That damned Electorial College

Say these words out loud, then look at this map of campaign visits in 2016:



Say those words again.

This isn't big states versus small states, it's swing states vs non swing states.

Also, "equal say by states" seems to imply the senate should elect the president (or electors are based only on senate seats). That already doesn't happen?

Or, even better, maybe say these words:

You should read what I said again, I said it SHOULD be like that, not that it IS like that. Of course it's not perfect the way it is now. I was just strictly talking about the popular vote.

Most Biblical movies were long If I Recall.

seen A Clockwork Orange. In all honesty, the movie was weird and silly

1) That quote is more related to political parties and people dividing themselves into factions (it's kind of grey, parties weren't as strong back then). It has nothing to do with the electoral college, and everything to do with representative government vs direct democracy. Which, possibly could be related if we actually elected electors to vote for us, and not bind them to the popular vote directly. However electors are pretty much bound, and if the electors had defected from their state vote to prevent Trump from winning, I'd be upset with them.

(Unrelated to your point, Madison was wrong about party's longevity in Fed 10. Madison argued that as the country grew, parties wouldn't be able maintain their strength as there'd be too many specific/regional interests. Not that I blame him, just have to be mindful that founders got a lot wrong.)

2) I am glad you changed your claim from "Under NPV, Democratic urban concentration = one party totalitarian rule" to "Under NPV, Democratic urban concentration = Significant Democratic advantage". Which, I don't think is true anyway, but even my only effect is improving arguments, I'm happy.

3) You seem to be saying that in elections where you have a popular vote and the majority of people are urbanized, then you only need to campaign in those urban areas. But that happens under EC.

Take a look at this chart to see which states are relatively urban and which states are relatively rural.

So let's say that you believe that the electoral college incentivizes campaigning in rural states. Well let's test that theory. Look at the 10 most relatively rural states and cross reference it with the campaigning map:

Maine got 3, which is pretty good. Because it was lucky enough to be somewhat of a swing state (and it splits their electoral votes) . Mississippi got 1. And of the other 8 states with relatively high rural populations (Vermont, Vest Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, South Dakota, Kentucky, Alabama, North Dakota), they got zero. So out of 399 events, the ten most rural states got only 4, or one percent. This happened under EC, not NPV.

The combined population of those states is about 21 million. About 6.5% of the total population. They should have gotten about 6 times more attention than they did.

Also, let's consider the states that did get the most campaign attention. Let's not forget that the states have popular votes to decide their winner. So if your premise is that popular vote elections are dominated by urban/democrat interests if the population is urbanized, how did Pennsylvania go red when it has about a 79% urban population and the US has an 80% urban population? Or Florida with a 91% urban population?

Your premise does not function. Republicans still win urbanized states, and Republicans can still win urbanized national elections. And the electoral college does not promote rural voters, it promotes swing state voters.

4) Here's the basic point. The states that do benefit from the EC are swing states. No doubt about it. So if you want to argue that the EC is better than NPV, you must argue why swing state voters deserve more relative power than non-swing state voters. Why don't Texans and Californians deserve presidential attention? Democrats in Texas and Republicans currently do not matter under EC, but they would matter just as much as everyone else under NPV.

Why should some votes matter more than others?

I changed nothing. The Dems would have the advantage in urban areas. Removing the electoral college will give them their shot at one part rule by placating their urban base. Only thing I expanded upon was they needed more then just those three cities which I guess would not .

As for your main point "why should some people's votes matter more?" They don't. Everyone gets a single vote. And each vote does matter.

Because even though they may not say campaign hard in a state like California for democrats or Texas for Republicans, they will still come out and campaign there regardless. Trump came to Texas and spoke, held an event, and left. Hilary was all the place too in liberal states as well. Just because certain battleground states get campaigned at more does not mean that every other vote is not important or somehow less so.

Top it off swing states and battle ground states fluctuate. Michigan was a very key battle ground state this election.

and it is also worth noting that the electoral college was created to benefit slaveholders.

http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/11/...igins-slavery/

I'm honestly curious how you could believe that, so it's possible we are talking about different things. So let me ask you this, are you saying the Republicans are incapable of winning a national popular vote when they've done exactly that for 8 of the last 20 presidential elections? I think you believe the Republican party is much weaker than it really is (or you believe the Democrats are stronger than they really are).

I mean, even just look at this election, even if Clinton won the popular vote it wasn't exactly by a landslide; it was pretty damn close. Trump very well may have been able to win the election under popular vote rules (since they'd campaign differently), and again, I'm not trying to change the outcome of the election. I think the other system is more fair. Honestly if the Republicans fielded Rubio I feel like they would have easily won both the popular vote and electoral college.



Each vote does matter, and even while I dislike the electoral college there will ALWAYS be very important issues to vote on that everyone vote will matter equally (e.g. there was a local measure in my town that failed to reach super majority by 11 votes, and that'll impact the people here more than a lot of things Trump will do). But saying they are currently equal under the electoral college just isn't true, and campaign strategies show it.

I get your point that Dems still have to vote in California to win the state, and while I think everyone should vote even if it's for the symbolic participation in democracy, the electoral college skews the campaign towards arbitrary regional interests; which has actual consequences (not just principle violating inequality).

For example, coal. We heard a lot about coal, Clinton's infamous piece about putting coal out of business, Trump's insistence on bringing coal back. But coal didn't deserve that kind of attention, because government isn't putting coal out of business, the market is. Natural Gas is cheaper, less polluting, and more usable than coal. Even "coal country" acknowledges this. Clinton wouldn't have to do anything, because as long as natural gas is still booming, coal is doomed. Trump can't bring back coal unless he props coal up or brings natural gas down.

But that's not what the specific swing region wanted to hear. So instead the national conversation was skewed so that voters in those specific states were placated instead.

This happened because their votes were more valuable, and that's why they received more campaign attention.



I mean, theoretically if campaigns were ignorant, they could campaign at random and that variation could result in the incredibly focused campaigning in those swing states...but are you actually arguing it's something like that?

Let's put it in market terms: do you actually believe that either campaign would not trade a vote in California for a vote in Ohio?

I agree with you that all votes are important, but their value is clearly unequal.



I'll actually agree with you here, because I'm arguing out of a matter of principal, not that I dislike those particular states. Let's say that I could flip a switch to make the swing states rotate each election, that would still result in unequal vote values, and I'd still think it was wrong.

It would be easier to persuade me if the people calling for the college to be removed were not people who just lost in an election and want to retool the system to help them.

It is less that I believe the Republican party is weaker or the Dems are stronger. I just don't see what needs fixing. The electoral college was set up as a balance. I stated that in my other posts.

As for skewed by "regional issues" what is the problem? A certain region might have issues that are a big deal to them. They might not be the same as other states. Why should they not matter?

Coal is a big thing in West Virginia. They have coal, but a lot of coal worker have been put out of work due to the EPA and Obama's energy policies. Does their voice and concern not matter because someone in Washington this natural gas or solar energy is the way to go?

If someone wants to push for cleaner energy but wants to get those votes, offer them a solution that does not involve coal.

Well I sure didn't cry foul in 04 and 08 when Obama won. I did not throw a fit and demand to change the rules went the election turned out differently then I wanted. I said I hope the president does a good job, accepted defeat and moved on.

As for regional issues, how do they dominate? They may a A PART of the national bebate but there are issues large and small that made up the electoral debate. And natural gas may well be an option if there is gas there. But again, why can't their voices be heard? They are out of work, need jobs and want to back and earn a living. They want to bring coal back. Why can't they be heard out? Why can't they vote how they want? You seem more interested in coal vs natural gas and why the natural gas is better and upset that people voted to bring it back. It seems less "one man one vote" and more this important issue is a bigger deal.

Natural gas is a great option and should be tapped as a resource don't get me wrong. If you got it use it. But that is still no good reason to repeal the electoral college.

What does it balance? It doesn't balance rural vs urban. It doesn't balance Republican vs Democrat. The redistribution goes from non-swing states to swing states, that's the advantage, you'd have to argue that for some reason, swing states need that special attention and non-swing states (both populous ones like CA or TX and less-populous ones like Oregon or Alabama) need less attention.

4) Here's the basic point. The states that do benefit from the EC are swing states. No doubt about it. So if you want to argue that the EC is better than NPV, you must argue why swing state voters deserve more relative power than non-swing state voters. Why don't Texans and Californians deserve presidential attention? Democrats in Texas and Republicans currently do not matter under EC, but they would matter just as much as everyone else under NPV.

Why should some votes matter more than others?

Let's put it in market terms: do you actually believe that either campaign would not trade a vote in California for a vote in Ohio?

I agree with you that all votes are important, but their value is clearly unequal.

Without the electoral college a candidate would only have to campaign in certain major cities to get the majority vote.

Just because certain battleground states get campaigned at more does not mean that every other vote is not important or somehow less so.

And as for your last statement it is incomplete and twisting my words. It is not that focusing a campaign is bad, it is that it would shift the campaigning to places where there are just high populations. And they may not have the exact same issues as those urbanites. Because this might shock you, other people have different opinions and walks of life. We all can connect on jobs, the economy and the like in some fashion. We might disagree but we can connect. But the needs and issues of someone in small town Alabama will be different from Chicago. The people who live in the hills of the Appalacians will be different then LA. And the electoral college helps safeguard they get a fair break in the discussion. Because God forbid they have a voice in the discussion right?

In all fairness he came off quite condescending to me as well.

I doubt we will reach any common ground or understanding. Oh well. I tried.