Isn't abolishing EC, etc. a Democratic power grab in some voters eyes?

[Crumpets]

If the Electoral College is abolished, the popular vote rules. Doesn't LA and NY get more voice than Kansas City, Dubuque, Little Rock, Omaha, etc. in that?

Will voters just see that it is a potential "Democratic power grab" in their eyes?

Also, what can Republicans do to be the first nominees since the Bushes in 1988 and 2004 to win the popular vote?

Bronz, aren’t you the one who is always saying both parties should contest all 50 states? If the electoral college is abolished, then the votes of conservatives in California and liberals in Texas will matter for the first time in decades, and both candidates will have to go to those states to seek out those votes. It wouldn’t give more power to LA, because geographical units wouldn’t elect presidents anymore. Instead it would give power to people. Voters.

Would a shift to a popular vote benefit democrats in 2020? Probably. But that changes rapidly from election to election. In 2012 the conventional wisdom was seen as exactly the opposite. No party has a guaranteed lock on an advantage in the electoral college in the long run. The electoral college shouldn’t be abolished so democrats can gain power. The electoral college should be abolished because it’s an undemocratic anachronism from a bygone era.

Are Democrats currently the loudest opponents of the electoral college? Of course. They’re the ones who have been the most recent victims of it. If Republicans had won the popular vote but lost the EC in 2016, they would be the ones arguing for a change. It would of course be nice if people remembered to be outraged about the EC in between the elections where it turns out to matter.

For what it’s worth, for exactly this reason I would propose that a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college contain an 8-year time delay so that neither party would be perceived as benefitting from the change.

I just want to underscore this point. For all of the hoohah post-2016 about Hillary not campaigning in Wisconisn, Wisconsin is lucky it got any candidate to campaign there. Excluding multi-thousand-dollar fundraising events and primary rallies, I'm pretty sure the last time a Presidential candidate held a rally in Washington State was 2004. I'm sure in even safer states, it's been even longer. Wyoming is benefitted by the electoral college in that its votes count disproportionatly strongly. But candidates never go to Wyoming to hear folks' concerns, and the state gets none of the benefits of ad revenue or candidates bringing their entourages to eat lunch at small restaurants or anything. Abolishing the electoral college will not only help the political minorities in safe states, it will help the political majorities in safe states. Really the only people the electoral college benefits are the political majority in select swing states that rarely change.

[DrScholl]

Some voters would of course see it that way and it is of course quite beneficial to Democrats. At the same time the current system gives more of a voice to the least populated areas in the country which is the exact same argument that Republicans use to argue against the popular vote. The principle of one person, one vote is fair. The legislative branch is where states receive individual representation to meet their needs.

The California State Senate used to allocate some seats by county and others by grouping together small rural counties. Can you imagine if right now Imperial County had one state senate seat to itself while the entirety of Los Angeles had just one as well? The proportions of that would be absurd.

[Sestak]

NYC and LA/SF currently dominate over the rural parts of their state. Without the EC, they wouldn’t be.

[Nyvin]

The EC is an American tradition and we should preserve it. The founders wanted this so, that small states have some say in who is elected and CA, TX, NY, and FL do not outvote everyone

The framers also wanted slavery, an appointed Senate, and for women to be property with no rights and we got rid of all three.

Those three things are morally wrong. Allowing all 50 states to decide an election, instead of 4 gigantic states (CA, TX, FL, and NY) is morally correct.

The state borders would be irrelevant in a national election.   If it's a national office why does it matter where geographically in the country someone lives?    The President can affect someone in Kansas as much as someone in NYC.   

A vote would be a vote, a person would be a person.   "People" in NYC wouldn't get more of a say than "people" in Kansas.

[Roronoa D. Law]

NYC and LA/SF currently dominate over the rural parts of their state. Without the EC, they wouldn’t be.

It isn't always liberal cities either. Anchorage and the suburbs in MS dominate over their respective states.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dixiecrats used the EC college to underrepresent blacks. The Senate was only elected by state legislatures at the time. Its time to go by popular vote. If the GOP was losing with EC college, they would try to get rid of it. Just like they tried to split CA EC votes with a 30/20 split

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's a Republican power grab to insist on keeping it.

[Suburbia]

Here is the deal:

I think the Electoral College should be phased out, eventually abolished, but that would be difficult. I would like NJ to get attention like it did in '88, '92, even '04.

But the Heartland should be focused on as well as LA/NY/SF/Boston.

GOP needs to expand their appeal and their base. They may be too maxed out with rural, white voters.

The Democrats need to expand with WWC in the Heartland. They need to stop crying whenever someone mentions voter fraud because voter fraud clearly exists, and it always pops up in urban enclaves sometimes.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Here is the deal:

I think the Electoral College should be phased out, eventually abolished, but that would be difficult. I would like NJ to get attention like it did in '88, '92, even '04.

But the Heartland should be focused on as well as LA/NY/SF/Boston.

GOP needs to expand their appeal and their base. They may be too maxed out with rural, white voters.

The Democrats need to expand with WWC in the Heartland. They need to stop crying whenever someone mentions voter fraud because voter fraud clearly exists, and it always pops up in urban enclaves sometimes.

No *clap* it *clap* doesn’t *clap* you *clap* race *clap* baiter *clap*

[DrScholl]

Here is the deal:

I think the Electoral College should be phased out, eventually abolished, but that would be difficult. I would like NJ to get attention like it did in '88, '92, even '04.

But the Heartland should be focused on as well as LA/NY/SF/Boston.

GOP needs to expand their appeal and their base. They may be too maxed out with rural, white voters.

The Democrats need to expand with WWC in the Heartland. They need to stop crying whenever someone mentions voter fraud because voter fraud clearly exists, and it always pops up in urban enclaves sometimes.

The white working class is a shrinking class and Democrats do not need them since they will be a non-factor within a couple of decades. And as far as fraud the biggest case we've had was out of NC-9 and the Republican was stealing Democratic ballots. That aside, you can't you always and sometimes in the same sentence, that makes no sense.

[Suburbia]

Here is the deal:

I think the Electoral College should be phased out, eventually abolished, but that would be difficult. I would like NJ to get attention like it did in '88, '92, even '04.

But the Heartland should be focused on as well as LA/NY/SF/Boston.

GOP needs to expand their appeal and their base. They may be too maxed out with rural, white voters.

The Democrats need to expand with WWC in the Heartland. They need to stop crying whenever someone mentions voter fraud because voter fraud clearly exists, and it always pops up in urban enclaves sometimes.

The white working class is a shrinking class and Democrats do not need them since they will be a non-factor within a couple of decades. And as far as fraud the biggest case we've had was out of NC-9 and the Republican was stealing Democratic ballots. That aside, you can't you always and sometimes in the same sentence, that makes no sense.

So, are you saying that Democrats don't need to campaign in places like Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, etc?

[Suburbia]

Here is the deal:

I think the Electoral College should be phased out, eventually abolished, but that would be difficult. I would like NJ to get attention like it did in '88, '92, even '04.

But the Heartland should be focused on as well as LA/NY/SF/Boston.

GOP needs to expand their appeal and their base. They may be too maxed out with rural, white voters.

The Democrats need to expand with WWC in the Heartland. They need to stop crying whenever someone mentions voter fraud because voter fraud clearly exists, and it always pops up in urban enclaves sometimes.

No *clap* it *clap* doesn’t *clap* you *clap* race *clap* baiter *clap*

Explain this.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/election/article220540115.html

[OSR stands with Israel]

The EC does not benefit small states or big states, it just benefits candidates who have a broader appeal .


In 2012, for example, Romney could have won the PV and still lost because Obama had broader appeal than Romney.

[Badger]

The person with the most votes should win a presidential election.
If that benefits the Democrats, that means they're winning more votes.
If (non-Atlas) Red States have an issue with that, then they have an issue with democracy.

[Badger]

The EC is an American tradition and we should preserve it. The founders wanted this so, that small states have some say in who is elected and CA, TX, NY, and FL do not outvote everyone

The framers also wanted slavery, an appointed Senate, and for women to be property with no rights and we got rid of all three.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The EC is an American tradition and we should preserve it. The founders wanted this so, that small states have some say in who is elected and CA, TX, NY, and FL do not outvote everyone

Actually, the reason for the Electoral College is two-fold.  First, they doubted that even in States with fairly restricted franchises that most voters would be familiar with potential Presidential candidates. (The Founders totally failed in not foreseeing the rise of national political parties.) Second, to deal with that they decided they wanted a legislature to decide who the executive would be, but for separation of powers reasons, they didn't want it to be Congress. The EC is just a special purpose legislature chosen every four years to accomplish one task and they decided to apportion it in the same manner as the Congress, but have it meet together as is often the case when State legislatures elect officials. (In South Carolina, the General Assembly meets in joint sessions when they choose judges and at one time, it did the same to elect the Governor.)

[Del Tachi]

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes. 

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I will never get the argument that it gives more power to the people of LA or NYC. Each vote will count for one, whether they live in the desert or in Manhattan. How does that give more power to someone over someone else?

I would like to see the EC abolished so we can get more third party candidates, but this is what some people fear, that LA and NY may get more clout than middle America.

Okay, that fear is really dumb and thoughtless. I will provide a medium-brain argument because I am sure other people have posted standard galaxy-brain arguments to why this is dumb. NYC makes up less than 50% of New York State and LA makes up only around 10% of California's population. If NYC and LA were really so politically different from the rest of their respective states (let alone the rest of the country) they could easily be overruled by the remainder of their respective states. So obviously they wouldn't exert undue influence over the rest of the

Of course, that argument oversimplifies the relationship between geography and voting patterns. But so do all arguments in favor of the electoral college!Note that it's pretty laughable at face value that LA/NYC and their metro areas can be treated as singular in their political identity just like it is to assert that the rest of their states (or, the "heartland" or whatever people who want to feign interests in rural areas want to call it) are singular in their identities.

There is no intellectually rigorous argument in favor of keeping the EC. I really think that the entirety of arguments made online for the EC are made by people who thought about something for long enough to type it out but not for much longer.

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes.  

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

1. That most certainly was not the Founders's intention. Every feature of government doesn't need some weird mythologizing around its original purpose.

2. By the same token that nationalizing voting procedures would be a de facto Democratic power grab, allowing state governments (which tend to be overrepresented by Republicans) to dictate how a state performs its elections is a de facto Republican power grab. Federalism isn't inherently good or bad. Policies that are implemented are good and bad and giving states the power to, e.g., disenfranchise felons, or enact other corrosive policies in the name of federalism is abusive and ideologically disingenuous.

[Suburbia]

The EC is an American tradition and we should preserve it. The founders wanted this so, that small states have some say in who is elected and CA, TX, NY, and FL do not outvote everyone

The framers also wanted slavery, an appointed Senate, and for women to be property with no rights and we got rid of all three.

Those three things are morally wrong. Allowing all 50 states to decide an election, instead of 4 gigantic states (CA, TX, FL, and NY) is morally correct.

We literally let four states decide the election now: FL, PA, MI, WI

Presidential candidates barnstorming the same states every week in September and October must be really boring.

[The Mikado]

I'd prefer a France-style top two runoff to either flat out popular vote or IRV (two stage runoff gives voters more time to consider the implications of the second round than IRV) but popular vote is still preferable to EV.

[Badger]

It is a Democratic power grab, because a national popular vote would require the Federalization of election/voting procedures, remove state control over the franchise, and preclude state courts from having the ability to fairly resolve electoral disputes.  

The Founders’ wise intention in establishing the electoral college was to build a metaphysical “wall” around each state so election procedures/controversies could have zero impact beyond the affected state.  A national popular vote nessecarily demolishes this wall

First off, it was in no Manner shape or form the Founders intent. Their intent was to elect learned men who would confab to pick a new president, similar to the way State legislatures used to pick senators. It was grossly undemocratic and fell by the wayside almost immediately. Absolutely zilch to do with limiting election contests and controversies to individual states.

Secondly, modern history shows us that there is absolutely zero sense or benefit to having any such election controversies limited to a single state. All that does is allow a single swing State's corrupt apparatus to Poison an election for the other 49 states. Look no further to How Florida handled its recount in 2000 under Catherine Harris, et al.

[Green Line]

https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1108250617909112833

Every single person, black or white, who lives in a state where they voted for the loser has their vote erased.  For some reason I don't think you care about voters in Vermont, Massachusetts, etc. who have their vote "erased".  This is a really dumb tweet.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1108250617909112833

Every single person, black or white, who lives in a state where they voted for the loser has their vote erased.  For some reason I don't think you care about voters in Vermont, Massachusetts, etc. who have their vote "erased".  This is a really dumb tweet.

Exactly, which is why the EC should be abolished.

[Senator Incitatus]

The direct popular vote should be abolished. Return to electors appointed by state legislatures.

[BlueSwan]

The idea that abolishing the EC would mean that candidates would only campaign in big cities is faulty at best.

First up, I'm not sure how it would be fundamentally different from today where candidates focus their entire campaigns around a few crucial swing states.

Second, we are not living in the 19th century anymore. The idea that you have to be able to attend campaign stops with the candidates in person is completely outdated and would never work in as big a country as the US anyway. Campaigns are fought via the media and increasingly online. As such it doesn't really matter if you are in LA or in the middle of nowhere, as long as you have an internet connection and a TV.