
The Case for Dumping the Electoral College - car
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/09/21/the-case-for-dumping-the-electoral-college
======
compycom
One half solution that people don't tend to bring up: massively increase the
number of members of congress. The formula for a states representation in the
electoral college is {number of senators + number of representatives}.

Since the senate is fixed at 2 senators per state, it massively advantages
small states in terms of political power per person. The number of
representatives per state is currently set at 435, and is allocated
proportionately to population. This number is arbitrary, and can be changed by
an act of congress. Increasing it will dilute the power of the electors from
the Senate.

There's also compelling reason to increase the number of for its own sake: the
number of people per representative is higher now than it has ever been. And
it's much higher than other Western democracies.

When the Constitution was written, the number of representatives was set so
there'd be one for every 30,000 people. The idea was that the number would be
increased over time, and there was almost almost an amendment ratified to
ensure this would happen, where the ratio would never get above 50,000 per.

But the number of representatives hasn't been updated since 1929. Back then,
there was one representative per 218,000 people. Now there's one
representative per 744,000. If we had the 1929 ratio in place, we'd have 1505
representatives. And if we set representatives at 50,000 per person (as
preferred by founders such as Washington), we'd have 6564.

~~~
ryathal
This is important for way more than just Presidential elections. It helps
solve the money in politics problem as well by diluting power and making
representatives more accountable.

------
HideousKojima
The fight against the electoral college is one of those things that misses the
forest for the trees. The real problem is that too much power has been vested
in the federal government (and in the executive branch specifically), and too
much power has been taken from the states. People would care a lot less about
how the president gets elected if he didn't have so much control over the
entire country.

~~~
compycom
I disagree. Consider our inability to coordinate a proper pandemic response,
or the current smoke catastrophe spanning the west coast. The problems facing
our country are increasingly national in scope, and require coordinated
responses at the federal level. I believe our entrenched commitment to
federalism and state's rights is going to hold us back more and more in the
years ahead.

~~~
throwawaysea
Why do you think pandemic response or wildfire are national in scope? Both can
be handled at the state level. For example California, Oregon, and a
Washington could perform necessary controlled burning
([https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-
wildfire-...](https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-
california-looks-to-what-tribes-have-known-all-along)) or harvest trees on a
timely basis ([https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-
today-100-m...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-
today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html)), or at
least stay in target with even their existing forest management target, which
they haven’t ([https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-
stop...](https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop-
wildland-fires-forestry-not-climate-policy-is-the-priority)). Whatever states
cannot accomplish on their own, they can certainly invest in - whether it is
purchasing PPE or hiring loggers.

~~~
falcolas
And if that state can’t, for one of a hundred reasons, respond appropriately,
the effects are not limited to that state.

For the pandemic, people traveling into, out of, or through the state will
spread it to surrounding states (Florida is one great example of how a state
not responding appropriately has broader impacts on the nation).

For wildfires, fire knows no state boundaries, and smoke is even more
promiscuous in its spread.

~~~
username90
Europe manage to handle those things just fine and local politics is very
decoupled from EU politics. Why wouldn't states be allowed to close borders
under emergencies?

~~~
falcolas
Because a state is not a country. It doesn't have a military, border patrol,
national guard, etc. That is to say, it doesn't have the manpower. And it
could - practically speaking - never raise the money to do so (states have
enough trouble paying their teachers, sanitation workers, paving roads, etc).

~~~
throwawaysea
They have trouble paying for everything that’s on their wish list but that’s
true of individuals and the federal government as well. A state COULD have
those things, especially if their taxpayers gave up less in federal taxes
since the federal government would have fewer responsibilities. Not sure how
this changes things.

~~~
falcolas
But if a state has sufficient personnel to handle an emergency (say a tornado
strike on a town), they have too much personnel the rest of the time. Whereas,
with a governmental entity, they can go from emergency to emergency, keeping
wasted resources to a minimum.

The governmental agency can also shift resources from one state to another
without having to wait for the resolution of aid politics between the
individual states (not to mention the states the aid would be transported
through).

Of course, there are significant inefficiencies that exist in those entities
in reality, but what would realistically prevent those same inefficiencies
from existing in a state-run system as well?

------
vmception
There are deeper cases for revisiting the Electoral College than "I don't like
it when the popular vote doesn't favor me". One primary issue is that the
Electors for each state are not elected. A patch for this and guidance for
their behaviors is something that has to be addressed in each state on their
own, with a few states here or there seeming to force Electors to submit
certain information, such as the popular vote result.

Revisiting the simpler argument about not liking the representation provided
by the Electoral College, it is valid that its purpose was for a much smaller
nation of like 12-14 states at time of inception. It should be obvious that
this argument will fall flat because it will never reach the level of
consensus necessary to change it, as you need 75% ratification of the states,
most of which benefit from the Electoral College amplifying their vote and
relevancy. There are better uses of energy.

Regulating the Electors is a better use of energy, as there are real
inefficiencies and a lack of accountability in who they are and what they do,
as they can submit literally anything to Congress no matter what their own
state voted for.

~~~
kthejoker2
Supreme Court ruled this year that that's not so, you can't be a faithless
elector.

[https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/885168480/supreme-court-
rules...](https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/885168480/supreme-court-rules-state-
faithless-elector-laws-constitutional)

~~~
t0mbstone
If you can't legally be a faithless elector, then there is no point to having
an electoral college. Just let the popular vote decide, since that's how the
electoral college is obligated to vote anyways.

~~~
kthejoker2
Electoral College votes aren't distributed by population; they're distributed
based on representation in Congress.

So each state receives 2 electors from the Senate even if only a single person
lived in them.

But of course the Electoral College should be abolished.

Because in fact, in a truly dystopian scenario, someone could be elected
President with only 44 votes in their favor.

That is, if only one person each voted in the 41 states with the least amount
of electors (2 people for Maine and Nebraska which split their EVs) and DC,
and all voted for the same candidate, that candidate would receive 280
electoral votes.

Even if the other 9 states voted 100% against that candidate, representing
~100 million voters, our system would declare the first candidate the winner.

------
platz
The electoral college itself isn't really the issue.

It's the fact that states use winner-take-all apportionment of electors.

Unlike the electoral college, winner-take-all apportionment isn't mandated in
the constitution.

You could have the electoral college and also distribute electors according to
the share of popular vote each party received in that state.

~~~
compycom
It's still an issue in that this wouldn't afford equal representation. The way
the number of electors is determined is {senators + members of congress + 3}.
Since the senate affords massively more representation per person to rural
states, rural states will be overrepresented in this system as well.

~~~
platz
small price to pay to unlock everyones' vote mattering instead of just a
couple battleground states.

Also, giving a bit more representation to less populous areas may be a feature
you don't want to get rid of quite so hastily.

------
seanwilson
For people that complain a party won without the popular vote under the
current rules, if you changed the rules for what defines winning, then that
party would have campaigned in a completely different way

E.g. under the old rules, maybe the winning party purposely didn't campaign in
a state they knew they couldn't win (a logical use of campaign funds),
dragging down their countrywide vote. If the countrywide vote was important
though, they wouldn't have campaigned like this.

You could argue that the current rules for winning don't accurately match the
general will of the people but it's illogical to me to argue that the party
that won under the current rules would have or should have lost if the rules
changed.

Making it easier for people to vote and getting more people to vote seems like
a no-brainier improvement though.

~~~
LanceH
It amazes me the sheer number of people that just don't get this.

I personally believe that this influence Republicans to move a bit more
center. but who knows?

A good example of what could happen to close the national voting gap:
Republicans would actually campaign in California and a few of the big blue
states. Right now, someone voting for a republican in California has very
little incentive to show up to vote. Republicans start campaigning there and
the voters now have a reason to show up. Maybe not enough to close the gap
completely, but it could close it a lot with no policy changes, just
campaigning and a reason for people to show.

The same could happen the other way, but the big population blue states are
more abandoned by Republicans than the big red states are by dems (it seems).

Anyhow, if you change the rules, the players are going to change their game.

------
baron816
I’ve long been in favor of rewriting the constitution. Everyone hates how the
government operates—courts are politicized and at risk of being captured, the
legislature is at a constant impasse, everything is hyper partisan, the
executive is either way too powerful, or not powerful enough. The only things
people can point to that they like about the constitution are the first
amendment, and sometimes the second and fourteenth amendments. Other countries
have tried out different forms of representative government in the last 231
years. There’s a lot we can learn from them.

~~~
sky_rw
And given all of these screwed up things, you would put it to these people to
write a better framework?

You say "The only things people can point to that they like about the
constitution are..." and then proceed to point out things that are not even in
the constitution.

Here is something to like about the constitution: a system of government that
has seen the peaceful transition of power every 4 years for 244 consecutive
years.

~~~
HideousKojima
>a system of government that has seen the peaceful transition of power every 4
years for 244 consecutive years.

If you don't count that little incident in the 1860's

~~~
sky_rw
Yeah those pesky southern Democrats keep trying to make things difficult.

------
batch12
If the nation was intended to be a union of states, then the electoral college
is one mechanism that can be used to ensure that each state, as an entity, has
an equal vote for federal leadership. I understand it as less of a person
voting directly for the President, and more as each person voting for how
their state should vote for President. The idea from the article that any
argument for the electoral college is racist is a shallow attempt to quiet any
real discussion.

edit: grammar

------
padseeker
The threshold for changing the constitution is exceptionally high, requiring
38 states. If the Electoral college gives more power to smaller states, why
are they going to give that power up? Why is Wyoming and North/South Dakota
going to give up their more valuable electoral votes to get rid off the
electoral college? Also it benefits one party over another. Unless there is
overwhelming broad appeal, this isn't going to happen. The only way it would
change is if the party that benefits from this structure were to suddenly lose
because of it. Why would that happen? I understand how pro-democracy argument,
but the logistics required to make this happen is far removed.

------
mNovak
I was interested to learn there's a sort of workaround to resolving the
electoral college without a constitutional amendment, and it's some 70% of the
way implemented:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)

Essentially, a block of states with sufficient electoral votes to determine
the election legislates that they will cast their electoral votes in
accordance with the _national_ popular vote. It's interesting because it takes
advantage of the large freedom states have to regulate their own electors, and
substantially reduces the number of small states that have to get on board, as
compared to an amendment.

Obviously somewhat more fragile though, as states could in principle leave the
pact later on.

~~~
judge2020
There's also the issue with SCOTUS potentially declaring it an interstate
compact (as defined by the Constitution's compact clause) and striking down
its legality - although IIRC the point of that was preventing secession and it
hasn't been used for anything else. I would think that other sorts of
interstate compacts like the shared peach pass(GA)/sun pass(FL)/quick pass(NC)
would be illegal if someone were to challenge the constitutionality of them
under that clause.

------
ocdtrekkie
What frustrates me about this constant argument is that there's a way to
retain the electoral college, which serves to at least somewhat fairly
designate votes by state populations, and still make every vote count: Make
states assign electors proportionally. A couple states already do it, and if
all fifty did, we'd have a much fairer system that is still somewhat insulated
from differences in how states manage voting.

------
throwawaysea
This reads more like a case to end the United States of America. The
fundamental problem is that ditching the electoral college will subject many
people of varied opinions, backgrounds, lifestyles, and cultures to a tyranny
of the majority
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority)).
This is already a problem even within states, where a few cities end up with
enormous political power and can basically subject everyone else to their
whims. The urban-rural divide is incredibly unhealthy
([https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/26/across-
cou...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/26/across-country-
rural-communities-secede-states-why-column/4851817002/)) and makes those
subject to the tyranny of the majority lose belief in democracy because they
feel unrepresented. The solution is not less electoral college but more, so
people can live their own lives. And governments that are broader in
geographical scope (state and federal) should have incredibly narrow
political/legal scope, with the majority of power seated at more local levels.
That is how everyone can feel represented, retains locality of culture, retain
faith in the system, and coexist without eventual civil war.

------
oldertimer
Dump states too while you're at it. Might as well divide people up by
watersheds or timezones or tectonic plates.

~~~
labster
That’s why they keep mining coal in West Virginia and Wyoming. Florida and
Delaware will be under water and mountain states will be sitting pretty.

------
olivermarks
The word democracy doesn't appear anywhere in the US republic's constitution.
The USA was set up so that the electoral college had the final say over any
populist choice of leadership, ie veto power. This is similar to the way the
far more recent unelected EU commissioners are the senior decision and
strategy makers. The issue is centralized federalism and how to dilute this.

~~~
jonathankoren
A republic is a democracy. It’s just one that has a president, and not a king.

That’s all it is. It’s not representatives It’s not federalism. It’s just not
having a monarch.

~~~
rudiv
I find a lot of Americans display a belief that 'democracy' can only refer to
a direct democracy and 'republic' is the accurate term to refer to
representational democracies, but with the implication often being that the
point of representative democracy (vs direct democracy) is primarily to
prevent majoritarianism or 'mob rule'. None of that meshes with my knowledge
of political science gleaned from education in my home country (parliamentary
system) or in the United States, so I really wonder where this idea began.

As per my knowledge, representative democracies have an advantage over direct
democracies primarily in ease of administration and legislation. I don't think
there are any particularly strong reasons to suggest representative democracy
is less prone to a tyranny of the majority than a direct democracy.

My hypothesis is that the idea is borne out of a necessity to resolve the
dissonance between the US founders and constitution being in many ways anti-
democratic, with a culture that holds up democracy & freedom as its highest
ideals. (democracy in this case defined as it would be in the dictionary)

~~~
jonathankoren
The "We're a republic, not a democracy," comes from the 1930s as an
isolationist slogan to argue against getting involved with "the defense of
democracies" (the FDR argument) during World War II. From there it became a
quip from the John Birch Society to delegitimize a political party. I know
that sounds, hyperbolic, but it's true.

Jamelle Bouie recently did yeoman work tracking down it's start.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/opinion/aoc-crenshaw-
repu...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/opinion/aoc-crenshaw-republicans-
democracy.html)

------
techman9
I do wonder whether the electoral college system somewhat insulates the US
from election tampering or voter fraud. The current system disaggregates
election certification to the state level, which is then made official by a
discrete vote of the electoral college. For instance, if Donald Trump wants to
claim that the election was rigged or tampered with, it's sort of moot as it's
ultimately up to the state electors.

It feels like in the face of this, it's very hard for one candidate to dispute
the election, as it's ultimately resolved by electoral vote. If we were to
change the system to one based only a national first past the post poll, even
one certified by vote totals from individual states, I wonder how you'd ensure
an impartial certification of the final result.

~~~
cmurf
We don't have the Electoral College Hamilton envisioned in Federalist 68.
[https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp)

They were supposed to be regular people, not politicians. And certainly not
the worst people ever conceived: party loyalists. That's The system we use.

It's also not the ultimate decision making body. If the results are disputed,
and no candidate gets 270 Electors, House of Representatives chooses the
president, one vote per state. Senate choose VP, one vote per senator.

------
dheera
Personally I say abolish the electoral colleges to ensure that every vote
actually matters. That alone will reduce voter apathy and get more people
actually out there voting.

~~~
rrauenza
Consider that our current president is a populist and it could be argued that
he only didn't win the popular vote because he didn't focus on that, but
rather on the electoral college.

I think the founding fathers would cite our current president as the reason
they didn't trust direct democracy...

It's food for thought whenever I think about pushing more towards direct
democracy. I've been leaning towards proportional electoral votes, but there
are so many unintended consequences.

~~~
ultramundane8
I really can't grant that first paragraph in good faith without some evidence.

How could you possibly divine the intent of the 2016 Trump campaign? We still
can't agree on a vast number of its actions, let alone its strategy.

~~~
kthejoker2
You want evidence that Trump

1) didn't try to win the popular vote i.e. specifically did not court the
votes of certain people

2) In order to run as a populist i.e. shore up votes from his base

3) because the Electoral College system supports just such a strategy, such
that winning 51% of a few states while only getting 45% of the vote

Well, other than his entire campaign, the clearest evidence I can give is this
in the face of actual polling numbers indicating that #1 and #2 had come to
pass in the summer of 2016, the campaign's advertising dollars focused almost
exclusively on the Obama states he ended up flipping.

