in the OP if it permanently gets rid of the electoral college. If it just becomes "If there's a difference between the EC and PV, we'll go with the one that benefits the Republicans" then no thanks.

I agree. If Trump or Pence managed to win the popular vote in 2020 then clearly they're doing something right (beyond either flat out cheating or the Democrats imploding). I still maintain that with the House and Senate, rural areas and small states already have their representation even if the Presidency is determined by the majority of the country in those evil urban areas.

[Rookie Yinzer]

There are 59 states and this is the UNITED STATES. A pure popular vote isn't how it should be done but the EC needs to be reformed to reflect the true vote.

The EC could be proportional, the EC could expand and have more electors and not be distributed by congressional districts and senators but by actual population. If CA has 10 times more people than ME than they have 10 times the electors.

the winner take all system with small states being over represented is flawed and problematic. There also should only be two options for president. I'm uneasy with people being awarded all of s states EC votes with less than 50 percent of the vote. If you're mad because you can't write in Harambe or Chcik E. Chesse then stay your butt home.

[Kringla Heimsins]

There are 59 states and this is the UNITED STATES. A pure popular vote isn't how it should be done but the EC needs to be reformed to reflect the true vote.

The US shouldn't be an actual democracy because of... its name?

Anyway, there is a good way of reflecting the true vote. It's called universal direct suffrage.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Yeah, that won't happen. Not with the direction California's been heading.

I could see it if they just get blown out in Texas and lose Ohio by double digits while winning Illinois and New York by an underwhelming margin but pulling out razor-thin victories in Pennsylvania and Florida through higher turnout in their urban areas.

And even then. probably not given the margins Democrats usually get in California.

In 2012, Obama could have lost the PV by up to about 1 point and won the EC.  Over the long run, the EC probably slightly favors Republicans because of the 2 additional votes to each state that aren't proportional, but 2016 was certainly a major outlier.

[catographer]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

It's absurd that some people's votes count for less because of where they live.

Their votes count just as much as everybody else's in their state. The electoral college protects our geographical diversity. I mean look at 2016, Hillary got trounced anywhere that wasn't part of the new economy. She ignored those regions and was punished for it. You can damn well bet politicians won't ignore that region of the country any longer in 2020.

The electoral college does not protect geographic diversity. The 11 largest states alone have enough electoral votes to pick a President. Both Carter and Kennedy won with fewer states than their opponents. Obama won in 2012 and 2008 with less land area than Romney and McCain. A voter in Wyoming has much more power than a voter in California, because Wyoming is over represented in the EC while California is underrepresented.

So if the electoral college doesn't protect states, nor land area, nor population, then what does it protect? Nobody is fairly represented or protected by the electoral college. It is archaic, illogical, and undemocratic. One person one vote is violated by the EC, because under the EC the votes of some Americans are worth less than the votes of others. The only fair, logical, and democratic system of electing a President is by popular vote. One person equals one vote, all voters are equal, all votes are equal, each state is represented proportionally and accurately (by population, whereas right now some states are represented disproportionately). Geography is irrelevant in choosing a President, because square miles aren't people.

[catographer]

Also Kringla is absolutely right.

This sentence is false, even though it is assumed to be the logic behind all Presidential elections and all democracies:
"Donald Trump won the election, because more people wanted him to become President than anyone else. They endorsed his policies over other candidates, and therefore he has legitimacy and political capital."

In what other democratic country do their leaders not have the support of the people? Name another President in the entire world who was elected without winning the popular vote. Go on, name one. I can't think of any. Not in a single European country, not in Tunisia, not in Russia, not in South Korea and South Africa and all of South America and Israel and the Middle East. Not in Mexico, nor Central America, nor Canada nor UK nor Germany, France, Poland, Romania, nor Turkey.

[catographer]

Popular vote would be the fairest system for both parties, all states, and all regions. Because whoever is most popular, wins!

[Mr. Morden]

In what other democratic country do their leaders not have the support of the people? Name another President in the entire world who was elected without winning the popular vote. Go on, name one. I can't think of any. Not in a single European country, not in Tunisia, not in Russia, not in South Korea and South Africa and all of South America and Israel and the Middle East. Not in Mexico, nor Central America, nor Canada nor UK nor Germany, France, Poland, Romania, nor Turkey.

It doesn't happen in countries that directly elect their presidents.  However, in parliamentary systems, countries that use FPTP like the UK and Canada do in fact sometimes elect one party to a majority or at least a pluarlity in parliament even when another party gets more votes.  E.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951

[Donerail]

I'm uninterested in the electoral college argument here but I really don't understand why Democrats shouldn't give up political power to appease the perception of legitimacy.

[PregnantChad]

If you support the EC, what's your reaction to the following?

- The main argument I see in favor of keeping the EC system as is, is that it punishes candidates who ignore regions, as it did Hillary Clinton last year.  Yet if the state boundaries in those regions were just slightly different, she would have won the EC even without changing a single vote.  If that happened, could one say that she really ignored the region as a whole?

- Maybe this gets more to the winner-take-all way of allocating electoral votes, but an 80,000 vote difference out of 14,000,000 votes cast (~0.5%) across the 3 decisive states wound up mattering more than a nearly 3,000,000 vote, 2% difference overall.    I just don't see a good argument as to why that should be.

- Small states, rural regions, etc. get outsized power in both Houses of Congress, where, at least in theory, the concerns of all citizens are to be debated, deliberated on, compromises reached, etc.  But there can only be one winner of the Presidential election.  It's all or nothing.  The way things are now, roughly half the voters will get no representation within the executive branch.  Why shouldn't that "out of executive branch" group be the group that couldn't even muster a plurality?  (Questionable point, but the reason why 2016 happened is basically the inefficient concentration of Democratic voters -- that are mostly in cities -- that perhaps are more likely to need protection from national security threats, that the executive is more likely to handle than the other branches.)


I realize that my concerns are specific to modern times, where the electorate is highly polarized and there are generally just two major candidates, so maybe there are other scenarios where the EC is best to keep over the long run.  I also realize that there are other hypos that I haven't fully thought through (e.g., a virtual tie in the national popular vote with bizarre vote distributions across states).

Thanks.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

EC is fine IMO. Our country is too geographically and economically diverse to have a simple popular vote.

Finally, someone who supports the EC besides me.

There should be a club for Dems who support the EC. 2016 pretty much exactly proved the point of why the EC was necessary. Cater to only a select geographic region and you get clobbered. Democrats will now remember to focus on a more geographically appealing message.

Trump catered to a select geographic region and he won.

Yeah, that very uniform and small region known as the Plains, Great Lakes, South, half of the Mountain West, and northern Maine.