The Electoral College

[LoathedVermin72]

scale of 1 to 10

[Kaius]

I think you've been hitting the Bible too hard, Verm.

[The Argonaut]

scale of 1 to 10

1

[Green Habit]

But the people in CA have different needs and focus areas from the people in FL from the people in North Dakota from the people in Texas.

And people in Bakersfield, Miami, Sioux County-ND, and Austin have different needs from the directions their states went in the election. Their votes meant jack shit in the Electoral College, but would be meaningful in a national popular vote.

but the EC doesn't give those smaller states a more equitable say in the election. It gives them an outsized say in comparison to their coastal counterparts.

Again, it doesn't even work this way. No one campaigned in Wyoming or Vermont, just as they didn't campaign in California or Texas, because the outcomes of those states, small and large, were never in doubt. The Electoral College encourages excessive campaigning in the swing states, regardless of how big or small they are.

I think the question I'm always curious about when considering support for the EC is the question of if there is a number that is just too high. Clinton won the popular vote by close to 3 million. The trends that allowed this to occur (liberals tending to move to urban areas, more sparsely populated swing states get redder, etc.) are likely only going to increase. It's not inconceivable that in the future we could see wider gaps, and it seems to only be to the detriment of one party. Is something like 5 million too much, for example?

If just a handful of Ohio votes had shifted towards Kerry in 2004, he would have won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. It's going to take it happening to both sides to get a change made.

[simple schoolboy]

But the people in CA have different needs and focus areas from the people in FL from the people in North Dakota from the people in Texas.

And people in Bakersfield, Miami, Sioux County-ND, and Austin have different needs from the directions their states went in the election. Their votes meant jack shit in the Electoral College, but would be meaningful in a national popular vote.

but the EC doesn't give those smaller states a more equitable say in the election. It gives them an outsized say in comparison to their coastal counterparts.

Again, it doesn't even work this way. No one campaigned in Wyoming or Vermont, just as they didn't campaign in California or Texas, because the outcomes of those states, small and large, were never in doubt. The Electoral College encourages excessive campaigning in the swing states, regardless of how big or small they are.

I think the question I'm always curious about when considering support for the EC is the question of if there is a number that is just too high. Clinton won the popular vote by close to 3 million. The trends that allowed this to occur (liberals tending to move to urban areas, more sparsely populated swing states get redder, etc.) are likely only going to increase. It's not inconceivable that in the future we could see wider gaps, and it seems to only be to the detriment of one party. Is something like 5 million too much, for example?

If just a handful of Ohio votes had shifted towards Kerry in 2004, he would have won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. It's going to take it happening to both sides to get a change made.

Then call a constitutional convention and agitate for a parliamentary system, which you seem to prefer. Unless you have a more elegant solution. GH always has an ace up his sleeve.

[Green Habit]

Then call a constitutional convention and agitate for a parliamentary system, which you seem to prefer. Unless you have a more elegant solution. GH always has an ace up his sleeve.

I don't know whether or not I'd prefer a parliamentary system. Lefties nowadays seem to be agitating for it because it allows governments to "get more done", though they often forget that it allows right wing governments to get more done, as well. There's something to be said for the checks and balances of the American system that holds back the excesses of both major parties, hence why I've long voted for gridlock.

If you're looking for states to have some kind of dedicated power, there's still the Senate, of which provides much more of that power than the Electoral College does since the EC at least does give the bigger states more votes. Abolishing the EC or gutting it as I described in the first page still leave the Senate intact.

[simple schoolboy]

Then call a constitutional convention and agitate for a parliamentary system, which you seem to prefer. Unless you have a more elegant solution. GH always has an ace up his sleeve.

I don't know whether or not I'd prefer a parliamentary system. Lefties nowadays seem to be agitating for it because it allows governments to "get more done", though they often forget that it allows right wing governments to get more done, as well. There's something to be said for the checks and balances of the American system that holds back the excesses of both major parties, hence why I've long voted for gridlock.

If you're looking for states to have some kind of dedicated power, there's still the Senate, of which provides much more of that power than the Electoral College does since the EC at least does give the bigger states more votes. Abolishing the EC or gutting it as I described in the first page still leave the Senate intact.

I would definitely be on board with the end of the EC if there were meaningful limits to Federal power. As it stands, the 10th Amendment is meaningless.

[Green Habit]

How 13 Rejected States Would Have Changed The Electoral College