This Is Why You Need The Electoral College

[GGG Gloveking]

250 years later, we're having the same debate Jefferson and Hamilton had

[JimRaynor]

In a Democracy I thought it was majority rules. So if one vote counts equally it shouldn't matter where people live.

In a democracy, isn't it more unfair that the minority gets to tell the majority how to live?

What you describe is not how the founding fathers intended the country to operate. At first they didn't even want common people electing their senators or president to begin with. They originally wanted the people of the states to elect their representatives (each state would receive the number of representatives according to the states population, like todays current HOR.) And their representatives would then elect amongst each other two senators per state, and they would be the only ones allowed to vote for President.

So the fact that people today can elect both the Senators and President is a far cry from the original intention, and taking away the electoral college which was solely created to give smaller states an equal voice would be a travesty.

[The Big Dunn]

What you describe is not how the founding fathers intended the country to operate. At first they didn't even want common people electing their senators or president to begin with. They originally wanted the people of the states to elect their representatives (each state would receive the number of representatives according to the states population, like todays current HOR.) And their representatives would then elect amongst each other two senators per state, and they would be the only ones allowed to vote for President.

So the fact that people today can elect both the Senators and President is a far cry from the original intention, and taking away the electoral college which was solely created to give smaller states an equal voice would be a travesty.

I don't disagree with about the founding father's intentions, but that doesn't answer the question I asked in response to your post.

In the post, you support the electoral college because it prevents " 10 million people concentrated in a area the size of Rhode Island don't get to tell the rest of the country how to live." The same electoral college allows a minority of voters to determine how the majority lives, which I find unfair in a democracy.

I ask again- In a democracy, isn't it more unfair that the minority gets to tell the majority how to live?

By asking the question, it shouldn't be interpreted as me being against the electoral college or want it taken away.

[1bad65]

What you describe is not how the founding fathers intended the country to operate.

Yup.

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said democracy is mob rule.

That's why we are a representative republic, and not a democracy.

[JimRaynor]

I don't disagree with about the founding father's intentions, but that doesn't answer the question I asked in response to your post.

In the post, you support the electoral college because it prevents " 10 million people concentrated in a area the size of Rhode Island don't get to tell the rest of the country how to live." The same electoral college allows a minority of voters to determine how the majority lives, which I find unfair in a democracy.

I ask again- In a democracy, isn't it more unfair that the minority gets to tell the majority how to live?

By asking the question, it shouldn't be interpreted as me being against the electoral college or want it taken away.

By the framing of your question, at face value, yes it would be unfair for minority to tell the majority how they should live. But when put into context, with consideration of the electoral college and how vastly different states can be from one another then no, its not unfair at all. And I say this, because everyone knows how the game is played. If the rules were changed and elections were decided by popular vote, then you wouldn't have seen Presidential nominees campaigning in rural Iowa or Wisconsin, all they would've needed to do was hit major city after city.

[The Big Dunn]

By the framing of your question, at face value, yes it would be unfair for minority to tell the majority how they should live. But when put into context, with consideration of the electoral college and how vastly different states can be from one another then no, its not unfair at all. And I say this, because everyone knows how the game is played. If the rules were changed and elections were decided by popular vote, then you wouldn't have seen Presidential nominees campaigning in rural Iowa or Wisconsin, all they would've needed to do was hit major city after city.

Of course its unfair. If you don't want "10 million people concentrated in a area the size of Rhode Island [don't get] to tell the rest of the country how to live" then you shouldn't want 50 million people in the area the size of Texas to Florida to be able to tell the rest of the country how to live either.

I am not advocating for a rules change. What you posted here is preposterous Jim. If everything was decided by one vote that would make it more important to visit small areas. Even better, the effort required would force any sitting politician to vacate the seat they had because of the time requirement. that way the seat would be filled by someone with TIME to actually do the people's work.

The electoral college, while it has its benefits, now functions to let those in the minority shape how all of us live. You like this because you are in the minority regarding a number of hot button issues-for example abortion and
gun laws. Of course you are also in the majority on some issues like immigration.

I don't want to eliminate the electoral college but I can see some issues with it, especially as we get to a time where certain areas of the country lack real diversity in race, income, religion, etc etc.

[BrometheusBob.]

I'm not arguing it cant be changed. It has. Many times.

But that ain't gonna happen in this case.

3/4 of the States would have to go along with this, and I cant fathom that many States deciding they are going to de facto allow California and New York to choose the President.

But would that be the outcome? Lets look at the numbers:

NY and CA had 84 electoral college votes of 538, or 15.61% of the total that were guaranteed Democratic. Republicans got 0% from these two states under this system.

By popular vote, CA & NY totaled 13,309,912 Dem and 7,303,344 Republican votes. By this system, Dems get 10.33% and Republicans get 5.67% of the total national vote from these two states.

This shows that the prior system actually offers NY & CA more power to push the election towards the Democratic party than the latter.

[The Big Dunn]

But would that be the outcome? Lets look at the numbers:

NY and CA had 84 electoral college votes of 538, or 15.61% of the total that were guaranteed Democratic. Republicans got 0% from these two states under this system.

By popular vote, CA & NY totaled 13,309,912 Dem and 7,303,344 Republican votes. By this system, Dems get 10.33% and Republicans get 5.67% of the total national vote from these two states.

This shows that the prior system actually offers NY & CA more power to push the election towards the Democratic party than the latter.

If I am not mistaken if you win the top 11 states you get 270 electoral college votes.

Imagine becoming President and winning only 11 of 50 states?

Now those states I think have 185,000,000 people so thats about 55% of the country so it's the majority but that makes those states incredibly powerful in our system.

[BrometheusBob.]

If I am not mistaken if you win the top 11 states you get 270 electoral college votes.

Imagine becoming President and winning only 11 of 50 states?

Now those states I think have 185,000,000 people so thats about 55% of the country so it's the majority but that makes those states incredibly powerful in our system.

The common thinking is that NY & CA are somehow tamed in their power to push the Dem party via the electoral college. The common thinking is wrong. It's weird since the numbers can easily be checked. But most people are not reading the numbers I guess.

The reality is that the disparity in the popular and electoral college outcomes was really caused by the large swing states. They have millions of votes cast and a small margin of victory. But it's winner take all, so the losing party gets no credit for being close. If you win several of those, you could have amassed a relatively small net victory in popular vote across them while accruing a huge disparity in electoral college margin.

At the end of the day the electoral college is an idea that has more symbolic significance than actual value. The symbolism that 50 separate en****** are each contributing a weight proportionate vote is nice, but it's wholly unnecessary. That weighting is already implicitly applied when assessing by popular vote. And in that case it's more exact, whereas under the electoral vote each state has a % of the total contribution that varies slightly from it's % of the total popular vote.

[JTfloyd]

If the democrats would loose the popular vote then they will say that the Electoral College is the way to go.

When somebody wins an election with the majority of the votes they still complain.

Simply the rules don't apply if the outcome is not what they expected or wanted

Come on now. When virtually every media outlet claimed Hillary would win in a landslide, they clearly meant the popular vote right? That's the only explanation for them wanting to abolish the Electoral College after Trump won.