straightUp Loc: California

So for the fifth time in U.S. history a president has been elected by the unpopular vote, which is to say the electoral college voted against the will of the popular vote (majority of American voters). The first time this happened was in 1824 resulting in the election of a Democratic-Republican, the rest of the unpopular votes all went to Republicans, most recently in 2000 when Bush won the election despite the fact that half a million more Americans actually voted for Gore. In 2016 it happened again, this time by an even wider margin... close to a million more Americans actually voted for Clinton than Trump.

At first glance it seems Trump was right in saying the elections are rigged and there's a pretty strong feeling among the people that it's time to ditch the electoral college. But there was an argument during the Constitutional Convention of 1789 against the popular vote, mostly based on the idea that smaller states would be disadvantaged if that were allowed. Details of the argument can be found in the Federalist Papers No. 39 (James Madison) and No. 68 (Alexander Hamilton).

I personally feel these arguments are outdated. First of all, much of these arguments spring from a context where states had more power and so the equalization between states made more sense. Secondly, representation of the people at the federal level was also stronger and so it made sense to use congressional representation as a basis. But both conditions have changed dramatically. Commerce is increasingly expanding beyond the control of the state, making the state vs state argument less relevant. And as the population continues to grow, federal representation stays at 435 seats... this results in ever decreasing citizen to representative ratios and since population growth is typically higher in regions with already higher populations it's the citizens in those regions that are loosing democratic power the fastest.

For the 2016 election the citizens with the most federal voting power were in Wyoming where it only takes 187,875 voters to equal one electoral vote. The citizens in California, where it takes 677,345 voters to equal on electoral vote, the citizens suffer the least federal voting power. Pair this with the fact that in terms of funding Wyoming takes more from the federal government than it takes while California gives more to the federal government than it takes... Well, the situation becomes even more preposterous.

The American people are already getting tired of political games. Eventually, enough of them are going to figure some of them out, such as the electoral college and it's going to be harder to continue marginalizing the demand for better representation.

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

What Elections Would Look Like WITHOUT Electoral College

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/WithoutElecoralCollege.jpg

The Federalist Papers Project ~ November 19, 2016
Seth Connell reports that as the whining over the results of the Presidential election continues, one Democratic Senator is taking it to a whole new level and is proposing a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

Since Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, the Left is bringing up old arguments that the Electoral College is undemocratic and only a national popular vote is suitable for Presidential elections.

As long as the result is a Democratic President, of course…

As The Hill reported:

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation on Tuesday to get rid of the Electoral College, after Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election despite leading in the popular vote.

“In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote,” Boxer said in a statement. “In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, ‘The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. I couldn’t agree more. One person, one vote!”

She added that Clinton, whom she supported, is “on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama.”

“The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately,” she said.

The glaring problem here is not that the system is rigged to help racist candidates oppress minorities (yes, some outlets claim that). The problem is that Barbara Boxer, and many on the Left, fundamentally misunderstand the importance of the Electoral College.

This system is in place to thwart the rise of demagogues, secure separation of powers, and enable smaller states to have a say in the electoral process. And, for the most part, it has worked fairly well.

First, the issue with a national popular vote is that demagogues, those who ride waves of passion that override better judgment, often can rise up and take sweeping powers with a popular mandate. However, that is how liberty dies (and often with a thunderous applause, I might add).

The Electoral College exists to protect people from themselves, and to prevent demagogues from playing off the fickle passions of the people. Socialists and Fascists are experts in demagoguery, and will use any and all means available to them to exploit tragedy to advance a totalitarian political agenda.

The Electoral College acts as a barrier by turning what would be one national election into 51 separate elections. It is much harder to win that kind of election as a demagogue than it is to win just one election nationally.

Second, the Electoral College acts as a separation of power. If the Presidential election were merely done by national popular vote, the states would have effectively no say in the electoral process. The system as designed enables state participation in the process of electing a national official.

The states are a critical part of the federal system. In electing the Executive, they must not be left out of the process (and we already killed their representation in the Senate, so now it is even more important to keep the Electoral College in place).

Third, it ensures that smaller states are not drowned out by larger ones. If the Presidential election were done by national popular vote, smaller states that occupy most of the middle United States would be neglected, totally forgotten in the process.

The Electoral College ensures that the smaller states have a say in the election. Hence, it is democratic to have this electoral system in place.

Another way to look at the Electoral College is to consider it like the World Series. Sure, throughout the entirety of the series one team may score more runs than the other team, but it is the result of each game that determines the winner of the series.

Just because one team outscored the other by 100 runs does not mean that the team with the most runs wins. It is the team that wins the most games. The same principle applies to the Electoral College.

As one last addendum, Business Insider put together a map of population density to show why the Electoral College is a good thing:

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/electoral-college-population.jpg

Now, if the Electoral College did not exist, what would happen to the grey counties? They would be forgotten, they would not matter. Only the most heavily populated areas would be courted for votes.

The Electoral College, contrary to the inklings of the Left, IS a democratic method of election, and it must be kept that way.

http://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/popular-vote-vs-electoral-college

jimahrens Loc: California

When everyone is required to have id to vote then electoral college is dead. Too many dead people voting.

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

I hate to have to be the one to explain this to you.

But there has never been a POTUS election for the popular vote, so your argument is irrelevant.

Trump and Bush43 (the only 2 instances that I participated in) both won the contest that they were campaigning for.

If Trump and Bush had been running a popular vote campaign, they would have campaigned differently.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Isn't straightup, the pseudo intellectual that knows all? Except the Constitution, predicting elections and the mood of the American People.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

In your honest opinion do you think the Electoral College will be replaced by the popular vote?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

HAHAHAHAHA! You think we'd put up with CA and NY telling everyone else what to do? Get real! The electoral college keeps the cities' heads from getting too big...as it should be.

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

Wonderful image...not that the lefties give a damn. We'd have to withhold their food and make them eat each other if it weren't for they wise system the Founders set up.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Hey, JF, you should know by now that liberals are the smartest people on earth. Just ask one of them. There are a bunch of them on here that know more than God. I've seen them time and time again trying to tell God either that He doesn't exist or that He doesn't have a clue what He is doing.

And, when it comes to our nation's founding fathers and their brilliant creation, it gets even worse.

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA

Never happen.

Constitutional amendments are quite difficult to pass. By design.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I agree.

straightUp Loc: California

LOL... not entirely accurate, but it presents the idea sufficiently enough. I would argue that the idea itself, a suggested "tyranny by larger states" is excessively simple-minded... This is why I mentioned the Federalist Papers, in an effort to start the conversation in a more advanced position and skip over the typical media-fed knee-jerk reactions.


Whoa, before we get into the racist thing... Let me explain something to you. I will accept that the issue has received more attention since Trump won the election but this should be expected and not for partisan reasons as you suggest but for the simple fact the popular vote was overridden by a questionable procedure. This didn't happen when Obama won the elections in 2008 and 2012, nor did it happen in ANY of the elections where a Democrat won because in ALL those cases, the Democrat not only got the electoral votes but the popular votes too, so there was no conflict. It just so happens that the only times there has been a conflict between what the majority of American citizens want and what the electoral procedure dictates is when a Republican is elected. So to suggest this is a whiny thing Democrats do whenever they loose is disingenuous at best.

I have been against the electoral college from the day I figured out the scam, about 6 presidential elections ago and for me and most of the people leading the movement against it, it's never been a lesser issue than it is now. If Clinton had won the unpopular vote I might have counted it as a blessing, but I wouldn't feel any different about it's detriment to democracy.

Now, regarding the racist point you felt the need to bring up... I'm not going to speak for the political extremes or their outlets, but the progressive mainstream has never suggested that the electoral college was designed for racial advantages. But given the current demographics it WOULD provide an advantage for any white supremacy movements should any of them take advantage. Perhaps you misunderstood the message. There is certainly a component of the design, the 3/5ths compromise, where southern states insisted on counting their slaves as 3/5ths human so they could be added to the census on which congressional representation is based without actually having to represent them. There's no way you can tell me that wasn't a scam, but even that can't be considered a design for racial advantage, because at the time whites were the only race that were allowed to vote anyway. The point was to give slave STATES an advantage.

So again... it's possible you're not understanding the points being made.


Well, as I said, it made more sense in 1789... but that was over two centuries ago... situations change.

straightUp Loc: California

You make a good point about popular mandates but it's misplaced because there is absolutely nothing in the electoral process that does anything to prevent them. All the electoral college does is provide a number of non-congressional voters per state based on the states congressional representation. It does nothing to govern the influence of the enumerated votes. That is left entirely up to the individual state. In fact there is something called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact where states are deciding that all their electoral votes will be decided by popular vote, which means the demagoguery of the popular vote that you are so concerned about can be fed right into the electoral college.

Now here's the part you're gonna love... As a general rule based on obvious reasons, the smaller and less diverse a population is the more susceptible it will be to demagoguery and since the electoral college is designed to give smaller states, which given current demographics also happen to have least diverse populations, more sway in the national elections it's a rational conclusion that the electoral college is actually a potential amplifier for such demagoguery. And because I just can't pass this up, I'm going to add that Trump's electoral election is itself a strong argument that this is a proven theory.


Well... I've already explained how the Electoral College does nothing to stop demagoguery but can actually be a catalyst for it. But about protecting people from themselves, I find that to be somewhat insulting. Granted, a lot of people would be better off if they didn't vote. For instance, I'm pretty certain that the middle-class Americans who voted for Trump have more-or-less shot themselves in the foot, but this is the danger of democracy. It's the danger of freedom. And as disappointed as I am with those voters I stand by their right to vote how they see fit. I think it's the American choices to live with that danger. This talk about limiting our democracy to protect ourselves from ourselves just smells like loaded diapers to me. What next? Should we abolish guns too?


In the spirit of our supposed distaste for demagoguery, I'm just going to point out that socialism is a really wide target for such accusations... There *IS* such a thing as democratic-socialists who are called democratic because they ARE democratic, which is to say they are the diametric opposite of tyranny. This is the type socialism that has been an integral part of the American system for over 100 years. I think what you are referring to are the nationalist movements that have taken advantage of the less-than-stable socialist revolutions such the Bolsheviks. Also... since I'm being pedantic, when you capitalize Fascism, thereby making it a proper noun, you are referring to the nationalist party in Italy led by Mussolini. If you are referring to the larger definition as exemplified by the Fascists in Italy, then you are referring to fascism.

All that being said yes, I agree. Nationalists movements, whether they're fascists or socialist or both have a reputation for demagoguery. As a matter of fact, a nationalist movement that leverages the power of demagoguery is considered by historians and students of political science to be a qualification of fascism. Add strong militant control and corporate influence and well, that's what fascism is.


This gets back to my point about how times have changed. Your argument might have made sense back the days when ideas could spread no faster than the gallop of a horse. But that just isn't the case anymore. Today ideas spread at the speed of electricity. Media broadcasts are national and governed by the FCC, which is not a state agency but a federal agency. Then there's the Internet which has global reach, is largely ungoverned and is the home of the modern demagogue. It's utter nonsense to suggest that states offer any kind of partition or resistance to the influence of a demagogue.

This year, all 5O states and the DC were all flooded by the rhetoric of both campaigns. I've personally been to three blue states (CA, NY, NJ) and two red states (PA, TX) during the 2016 election season and I have one word to describe it all... homogeneous. Same rhetoric, same arguments, same attitudes. If there's a difference at all it's not between states but between the rural and urban regions. When it comes to the political will of the people, state borders are at best superficial and that's just one more argument for the ditching the Electoral College. Campaigns are operating at a national level so the people should be able to respond by voting at a national level.

So hop off your horse, get in the time machine and zap yourself back to the 21st century, OK? This is exactly why our constitution was designed to be amendable... because times change. This is what sets our constitution apart from other static laws like the Koran which claims to be Holy and therefore immutable. The U.S. Constitution has the power to stay relevant so long as the People have the power to see the world around them for what it is.


Quite the opposite. The Electoral College is a federal device that dictates the power that states are allowed to have. Take a look at that map you started your response with... Like I said, not entirely accurate but enough to make the point... THAT is what the elections would look like if states were allowed to run their own show. Do you really think California would volunteer on their own accord to reduce the power of their voters to a third of the power that a voter in Wyoming has? Of course not. But the states have no say because these rules that give some people more voting power than others is dictated by the Federal Government through the Electoral College.

And again, we're talking about a FEDERAL office. What business is that to a state anyway? Look, I'm an anti-Federalist, no one is more an advocate for greater state power and less federal power than I am. But I'm not an idiot, I know better than to think there is ANY value for the state in subjecting itself to the tyranny of the Electoral College.


How exactly did we kill state representation in the Senate? That's a new one on me. As far as I know, each state still gets two senators.


You know it's funny how this is the argument that I hear most often from conservatives who claim they are the ones that believe in limited government. They say they want the Federal Government to stay out of their business and being an anti-Federalist, I usually agree but when I bring up the electoral college, all of sudden they're begging for the Federal Government not to ignore them. So which is it?

Look, the federal government is designed to be limited. Most of the systems that impact the lives and the livelihood of the American people are administered at the state level and lower not the federal level, so the suggestion that they would be neglected and forgotten is pretty weak if you ask me. As far as being "drowned out" by larger states, that's another weak suggestion. As I've already said, state borders are largley superficial. They certainly don't define the concerns of the people. You might think that everyone in California is an entertainer and everyone in Montana is a rancher but that really isn't true. There is an abundance of genuine, right-wing, weather-beaten, gun-toting, God-loving ranchers in California and I happen to know a drama teacher in Montana who registers Democrat.

There is no reason whatsoever why the citizens of little states can't build coalitions with like-minded citizens of larger states or other small states to develop larger political fronts. There's no reason why all the little states can't band together to represent an equal counter to the larger states.

The problem isn't that some states have more voters... the problem is that some people can't seem to figure out how to equalize in a system where it's totally possible. They jusy continue to accept their smallness and their need to depend on the federal government. It's so submissive.


Not even... "Democratic" means people. As in "government by the people for the people". The very word has roots in the Greek word for people, demos. State means political structure, which can be democratic or tyranical. In your arguments, you seem to be focused entirely on the state while ignoring the people. You are saying it's democratic for the Electoral College to protect the smaller states by taking power away from the people of the larger states. In an honest democracy the every voter in Wyoming would get 1 vote and every voter in California would also get 1 vote. But the Electoral College gives voters in Wyoming 3 votes while only allowing voters in California 1 vote. That is NOT democratic.


That's a horrible analogy. If the rules of the Electoral College was applied to baseball, it would look more like this... First the objective (which you completely left out of your analogy) would be to insure greater equality between teams and to accomplish this they would give the teams a number of outs per inning depending on how good they are. So a good team could only have 1 out but a lame team would get 3 outs.


You repeat a lot of your points... so, I'm just going to say I already responded to the nonsense that states (or counties or whatever geopolitical quantity you are referring to) would be forgotten. In aditional I'm going to add that are are indeed basing your arguments on geographical references which has nothing to do with demographic references. I've noticed how common this misinterpretion of democracy is on the right. They see these maps that seem entirely covered in red with some isolated splotches of blue and think it's an accurate depection of our democracy. I'll just use your own props to prove your own dellusion. Compare your first map with your second map... Notice the difference. The first one is dimensioned according to demographics... The second is is dimensioned according to geography. Well, forests and plains and mountains and deserts don't vote, people do. You are arguing that one solitary tree on a vast plain should get as much water as 500 trees in a forest of equal size.


The Electoral College, contary to the cultured ignorance of the right, is an obstruction of democracy as I have just proven in my point by point response to your right-wing rhetoric.

straightUp Loc: California

I hate to sound like an asshole, but no shit. I'm quite aware that there's never been a POTUS election on the popular vote. What I can't fathom is why you would think that means we have to accept it. I can just see you having a conversation with a woman in 1920... "Golly Miss, there has never been an election where women were allowed to vote so uh.. your argument that you should be allowed to vote is irrelevant." LOL



So?

straightUp Loc: California

You're the one that keeps talking about my intellect - 'not sure what your trip is there. As for predicting elections, I'll admit I was wrong but I think most people were, which is why they called it an upset. I don't think I was wrong about the mood of the American people. As for the Constitution... show me where I'm wrong. I dare you.