People should consider that campaigning, platforms and candidates would be entirely different in a world run by popular vote.
It may or may not ultimately be better, but it certainly wouldn't be a simple one variable change from the current political climate to the benefit of one party today.
I'm largely in favor of popular vote over the EC, but it would not usher in a huge change to the status quo, more likely a slightly different flavor of what we have today.
The stances of both parties has drastically changed over time under the EC model, and would continue to do so under the popular vote model
This is correct and Trump said that himself in 2016. According to him, he would spend a lot more time and money campaigning in California and New York instead of battleground states if the system was different.
And we would then see the very issue the electoral college tries to fix: small states wouldn't matter. It would be a lot more efficient in terms of vote acquisition to put in place policies benefitting Los Angeles than Green Bay, WI. Los Angeles is already extremely powerful as it is; the electoral college shifts some power away from huge cities.
Small states already don’t matter, with EC only “battleground” states matter; which feels way way worse.
We also already have weird dynamics when it comes to policy. More people are likely employed by Wendy’s than all the coal workers, but something tells me that coal workers are given way more policy proposals to help them than fast food workers.
Not if you go by popular vote, not necessarily at least. There are millions of voters for the other political parties in say California, Texas, New York, Florida; none of these voters will get their voice heard because of how they typically vote (CA going blue, Texas going red). Popular vote ensures that all votes matter, not just whatever happens to be a battle ground state which change every 10 years or so.
BTW saying that one party having a trifecta of governance as autocratic is fucking moronic and not accurate. Words have meaning, lets not diminish them because you're upset people don't vote how you want.
Only if we're stuck in the 18th century technology and a presidential candidate has to physically visit each small town to talk to its people. In that case, yes, small states wouldn't matter because no candidate will have time to visit Omaha or Boise.
But thankfully we're in the 21st century: a candidate can mail flyers and buy youtube ads with policies tailored for those perennial "red" states. Under the current system it makes zero difference, so nobody bothers, and they stay forgotten. Under popular vote, every citizen who votes for you in Omaha, NE is as good as another citizen in Philadelphia, PA.
It would absolutely be better. Think of how many Trump voters are disenfranchised in California. Think of how many Harris voters are disenfranchised in Alabama. The president represents everyone, and yet, seven random states will actually move the needle in the contest this year. This is only controversial because it benefits one party that would otherwise consistently lose in an election that uses sane math where "greater than" hasn't been redefined to let the loser win, so now everyone who's into that is going to come out of the woodwork to explain how a minority-rule system from back when we had slavery is actually super great, guys.
Who cares about "Alabama"? Or "Texas"? Or "California"? The point being made is that the presidency shouldn't be weighted by states. It should be a selection by the people.
To your assumption that Alabama will always be lopsided conservative while the country will always be lopsided Republican: Why should the Democrats in Alabama never have their voice heard?
I support electoral reform for the legislature... but the EC is trash.
I'm very pessimistic this is ever going to work. Even if they get above the threshold with everyone still on board, I'm certain this is going to be challenged in court and overturned. Not that there's anything unconstitutional about it, but the popular vote (generally speaking) benefits the Democrats, so there's no way the current Supreme Court is going to allow it. Which is a very depressing view of the Supreme Court, but that's the world we live in.
An Originalist Supreme Court would think differently because of the compact clause:
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:
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.
For the most part the Supreme Court has let states create agreements on smaller things that wouldn’t be Congressional issues. This is a Congressional issue because they certify the vote so a politically biased Supreme Court is nearly certain to shut it down. Right now the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact isn’t in effect, so no one has standing to bring a case. But once it is in effect, expect a case to be quickly brought because opponents have had years to plan for this.
Oh, this is a big deal, had no idea, thanks for sharing. How realistic is it to assume the majority will be reached by the compact anytime soon and if it will, that no states will withdraw? What’s the current rough outcome probability distribution?
So it was not nearly abolished, if it was nearly abolished it would've passed the Senate exceeding the two-thirds vote required, which it didn't, and then would've nearly been ratified by two-thirds of the state legislatures, which it didn't. It was filibustered and died in the Senate.
Is there good reason why only few states split electors? That is send them in proportion of votes. Keep the balancing effect of federal state, while making lot more votes matter.
It's the same reason the electoral college hasn't been abolished yet. The collective power of traditionally "red" rural areas would be diluted by the more urban areas within each state.
Note that of the two states currently splitting electors, neither do it in proportion of votes. They award an elector to the winner of the vote in each of the state's congressional districts, and then the overall statewide winner receives the remaining two electors. In that sense, it's identical to how representatives are sent to Congress.
I get the idea the current era a lot of democratic systems are getting quite the workout. Adding extra tiers and firebreaks -it turns out- is not always a bad idea. Not commenting on how well they might be implemented.
It's a shame they couldn't have ended the Electoral College error. It's very frustrating knowing how much better things could've turned out if the people who won the popular vote had been able to take office instead of the losers.
There is a system explicitly designed not to always give the victory to the popular vote winner. If, on occasion, it does what is was explicitly designed to do that isn't really an error.
"Haha, we have 50.5% of the vote now you have to do what we say" is workable but hardly a stronger moral position than securing 49.5% - particularly after looking at the turnout situation in the US. Philosophically if there is less than overwhelming majorities (talking 60%, 70% style figures) there is a lot of room to question whether a democratic consensus has been achieved.
I know how I would set things up. But in the vast majority of cases there are objectively good and bad policies and the fact that people voted doesn't change whether something is a good idea or not. Nobody's voting in China as far as I know and they've seeing unbelievable rates of improvement in their living standards for the last few decades, it isn't that hard.
The issue is that the political class (really any group of people) is inevitably stuffed with corrupt sociopaths, tends towards groupthink, is easily dissociated from reality and insists on using social proof rather than a scientific approach. The system as it stands is just a big complicated stick to wallop them with a Trump every so often if they really muck things up to the point where their incompetence triggers too many problems for enough people. The exact trigger % of people needed to engage the stick should be set sensibly but in practice the US is making do with around 20% of the population according to Wikipedia [0].
I believe it would be straightforward to determine policy if we had an oracle with perfect knowledge that operated under a so-called veil of ignorance [0]. Getting good outcomes with a fair & reasonable minimum standard of lifestyle for the people who are the worst off isn't particularly hard. The problem with implementing that system is the lack of oracles and deficits of intellectual honesty.
The key point is we don't need to vote to determine what works well. Whether a policy gets good results is just a fact regardless of whether or not people vote for it. And there are a large number of policies that were terrible the last time people tried them and will continue to be terrible even if the voting public decides to try them again.
They vote from an approved list of candidates, but the following makes it sound as if, in principle anyway, there ought to be enough voting to keep the better apparatchiks and bounce the worse ones:
("The People's Daily* says the grass-roots general elections in mainland China are the largest [900 million voters] grass-roots democratic elections in the world.")
Considering that the President, Chief Executive of the Federal Government, represents and is elected by the States, a nationwide popular vote election is a violation of State sovereignty.
The United States of America is exactly what it says: A Union of sovereign States. It's very sad a lot of people don't understand this because they slept through civics/history class.
The roles and capabilities of the state and federal government have evolved since the 1700s.
The state level of government feels more and more like a historic novelty carried over as "we always did it this way" and "it would require far too much political capital to touch"-- America's answer to the House of Lords or the Governor General.
State sovereignty is how and why certain States legalized marijuana while others don't, why certain States impose a given tax the way they do and others don't, why States each have a National Guard that is legally independent of the Federal military and thus from the authority of the President, and a host of other matters that are determined or reserved by a State and its electorate.
The United States of America is a very vast country literally spanning an entire continent, State sovereignty is more important now than ever before because the needs and desires of the peoples within them can and will vary wildly from each other; they varied wildly with just 13 States across the eastern seaboard, let alone 50 States spanning a continent and islands in the Pacific.
The Federal government exists to better enable functions of government where the States have a unanimous consensus, and to that end the Federal government including the Presidency exists strictly at the pleasure of the States. For all other matters where States can and will disagree, the States reserve the power to decide by themselves for themselves.
Okay. The equivalent at the single voter level is if a voter is undecided between Candidate A and Candidate B. After much contemplation this voter decides she's 50.5% in favour of B and 49.5% in favour of A, so heads to the polls to cast 100% of her single vote for B.
The 538 Electors are derived from the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators in Congress, with an additional 1 Representative and 2 Senators equivalents in Electors allocated to the District of Columbia (specifically the same count as the least populous State in the Union, currently Rhode Island with 1 Representative and 2 Senators).
That means of the 538 Electors, 436 of them are allocated according to State population counts as recorded in the United States Census taken every 10 years.
And the outcomes are frequently undemocratic. Only in America is it fair for the smaller number to be bigger than the bigger number, which just so happens to conveniently benefit the minority, who then twist themselves into knots to "well, akshually" us all to death.
In Australia the seats in the upper house of Parliament are strictly divided between the States with each receiving 12 seats regardless of their relative populations (two territories which are not proper states also receive 2 seats each). I suspect some other countries may have a similar federal model where there is some kind of barrier to stop larger states from being predatory towards smaller states. If you check wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism) you can see some other countries like Argentina have a similar model to Australia. I think in Australia there was probably similar historical reasons for the Senate as the Electoral College in the USA. The colonies in Australia were self-governing and then decided to create a central government and the Senate was a way to give the smaller colonies confidence they wouldn't be taken advantage of in the future.
It may or may not ultimately be better, but it certainly wouldn't be a simple one variable change from the current political climate to the benefit of one party today.
I'm largely in favor of popular vote over the EC, but it would not usher in a huge change to the status quo, more likely a slightly different flavor of what we have today.
The stances of both parties has drastically changed over time under the EC model, and would continue to do so under the popular vote model
reply