Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Idea for reforming the electoral college

imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 8:05:12 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Hillary Clinton is currently holding a slim majority in the popular vote as the ultra-liberal west coast continues to count ballots, yet Trump has become the next president because of the electoral college and hot it awards delegates. Basically a repeat of 2000, but with the winner winning by enough that one individual state cant be blamed for screwing the whole thing up (aka pulling a Florida)

This has caused a lot of people to question the need for the electoral college, while others have called for it to be scrapped completely

I would like to pitch a different alternative:

The Electoral College was set up to give smaller states a greater role/greater importance in choosing the next president. Arizona has 11 electoral votes for a population of 6.7 million people, and California has 55 electoral votes for 38.8 million people...... That averages out to 1 electoral vote for every 600,000 people in Arizona, and 1 electoral vote for every 700,000 in California..... Not a large difference, but one that gives more say to Arizona and other small states. Wyoming, which has the lowest population, gets 3 electoral votes for 580,000 people, which averages about 190,000 people for every 1 electoral vote, >3x as powerful as a California electoral vote.

The Electoral College was meant to push candidates to focus more attention onto smaller states rather than only the biggest ones, but the two party system which the Electoral College wasnt designed for only pushes candidates to focus on very specific states that still have substantial populations (Michigan, Florida, NC, etc.)..... So while the EC does its job in pushing candidates to campaign in places outside of California or Texas, it fails to shine the light on smaller states in general, and only pushes candidates to focus on select battleground states.

Basically: The EC doesnt work, but is still useful.

My idea is that the EC is preserved, but Electoral votes are awarded proportionally based as closely as possible on the final popular vote rather than the all-or-nothing system we currently have, with 4 additional rules

1) Candidates need >5% of the vote to be eligible to get an electoral vote

2) States with an even number of electoral votes that are almost split evenly (ie <3% difference) in popular vote result in both candidates splitting electoral votes. A state doesnt have to pick a winner and can be split. If odd number of electoral votes, winner picks up the remaining vote

3) The Illinois rule: additional electoral votes that would not be allocated based on popular vote are awarded to the winner. See Illinois for further details

4) The North Dakota rule: If a candidate wins a state by more then 80% what all other candidates receive, they win any electoral votes that would have gone to third party candidates

Below is a list of each state, the percentage of the vote each winning candidate, and how that would impact the electoral outcome

Alabama = 63% Trump = 6 votes for Trump, 3 for Hillary
Alaska = 53% Trump = 2 for Trump, 1 for Hillary
Arizona = 49% Trump = 6 for Trump, 5 for Hillary
Arkansas = 60% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 2 for Hillary
California = 61% for Hillary = 36 for Hillary, 19 for Trump
Colorado = 47% for Hillary = 5 for Hillary, 4 for Trump
Connecticut = 54% for Hillary = 4 for Hillary, 3 for Trump
D.o.C = 93% Hillary = 3 for Hillary
Delaware = 53% Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 1 for Trump
Florida = 49% for Trump = 15 for Trump, 14 for Hillary
Georgia = 51% for Trump = 9 for Trump, 7 for Hillary
Hawaii = 62% for Hillary = 3 for Hillary, 1 for Trump
Idaho = 60% for Trump = 3 for Trump, 1 for Hillary
Illinois = 55% for Hillary = 12 for Hillary, 8 for Trump

^ Hillary got 55% of 20 electoral votes, averaging 1 electoral vote for ever 5% of the popular vote that is won, but Trump only got 40% of the popular vote, which would give him 8, Hillary 11, and one left over. Because no one else hit 5%, this extra vote will go the winner, in this case Hillary

Indiana = 57% for Trump = 7 for Trump, 4 for Hillary
Iowa = 52% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 2 for Hillary
Kansas = 57% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 2 for Hillary
Kentucky = 63% for Trump = 5 for Trump, 3 for Hillary
Louisiana = 58% for Trump = 5 for Trump, 3 for Hillary
Maine = 48% for Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 2 for Trump
Maryland = 60% for Hillary = 6 for Hillary, 4 for Trump
Massachusetts = 61% for Hillary = 7 for Hillary, 4 for Trump
Michigan = 48% for Trump = 8 for Trump, 8 for Hillary
Minnesota = 47% for Trump = 5 for Trump, 5 for Hillary
Mississippi = 58% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 2 for Hillary
Missouri = 57% for Trump = 6 for Trump, 4 for Hillary
Montana = 57% for Trump = 2 for Trump, 1 for Hillary
Nebraska = 60% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 1 for Hillary

^ The Illinois rule applies here in Trump's favor since Hillary only got 35% of the vote and not 40%

Nevada = 48% for Hillary = 3 for Hillary, 3 for Trump
New Hampshire = 48% for Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 2 for Trump
New Jersey = 55% for Hillary = 8 for Hillary, 6 for Trump
New Mexico = 48% for Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 2 for Trump, 1 for Gary Johnson

^ Gary Johnson hit 9% in the New Mexico popular vote, which means he would qualify to receive electoral votes from rule 1

New York = 60% for Hillary = 17 for Hillary, 12 for Trump
North Carolina = 50% for Trump = 8 for Trump, 7 for Hillary
North Dakota = 64% for Trump = 2 for Trump, 1 for Hillary

^ Gary Johnson hit 6% in North Dakota, but Trump's margin of victory and the very little electoral vote count causes Trump to win Johnson's electoral vote due to rule #4

Ohio = Trump by 52% = 11 for Trump, 7 for Hillary

^ The Illinois rule applies here since Hillary only got 43% of the vote, and Ohio has enough electoral votes up for grabs where Trump earns an additional vote

Oklahoma = 65% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 2 for Hillary, 1 for Johnson (he hit 6% and qualifies)
Oregon = 52% for Hillary = 4 for Hillary, 3 for Trump
Pennsylvania = 49% for Trump = 10 for Trump, 10 for Hillary
Rhode Island = 55% for Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 2 for Trump
South Carolina = 55% for Trump = 5 for Trump, 4 for Hillary
South Dakota = 62% for Trump = 2 for Trump, 1 for Hillary

^ Dakota rule applies here where Johnson got 6%, but Trump gets his electoral vote

Tennessee = 61% for Trump = 7 for Trump, 4 for Hillary
Texas = 52% for Trump = 21 for Trump, 17 for Hillary
Utah = 46% for Trump = 3 for Trump, 2 for Hillary, 1 for Evan McMullin

^ The Dakota rule applies here, but because McMullin did so well (20% just behind Hillary at 28%) he preserves an electoral vote while Trump gets the other.

Vermont = 61% for Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 1 for Trump
Virginia = 50% for Hillary = 7 for Hillary, 6 for Trump
Washington = 56% for Hillary = 7 for Hillary, 5 for Trump
West Virginia = 69% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 1 for Hillary

^ Illinois rule applies here since Clinton did so poorly (27%) and grants Trump an extra vote

Wisconsin = 48% for Trump = 5 for Trump, 5 for Hillary
Wyoming = 70% for Trump = 2 for Trump, 1 for Hillary

^ Dakota rule applies where Johnson hit 5%, but Trump won by a landslide

FINAL TALLY UNDER THIS SYSTEM:

Trump = 270 Electoral Votes
Hillary = 264 Electoral Votes
Johnson = 2 electoral votes
McMullin = 1 electoral votes
1 vote that somehow didnt get tallied where I dont know where the hell it went

538 electoral votes total
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 8:07:21 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Basically, this system would still have named Trump the winner over Hillary despite him losing the popular vote, but if we want to more closely tie final results to the popular vote, while still protecting smaller states from having their voices be drowned out by the populations from much larger states, this system would do that the best, and still would have named Trump as the winner.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 8:25:08 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 8:07:21 PM, imabench wrote:
Basically, this system would still have named Trump the winner over Hillary despite him losing the popular vote, but if we want to more closely tie final results to the popular vote, while still protecting smaller states from having their voices be drowned out by the populations from much larger states, this system would do that the best, and still would have named Trump as the winner.

I see the EC as one of the mainstays of state sovereignty. You highlight it perfectly, those are those individual states' rules. While I like your premise I don't think states should have to accept one model.

Governors should use EC model changes as part of there platform. Maybe?
Chloe8
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 8:43:40 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 8:05:12 PM, imabench wrote:
Hillary Clinton is currently holding a slim majority in the popular vote as the ultra-liberal west coast continues to count ballots, yet Trump has become the next president because of the electoral college and hot it awards delegates. Basically a repeat of 2000, but with the winner winning by enough that one individual state cant be blamed for screwing the whole thing up (aka pulling a Florida)

This has caused a lot of people to question the need for the electoral college, while others have called for it to be scrapped completely

I would like to pitch a different alternative:

The Electoral College was set up to give smaller states a greater role/greater importance in choosing the next president. Arizona has 11 electoral votes for a population of 6.7 million people, and California has 55 electoral votes for 38.8 million people...... That averages out to 1 electoral vote for every 600,000 people in Arizona, and 1 electoral vote for every 700,000 in California..... Not a large difference, but one that gives more say to Arizona and other small states. Wyoming, which has the lowest population, gets 3 electoral votes for 580,000 people, which averages about 190,000 people for every 1 electoral vote, >3x as powerful as a California electoral vote.

The Electoral College was meant to push candidates to focus more attention onto smaller states rather than only the biggest ones, but the two party system which the Electoral College wasnt designed for only pushes candidates to focus on very specific states that still have substantial populations (Michigan, Florida, NC, etc.)..... So

Below is a list of each state, the percentage of the vote each winning candidate, and how that would impact the electoral outcome

Alabama = 63% Trump = 6 votes for Trump, 3 for Hillary
Alaska = 53% Trump = 2 for Trump, 1 for Hillary
Arizona = 49% Trump = 6 for Trump, 5 for Hillary
Arkansas = 60% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 2 for Hillary
California = 61% for Hillary = 36 for Hillary, 19 for Trump
Colorado = 47% for Hillary = 5 for Hillary, 4 for Trump
Connecticut = 54% for Hillary = 4 for Hillary, 3 for Trump
D.o.C = 93% Hillary = 3 for Hillary
Delaware = 53% Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 1 for Trump
Florida = 49% for Trump = 15 for Trump, 14 for Hillary
Georgia = 51% for Trump = 9 for Trump, 7 for Hillary
Hawaii = 62% for Hillary = 3 for Hillary, 1 for Trump
Idaho = 60% for Trump = 3 for Trump, 1 for Hillary
Illinois = 55% for Hillary = 12 for Hillary, 8 for Trump

^ Hillary got 55% of 20 electoral votes, averaging 1 electoral vote for ever 5% of the popular vote that is won, but Trump only got 40% of the popular vote, which would give him 8, Hillary 11, and one left over. Because no one else hit 5%, this extra vote will go the winner, in this case Hillary

Indiana = 57% for Trump = 7 for Trump, 4 for Hillary
Iowa = 52% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 2 for Hillary
Kansas = 57% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 2 for Hillary
Kentucky = 63% for Trump = 5 for Trump, 3 for Hillary
Louisiana = 58% for Trump = 5 for Trump, 3 for Hillary
Maine = 48% for Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 2 for Trump
Maryland = 60% for Hillary = 6 for Hillary, 4 for Trump
Massachusetts = 61% for Hillary = 7 for Hillary, 4 for Trump
Michigan = 48% for Trump = 8 for Trump, 8 for Hillary
Minnesota = 47% for Trump = 5 for Trump, 5 for Hillary
Mississippi = 58% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 2 for Hillary
Missouri = 57% for Trump = 6 for Trump, 4 for Hillary
Montana = 57% for Trump = 2 for Trump, 1 for Hillary
Nebraska = 60% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 1 for Hillary

^ The Illinois rule applies here in Trump's favor since Hillary only got 35% of the vote and not 40%

Nevada = 48% for Hillary = 3 for Hillary, 3 for Trump
New Hampshire = 48% for Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 2 for Trump
New Jersey = 55% for Hillary = 8 for Hillary, 6 for Trump
New Mexico = 48% for Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 2 for Trump, 1 for Gary Johnson

^ Gary Johnson hit 9% in the New Mexico popular vote, which means he would qualify to receive electoral votes from rule 1

New York = 60% for Hillary = 17 for Hillary, 12 for Trump
North Carolina = 50% for Trump = 8 for Trump, 7 for Hillary
North Dakota = 64% for Trump = 2 for Trump, 1 for Hillary

^ Gary Johnson hit 6% in North Dakota, but Trump's margin of victory and the very little electoral vote count causes Trump to win Johnson's electoral vote due to rule #4

Ohio = Trump by 52% = 11 for Trump, 7 for Hillary

^ The Illinois rule applies here since Hillary only got 43% of the vote, and Ohio has enough electoral votes up for grabs where Trump earns an additional vote

Oklahoma = 65% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 2 for Hillary, 1 for Johnson (he hit 6% and qualifies)
Oregon = 52% for Hillary = 4 for Hillary, 3 for Trump
Pennsylvania = 49% for Trump = 10 for Trump, 10 for Hillary
Rhode Island = 55% for Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 2 for Trump
South Carolina = 55% for Trump = 5 for Trump, 4 for Hillary
South Dakota = 62% for Trump = 2 for Trump, 1 for Hillary

^ Dakota rule applies here where Johnson got 6%, but Trump gets his electoral vote

Tennessee = 61% for Trump = 7 for Trump, 4 for Hillary
Texas = 52% for Trump = 21 for Trump, 17 for Hillary
Utah = 46% for Trump = 3 for Trump, 2 for Hillary, 1 for Evan McMullin

^ The Dakota rule applies here, but because McMullin did so well (20% just behind Hillary at 28%) he preserves an electoral vote while Trump gets the other.

Vermont = 61% for Hillary = 2 for Hillary, 1 for Trump
Virginia = 50% for Hillary = 7 for Hillary, 6 for Trump
Washington = 56% for Hillary = 7 for Hillary, 5 for Trump
West Virginia = 69% for Trump = 4 for Trump, 1 for Hillary

^ Illinois rule applies here since Clinton did so poorly (27%) and grants Trump an extra vote

Wisconsin = 48% for Trump = 5 for Trump, 5 for Hillary
Wyoming = 70% for Trump = 2 for Trump, 1 for Hillary

^ Dakota rule applies where Johnson hit 5%, but Trump won by a landslide

FINAL TALLY UNDER THIS SYSTEM:

Trump = 270 Electoral Votes
Hillary = 264 Electoral Votes
Johnson = 2 electoral votes
McMullin = 1 electoral votes
1 vote that somehow didnt get tallied where I dont know where the hell it went

538 electoral votes total

Better idea, scrap the electoral college and use a simple, fair and democratic system where the winning with the most votes becomes president.

In this scenario each person would feel their vote was guaranteed to influential the national result. It's possible such a system would have motivated substantially more people to vote in states regarded as safe red or safe blue. The current system values some votes higher than others and leads to campaigning being focused on swing states. I agree your well thought through proposal eliminates this problem but when you use it on the results of this election you still end up with the president being someone other than the person with the highest number of votes which in my opinion is undemocratic.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 8:46:19 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Apologies for the error. In my first paragraph replace winning with candidate.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 8:46:19 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Apologies for the error. In my first paragraph replace winning with candidate.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 9:05:53 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 8:25:08 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 8:07:21 PM, imabench wrote:
Basically, this system would still have named Trump the winner over Hillary despite him losing the popular vote, but if we want to more closely tie final results to the popular vote, while still protecting smaller states from having their voices be drowned out by the populations from much larger states, this system would do that the best, and still would have named Trump as the winner.

I see the EC as one of the mainstays of state sovereignty. You highlight it perfectly, those are those individual states' rules. While I like your premise I don't think states should have to accept one model.

Governors should use EC model changes as part of there platform. Maybe?

I imagine it would be hard to convince State Governments to switch to something more bipartisian simply because it risks undermining their own party nominee...... Texas wouldnt voluntarily adopt something like this because no one in texas wants to hand 17 electoral votes to a Democrat. Swing states would also refrain from doing something similar because their position as a battleground state makes presidential candidates more sympathetic to issues that those state populations care about. If they switched to a proportional system then they forfeit their influence as a battleground state and cause candidates to not have to care as much about appealing to voters.

The only states that would implement more proportional allocation would be very small states (Maine, Nebraska) that on their own likely will never swing the outcome of an election.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Robkwoods
Posts: 570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 9:16:02 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 9:05:53 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/9/2016 8:25:08 PM, Robkwoods wrote:
At 11/9/2016 8:07:21 PM, imabench wrote:
Basically, this system would still have named Trump the winner over Hillary despite him losing the popular vote, but if we want to more closely tie final results to the popular vote, while still protecting smaller states from having their voices be drowned out by the populations from much larger states, this system would do that the best, and still would have named Trump as the winner.

I see the EC as one of the mainstays of state sovereignty. You highlight it perfectly, those are those individual states' rules. While I like your premise I don't think states should have to accept one model.

Governors should use EC model changes as part of there platform. Maybe?

I imagine it would be hard to convince State Governments to switch to something more bipartisian simply because it risks undermining their own party nominee...... Texas wouldnt voluntarily adopt something like this because no one in texas wants to hand 17 electoral votes to a Democrat. Swing states would also refrain from doing something similar because their position as a battleground state makes presidential candidates more sympathetic to issues that those state populations care about. If they switched to a proportional system then they forfeit their influence as a battleground state and cause candidates to not have to care as much about appealing to voters.

The only states that would implement more proportional allocation would be very small states (Maine, Nebraska) that on their own likely will never swing the outcome of an election.

True.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 9:38:09 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
I like the idea, but I don't like the rounding. Many states have a small number of electors, as little as 3. With numbers as small as that, having the electoral vote accurately represent the voters in a state is not always possible. Perhaps instead of 538 electors, 538,000 imaginary electors could be used, or something like this.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 9:59:38 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 9:38:09 PM, Death23 wrote:
I like the idea, but I don't like the rounding. Many states have a small number of electors, as little as 3. With numbers as small as that, having the electoral vote accurately represent the voters in a state is not always possible.

Yeah I ran into that problem quite a bit when going through with these calculations. I think that raising the minimum number of electoral votes a state can have from 3 to 5 would do the trick, simply because using 3 votes would require a candidate to hit 66% of the vote to accurately win electoral votes, but only need 60% if the state uses 5. Considering that these are small rural states that regularly swing towards one side by 60% or more, you wouldnt have to raise the number of available electors up any further to still be able to accurately allocate points based on the popular vote.

Going from 3 to 5 would mean increaisng the total number of votes available in the electoral college by 67%, which would push it from 538 where it stands now to 807, meaning a President would then need 404 electoral votes to win an election
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2016 10:21:21 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 9:59:38 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/9/2016 9:38:09 PM, Death23 wrote:
I like the idea, but I don't like the rounding. Many states have a small number of electors, as little as 3. With numbers as small as that, having the electoral vote accurately represent the voters in a state is not always possible.

Yeah I ran into that problem quite a bit when going through with these calculations. I think that raising the minimum number of electoral votes a state can have from 3 to 5 would do the trick, simply because using 3 votes would require a candidate to hit 66% of the vote to accurately win electoral votes, but only need 60% if the state uses 5. Considering that these are small rural states that regularly swing towards one side by 60% or more, you wouldnt have to raise the number of available electors up any further to still be able to accurately allocate points based on the popular vote.

Going from 3 to 5 would mean increaisng the total number of votes available in the electoral college by 67%, which would push it from 538 where it stands now to 807, meaning a President would then need 404 electoral votes to win an election

I'm a bit concerned that going from 3 to 5 might alter the relative voting power each state has in the electoral college and while the rounding problem would be mitigated, it wouldn't be mitigated enough.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:27:55 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 8:05:12 PM, imabench wrote:
Hillary Clinton is currently holding a slim majority in the popular vote as the ultra-liberal west coast continues to count ballots, yet Trump has become the next president because of the electoral college and hot it awards delegates. Basically a repeat of 2000, but with the winner winning by enough that one individual state cant be blamed for screwing the whole thing up (aka pulling a Florida)

This has caused a lot of people to question the need for the electoral college, while others have called for it to be scrapped completely

I would like to pitch a different alternative:

The Electoral College was set up to give smaller states a greater role/greater importance in choosing the next president. Arizona has 11 electoral votes for a population of 6.7 million people, and California has 55 electoral votes for 38.8 million people...... That averages out to 1 electoral vote for every 600,000 people in Arizona, and 1 electoral vote for every 700,000 in California..... Not a large difference, but one that gives more say to Arizona and other small states. Wyoming, which has the lowest population, gets 3 electoral votes for 580,000 people, which averages about 190,000 people for every 1 electoral vote, >3x as powerful as a California electoral vote.

Wrong: the electoral college was designed to create an appointed and unelected President. Read Federalist 68. I don't care what Constitutional scholars or lawyers say; read the actual words of one of the Founding Fathers. The reason why these scholars push their idea is because they don't want to come across as being undemocratic.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 5:35:23 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
What people need to understand is that the American system would actually work better without a popularly-elected President. The separation of powers doctrine states that the legislative branch is the most powerful; by granting the President popular mandates, it only seeks to expand the role of the presidency beyond this interpretation of the separation of powers doctrine. This is why we have seen attempts by Presidents to overstep the limits of their authority because they have a popular mandate to do so.

Also, having an elected President breaks down federalism. In this day and age, if the President was unelected but appointed by the States (through the electors), you would find that the President would have less legitimacy, leading to a greater preserving of federalism and the rights of the States.

Having elected Governors in States is completely acceptable because the States are granted all other powers; but having an elected centralized executive only seeks to create the legitimacy for the expansion of that centralized state.
Geographia
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 7:24:46 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/9/2016 8:07:21 PM, imabench wrote:

This sounds like a great way to have close elections nearly every time to no apparent benefit.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2016 8:02:56 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 7:24:46 AM, Geographia wrote:
At 11/9/2016 8:07:21 PM, imabench wrote:

This sounds like a great way to have close elections nearly every time to no apparent benefit.

The benefit is that the will of the people will be more significant in the outcome. Elections being closer isn't so bad.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 9:04:25 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
I was thinking about the rounding problem, and I think the best way to address it is to multiply the popular vote of a particular state by a vote multiplier such that the voting power of that state's popular vote is the same as that state's voting power in the electoral college. I guess that could be called a weighted popular vote. The winner of the weighted popular vote, perhaps a plurality, would win the election.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 3:14:36 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/10/2016 8:02:56 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 11/10/2016 7:24:46 AM, Geographia wrote:
At 11/9/2016 8:07:21 PM, imabench wrote:

This sounds like a great way to have close elections nearly every time to no apparent benefit.

The benefit is that the will of the people will be more significant in the outcome. Elections being closer isn't so bad.

^
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 3:17:08 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Just because Trump won doesn't mean the system is broken and needs to be changed. PEOPLE VOTED FOR TRUMP AND HE WON. End of story.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 4:13:53 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 3:17:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Just because Trump won doesn't mean the system is broken and needs to be changed. PEOPLE VOTED FOR TRUMP AND HE WON. End of story.

A majority voted for someone else and still lost though.... When it happens only once, then sure, you can chalk that up as a fluke and assume it wont happen again for a very long time.... But when it happens twice within 5 elections, then clearly there is something wrong with the system. Im not saying the whole thing needs to be chucked out the window, and am offering a reasonable middle-of-the-road path that appeals to both sides, but claiming that the system doesnt need to be changed even though it has a 40% fail rate in this century is living in denial
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 4:35:50 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 3:17:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Just because Trump won doesn't mean the system is broken and needs to be changed. PEOPLE VOTED FOR TRUMP AND HE WON. End of story.

People have been complaining about the electoral college for YEARS now, the discussion has just become more prominent since Trump won.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 6:12:10 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
TL; DR

Would leftists still be whining about the EC if the situation was reversed? Highly doubtful. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 7:41:17 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 4:35:50 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 11/12/2016 3:17:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Just because Trump won doesn't mean the system is broken and needs to be changed. PEOPLE VOTED FOR TRUMP AND HE WON. End of story.

People have been complaining about the electoral college for YEARS now, the discussion has just become more prominent since Trump won.

Lol yeah, I would guess the Republicans were bringing it up quite a bit the last 8 years and the Democrats the 8 years before that?
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2016 7:49:30 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/12/2016 4:13:53 PM, imabench wrote:
At 11/12/2016 3:17:08 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Just because Trump won doesn't mean the system is broken and needs to be changed. PEOPLE VOTED FOR TRUMP AND HE WON. End of story.

A majority voted for someone else and still lost though.... When it happens only once, then sure, you can chalk that up as a fluke and assume it wont happen again for a very long time.... But when it happens twice within 5 elections, then clearly there is something wrong with the system. Im not saying the whole thing needs to be chucked out the window, and am offering a reasonable middle-of-the-road path that appeals to both sides, but claiming that the system doesnt need to be changed even though it has a 40% fail rate in this century is living in denial

Look I'm no Trumpist but this isn't a direct democracy. We have districts and states that divide how the votes are counted. The system didn't fail, it did exactly what we designed it to do. Republicans like that rural voters get a bit of a boost over city-dwellers; there's some logic to that of course and whether that gets changed or not has only to do with a partisan power-struggle. I doubt any Republicans are going to agree with you that this election was a failure!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.