Get rid of the antiquated biased Electoral College

[GaryDenton]

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults (65%) say the way the president is elected should be changed so that the winner of the popular vote nationwide wins the presidency.

Republicans are evenly divided.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/25/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/

[GaryDenton]

This is part of the majority of Americans disliking all aspects of current American politics.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/americans-dismal-views-of-the-nations-politics/

65% say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics

Positive views of many governmental and political institutions are at historic lows. Just 16% of the public say they trust the federal government always or most of the time. While trust has hovered near historic lows for the better part of the last 20 years, today it stands among the lowest levels dating back nearly seven decades. And more Americans have an unfavorable than favorable opinion of the Supreme Court – the first time that has occurred in polling going back to the late 1980s.

A growing share of the public dislikes both political parties. Nearly three-in-ten (28%) express unfavorable views of both parties, the highest share in three decades of polling. And a comparable share of adults (25%) do not feel well-represented by either party.

Candidate choices are underwhelming. As the presidential campaign heats up, 63% of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the candidates who have emerged so far. Setting aside the presidential campaign, there has been a downward trend in views of the quality of all political candidates. Just 26% rate the quality of political candidates as very or somewhat good, down about 20 percentage points since 2018.

Majorities back age and term limits and eliminating the Electoral College. Reflecting the public’s frustration with the federal government and political leaders, large shares of Americans support various changes to the political system, including for such long-standing proposals as establishing term limits for members of Congress and scrapping the Electoral College. Age limits – for both federal elected officials and members of the Supreme Court – draw broad support.

[Lonous]

Get rid of the corruption, not the Electoral College.
Tyranny of the Majority is a very real monster hiding under the bed, intelligent people realize this.

"The mob is always right!" - brought to you by the masses that made things like Walmart, Budweiser, Justin Bieber, and lynching popular.

[GaryDenton]

Lonous may illustrate that only one group supports the Electoral College (and hates democracy), 63% of conservative Republicans.

[Lonous]

It saddens me that your educators have failed you. Please go back to university and demand your tuition back.
As always, allow me to help:

The United States isn't..... *dramatic pause*.... a Democracy.
We're a Constitutional Federal Republic, no matter how many Facebook thumbs ups you get you when you declare otherwise.

Here are a few guidance links to help.
https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/ ... government
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-wh ... overnment/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_republic


Good luck!

[jimboston]

Please explain how the current system is “biased”.

You like to make assertions, but you never back up those assertions with facts or even coherent points.

It might be antiquated or outdated. It might be unnecessary with today’s technology. It might no longe really “fit” or match our current perception of this Country (as compared to the perception of 13 separate and distinct “States” that formed a Union).

It is NOT “biased”.

[GaryDenton]

Republicans who benefit from the biased Electoral College always say we are not a democracy, which is fitting as their party now is always subverting democracy.

The bias in the Electoral College toward the Republican Party is so self-evident it is even taught in good High School history or civics classes. Democrats need a 2 to 4-point popular vote margin to have a 50/50 chance of winning the presidency.


The enormous advantage that the Electoral College gives Republicans

“In the modern period,” the study suggests, “Republicans should be expected to win 65% of Presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/17/20868790/republicans-lose-popular-vote-win-electoral-college

In addition, here are some election analysts:

Since 2000, a Republican presidential candidate has never taken more than 51 percent of the national popular vote (George W. Bush in 2004). Bush’s 2004 win was the only time in the last six presidential elections where a Republican candidate took more than 48 percent of the popular vote. Even so, Republicans have been able to win the presidency in three of those six elections.

If these patterns continue to hold, the 2024 GOP nominee taking just 48 percent of the two-party popular vote could still win a comfortable Electoral College majority. Here’s how that could happen...

The 2021 Cook PVI finds six swing states — Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that if the Republicans win give it the election.

https://www.cookpolitical.com/cook-pvi/2022-partisan-voter-index/republican-electoral-college-advantage

[Votanic]

While a direct vote (one vote per eligible citizen) may seem more democratic on the surface, it is important to consider how the electoral college helps less-populated states and rural areas participate in the democratic process, which might otherwise be monopolized by large urban centers.

[jimboston]

NO study of past voting numbers can factor in how changing the system would ABSOLUTELY impact HOW people vote.

Just one simple example. In Massachusetts it’s a foregone conclusion that this state will vote for whoever the Democrats nominate. It really doesn’t matter who that person is, they can count on Massachusetts guaranteed!

Therefore, since my Presidential vote really has Zero impact, I often vote for whatever Libertarian candidate is on the ballot. Just as a protest. So my vote is not going to the popular vote count of either candidate. If the popular vote was the determining factor I would almost certainly change how I vote… some years that would’ve been for the Republican, and other years it would’ve gone to the Democrat.

I am sure other people do this as well, I am sure other people don’t bother voting because of this… and I am sure it cuts both ways. The simple fact is that IF a change were made voting decisions and activity would adjust accordingly. So using the last 30-50 years of elections… which for President means a tiny sample size of 8-12 elections… is neither statistically significant nor is it able to calculate the counter-factual point made.

There are definitely GOOD arguments to be made as to why we should consider getting rid of the Electoral College.

1) It would require a Constitutional Amendment so it ain’t happening.

2) Calling is biased is neither a good / factual argument; nor is it likely to help move the debate in a system where you need bipartisan support to change the Constitution.

You’ve not made any valid point explaining how it is “biased”.

[GaryDenton]

The growing number of critics of the Electoral College system. Trump wouldn't have tried to overthrow the election he lost by many millions except the Republicans realized they needed only a handful of corrupt officials to flip some electors.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/10/1002594108/a-growing-number-of-critics-raise-alarms-about-the-electoral-college

...the Electoral College puts a magnifying glass on just a few states that could have tremendous control over presidential elections.

"The Electoral College does mean a small number of states have undue weight in the outcome of our elections and that smaller manipulations can have broad national consequences," said Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, which advocates for expanded ballot access.

What she means by manipulations are the efforts by Republicans to change election laws in their favor.

"Vote suppression is one way of doing that — subtracting voters from the electorate who you think won't vote for your preferred candidates," she said. "But this new trend of actually taking over the machinery of elections and giving themselves the power to run things or make decisions or count the votes is another way of doing this."

Republican state lawmakers in places like Georgia and Texas have advanced bills that would give new powers to legislatures to fire election officials and overturn elections.

[GaryDenton]

It's not good for democracy or a stable government when one party doesn't have to try to win the most votes in a presidential election.

[GaryDenton]

Republicans are winning with the Electoral College system but even many of them want to jettison it. And there is a plan slowly gaining momentum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/08/republicans-electoral-college-trump-elections/

There is no problem with this not being recent, the arguments are sound.

At the event in Florida, the organizers explained the virtues of their proposal (and there are many). But I was surprised that the pitch was being made by lifelong Republicans. One was “never-Trumper” Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Another was Saul Anuzis, former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, who criticized Trump in 2016 but has softened his stance since and has repeatedly praised him. And finally, there was Patrick Rosenstiel, the chief executive of a political strategy firm who previously led field operations to help get John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. confirmed to the Supreme Court. This wasn’t exactly Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) crowd.

I recently got back in touch with Rosenstiel after the dust settled from the 2020 election to ask him why he, a conservative Republican, favored jettisoning a system that continues to systematically advantage Republican candidates.

“I think Republicans and Republican ideas win whenever we campaign directly to voters,” Rosenstiel explains. “And I believe national popular vote will force the Republican candidate for president to campaign in all 50 states. Plain and simple, Republican ideas win, and I’m not afraid of our ideas.”

More specifically, though, Rosenstiel points to the fact that the electoral college battleground map means most of the country gets ignored. “Ninety-six percent of the 2020 presidential campaign occurred in just 12 battleground states,” he says. “President Trump won the popular vote in those battleground states in 2020 and 2016.” The same dynamic held in 2016, when 94 percent of campaign events were held in just 12 states. Two-thirds of 2016 campaign events were held in just six states. Thirty-eight states were effectively ignored by both candidates.

These startling facts refute the main objection that many Republicans usually raise to the national popular vote: that small red states will no longer matter in presidential politics. The truth, Rosenstiel argues, is that small red states (and small blue states) already don’t matter. They’re simply taken for granted by candidates in both parties. “When is the last time you’ve seen a general election campaign event in North Dakota or Montana or Vermont or Delaware?” Rosenstiel asks.

Some Republicans I’ve spoken to also argue that the electoral college causes Republican presidential candidates to pursue campaign strategies that give them a narrow path to the White House but ensure the party remains unpopular nationally. They argue it’s a losing strategy over the long term, and the GOP’s survival requires a course correction toward national popularity — not just popularity in a few crucial battleground states. In their view, the Republican Party would be healthier if GOP presidential candidates couldn’t write off big states such as California or New York and needed to once again compete for votes in cities.

[Lonous]

It's not good for democracy or a stable government when one party doesn't have to try to win the most votes in a presidential election.

I wouldn't have guessed you were one to embrace traditional positions, but the Democratic Party's history of trying to suppress minorities seems to be a comfortable fit for you.

[bigtoughralf]

The US and UK systems are the worst of both worlds. Not enough monopoly of power for a single strong party to be able to to engage in long-term work without the distraction of election cycles (e.g. China, Saudi Arabia) and not enough representation to deliver governments and decision-making that actually represent the plurality of opinion in their countries (e.g. Switzerland, Ireland, Netherlands).

[Pack Rat]

The US and UK systems are the worst of both worlds. Not enough monopoly of power for a single strong party to be able to to engage in long-term work without the distraction of election cycles (e.g. China, Saudi Arabia) and not enough representation to deliver governments and decision-making that actually represent the plurality of opinion in their countries (e.g. Switzerland, Ireland, Netherlands).

Obviously, you want a dictatorship form of government, like Russia, heh. Most of us would rather deal with a messy democracy and speak openly, instead of ending up falling out of a window.

[bigtoughralf]

I deliberately didn't mention Russia, given how similar its government is to the USA's.

[jimboston]

Trump wouldn't have tried to overthrow the election he lost by many millions except the Republicans realized they needed only a handful of corrupt officials to flip some electors.

Of course he still would’ve tried every trick possible.

Maybe there would be fewer “tricks”… more likely there would just be different attacks.

Thinking this would stop him from bitching, filing lawsuits, or riling up his base… that’s naive.

[jimboston]

Gary… when are you going…

*explain how it is “biased”.

*admit it’s not biased.

I agree you can argue for some flaws, and there are valid reasons to consider ‘retiring’ this system.

Bias has nothing to do with it… people throw this word around without understanding it.

Also… explain how you would suggest we change this system NOW with the Congress and Country as divided as we are.
It ain’t happening.

[Dukasaur]

The US and UK systems are the worst of both worlds. Not enough monopoly of power for a single strong party to be able to to engage in long-term work without the distraction of election cycles (e.g. China, Saudi Arabia) and not enough representation to deliver governments and decision-making that actually represent the plurality of opinion in their countries (e.g. Switzerland, Ireland, Netherlands).

Obviously, you want a dictatorship form of government, like Russia, heh. Most of us would rather deal with a messy democracy and speak openly, instead of ending up falling out of a window.

No, I think he was pretty clear with what he typed. A dictatorship is one end of the spectrum that he mentioned, but he very clearly gave equal time to real democracies like Switzerland et al.

You really need to get out more and see how things work in places where people don't line up and play Red Rover for Tweedlerep vs. Tweedledem.

[GaryDenton]

It is self-evident it is biased when Republicans don't have to win the popular vote to "win".

Bias - favoring one side, not fair.

See my links above.

The article about the Republicans saying it needs to be replaced is also about The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). That is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

It doesn't need a Constitutional Amendment but will need a Supreme Court ruling because of the howls of conservative Republicans who benefit from the ECV system.

The National Popular Vote law would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted into law by 16 states and DC with 205 electoral votes. It needs an additional 65 electoral votes to go into effect.

All the supposed evils of small states being ignored if we went to the popular vote to elect the president already occur under the ECV system. Just 12 states get 96% of campaign events, the others don't matter.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

One more state joined the compact this year. and another is set for a final vote next year.

[GaryDenton]

The current goal is to have the National Popular Vote Compact in effect by 2028.

Enough states will have joined the compact that the president will be the national popular vote winner.

I will note that some of the unlikely states are debating joining the compact in the state legislatures.

[jonesthecurl]

Umm, so here's an idea - not just for the US, Monarchies, or Dictatorships...

Maybe one guy isn't in charge of everything.

[mookiemcgee]

Umm, so here's an idea - not just for the US, Monarchies, or Dictatorships...

Maybe one guy isn't in charge of everything.

Who did you have in mind, Hillary Clinton? Kim Kardashian?

[saxitoxin]

[b]The current goal is to have the National Popular Vote Compact in effect by 2028.

Not happening. An Act of Congress is required to solemnize any interstate compact per Article I, Section 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

And Congress must give its assent prior to the states entering the compact, not after the fact. That means you'll have to rerun the whole process from scratch. And even that assumes you have a Congress that would authorize it, which you don't as of today's date.

[jimboston]

Gary… you have not addressed my points.
You keep saying “biased” and pointing to the the same “facts” without addressing…

- The fact that your “statistics” are based on a ridiculously small sample size. They have no validity.

- The fact that (even if the stats were valid) the voting patterns would change if the election system changed.

Please address these two points with counter-arguments or admit the whole basis for this thread is wrong.
=====

Regarding the Interstate Compact… I don’t know if Saxi is correct that it would be illegal.

I think it can’t hurt, and it possible can demonstrate to Congress that there is popular support to abolish the Electoral College. That said, I don’t believe it will or can work on its’ own.

*As it stands today I don’t see it getting any Congressional support.
*As it stands today I don’t see it surviving a challenge at the Supreme Court level.

Most importantly, I don’t see it surviving an actual election.

It’s a Pact, I don’t see how it could stand as a “Binding Contract” if challenged… and it would most certainly be challenged.

This scenario can go either way…. just for fun let’s say enough States agreed…

The let’s pretend that the Republican wins the Popular Vote; but would lose under that traditional Electoral College system. Do you think the people of say Massachusetts are gonna sit by and let their Elected Officials hand our Electoral votes to the Republican? They would have his head…. the official knows this and knows he would lose in the next election… what do you think he’s going to do? He’s going to withdraw from the Compact. Once one state does it, they all do… and we are back to the Electoral System.

This hybrid “compact” binding states to send their Electoral votes based on a Nationwide Popular vote count is unworkable.

You either need to work with the system you got… or you need. to amend the Constitution.

No workaround will “solve” the problem… because it ultimately still relies on States to “Certify” their Electors.

Even if states went away from the “All Electors Go to One Candidate” method… and use some proportional system…. that would also create issues. You could still have situations where the Popular/Electoral “winners” don’t match. ( I forget which states do this… but when done in a bubble it essentially makes those places less likely to get Presidential Candidate attention.