Do Democrats need to stop whining about the electoral college?

[SN2903]

It's never going to be overturned, either adapt your message and platform or find yourself going the way of the Whigs. It is that simple. No one cared about this when Obama was winning in 08 and 12.

[Podgy the Bear]

I would agree.  It's not going to happen.

[SingingAnalyst]

A tough call, but I voted No. I agree that it probably won't be abolished.

Fact: Libertarians and Greens called for abolishing the EC long before most Dems did.

Fact: In 1976, 81% of Republicans (!), 79% of Independents, and 68% of Democrats (and just 57% of Southern Democrats) said they favored abolishing the EC in favor of direct PV.

[°Leprechaun]

I voted no, because if someone wants to whine that is their constitutional right.

I don't agree with the ec, but I personally can find better reasons to whine, and if I want to whine I will whine, even if I drink a lot of wine and get plastered out of my mind.

Whine on people, whine on.

Republicans on the other hand whine too much, because that is their nature.

[kohler]

The National Popular Vote bill is 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
      
It requires enacting states with 270 electoral votes to award their electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.
         
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

[kohler]

“ Let’s quit pretending there is some great benefit to the national good that allows the person with [fewer] votes to win the White House. Republicans have long said that they believe in competition. Let both parties compete for votes across the nation and stop disenfranchising voters by geography. The winner should win.” – Stuart Stevens (Republican)
         
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
   
When asked the simple question “Do you think the person who wins the most votes nationwide should become the president?” 74% of all Americans surveyed say yes.
   
Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate.  Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose.  It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
      
The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
         
Since 2006, the bill has passed 40 state legislative chambers in 24 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 271 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes – 73% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.
      
When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
            

[brucejoel99]

I disagree with the consensus & do think that there's a very good chance that the EC will be abolished via circumvention in the (relatively) near future.

It's only a matter of time until Texas is at least a much stronger concern for Republicans, if not an outright loss in the EC. As soon as that happens, & even if the Rust Belt continues to trend (non-Atlas) red, Republicans could very well have no path to victory. Their sentiment towards the EC will immediately sour, & GOP states will be quick to sign on to the NPVIC.

[538Electoral]

Whether one likes the Electoral College or not, Removing it would not be constitutional.

[brucejoel99]

Whether one likes the Electoral College or not, Removing it would not be constitutional.

I mean, this is just patently false (unless you think that a constitutional amendment &/or states exercising the power that they're entitled by Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution to wield is unconstitutional, in which case, you would be wrong).

[kohler]

Whether one likes the Electoral College or not, Removing it would not be constitutional.

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.   It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

[brucejoel99]

It's never going to be overturned, either adapt your message and platform or find yourself going the way of the Whigs.

Lol.

It is that simple.

It's really not, though.

No one cared about this when Obama was winning in 08 and 12.

So? Obama actually won the PV, both times, & handily so. People care when the PV loser wins the EC.

[Rookie Yinzer]

No.

But in the event that it never changes, Democrats need to put in work to build long term generational coalitions in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona to deny Republicans 270.

And get Puerto Rico admitted as a state ASAP!

[libertpaulian]

Expanding the size of the House would go a long way toward ending the Electoral College debate.

[Huey Long is a Republican]

Expanding the size of the House would go a long way toward ending the Electoral College debate.

You can't do that. The 1920s permanent apportionment act made it clear the House was to never exceed 435 seats at all. I don't think people would be interested in removing the bill, considering the chaos it could bring.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's never going to be overturned, either adapt your message and platform or find yourself going the way of the Whigs.

Lol.

It is that simple.

It's really not, though.

No one cared about this when Obama was winning in 08 and 12.

So? Obama actually won the PV, both times, & handily so. People care when the PV loser wins the EC.

Yes, if the situation reversed and Democrats were favored by the electoral college, while being under in terms of the popular vote, Republicans would whine even louder.

[Sir Mohamed]

It's never going to be overturned, either adapt your message and platform or find yourself going the way of the Whigs.

Lol.

It is that simple.

It's really not, though.

No one cared about this when Obama was winning in 08 and 12.

So? Obama actually won the PV, both times, & handily so. People care when the PV loser wins the EC.

Yes, if the situation reversed and Democrats were favored by the electoral college, while being under in terms of the popular vote, Republicans would whine even louder.

I agree. There was some chance W could have lost the EC while winning the PV in 2004. Just switch a few votes in OH. If that happened, there may have been some bipartisan desire to reform or abolish the EC. Looking at how the EC and PV estimates are structured today, I don't think it will happen. 2016 wasn't the last time the GOP won the EC by getting less total votes. A vise versa scenario is hardly possible. As long as this is the case, Dems must find ways to appeal to voters in the Rust and Sun Belts not just to win the EC , also for the sake of the senate.

[catographer]

Only when a Democrat loses the popular vote but gets elected anyway will Republicans realize how pointless, undemocratic, and anachronistic the Electoral College is.

Before then however, I think a sustained campaign to eliminate it could eventually succeed. The most effective, simple, persuasive message is “the people should choose the President,” no caveats or exceptions. Under a system where the President may not be the choice of most people, then the people truly don’t choose the President.

There is also an issue of moral legitimacy of leaders who are elected by popular minorities; how can the people conceptually accept the authority of leaders that they did not mostly vote for?

[Basil]

Expanding the size of the House would go a long way toward ending the Electoral College debate.

Except that there is no House size which causes Hillary to win. Gore, however, does end up winning eventually.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Expanding the size of the House would go a long way toward ending the Electoral College debate.

You can't do that. The 1920s permanent apportionment act made it clear the House was to never exceed 435 seats at all. I don't think people would be interested in removing the bill, considering the chaos it could bring.

Past Congresses can't bind the hands of future Congresses. If they wanted to they could pass a bill doubling the size of the House tomorrow.

[brucejoel99]

Expanding the size of the House would go a long way toward ending the Electoral College debate.

You can't do that. The 1920s permanent apportionment act made it clear the House was to never exceed 435 seats at all. I don't think people would be interested in removing the bill, considering the chaos it could bring.

Past Congresses can't bind the hands of future Congresses. If they wanted to they could pass a bill doubling the size of the House tomorrow.

Correct me if I'm wrong, New Tennessean Politician, but I don't think he was saying that Congress legally can't expand the size of the House (as evidenced by indicating that "removing the bill" is indeed a possibility), just that it'd be so unpopular due to the resultant chaos that it'd just be stupid to do it.

[SteveRogers]

The only way it’s ever going away is if we start having multiple elections back to back where the popular vote winner loses the Electoral vote AND both parties get burned by it in close succession.

[Lord Halifax]

Expanding the size of the House would go a long way toward ending the Electoral College debate.

Except that there is no House size which causes Hillary to win. Gore, however, does end up winning eventually.

How big would the House have to be for Gore to win?

[Adam Griffin]

Majorities in both parties opposed it from roughly Bush's second term until the 2016 election. Only one party changed its mind suddenly on the matter and because it benefited them, so no: Democrats don't need to cease being morally consistent.

6 states is all it takes at this point to render it null and void forever, though.

[Starpaul20]

Expanding the size of the House would go a long way toward ending the Electoral College debate.

Except that there is no House size which causes Hillary to win. Gore, however, does end up winning eventually.

How big would the House have to be for Gore to win?

According to this, 654. Under 492, Bush wins. Between 492 and 654, it fluctuates depending on the number or even ties (notably a Wyoming Rule-sized house would've tied).

[cris01us]

At its heart it is a question of "should they", so to answer the question pointedly. No. So long as the underlying assumption is that the party wants the EC abolished, therefore in that endeavor they should not stop "whining" about it.  By "whining" about it they are bringing, what they feel is, a significant issue and shortfall to light.  If the intent is to circumvent or change it by some covert or clandestine means, then they answer would be "yes".

A question of the effectiveness or merits of the system itself is a separate question and debate, which many mistake for the question at hand here.  But latter question/debate goes back to the founding of the country and the intentions behind the Electoral College system itself.  It cannot or should not be taken lightly, with a myopic or ahistorical view, but rather with a reflection of how a proposed change would play out well into the future and what it would mean for governance as it pertains to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government; and thereby how that change in governance to that one body may or may not effect change to the other bodies of government.  It is a question and debate of the very forms of government and governance, liberty, freedom, individuality, rights, ideals, and protections (at numerous levels; state, person, minority rights, etc.) itself.  It is easily tainted by partisan prospective, recent history, and the contemporary.  A degree of humility and depth, I believe, is required.