Can we talk about the electoral college?

[hawkeye]

It's obsolete right? An outdated, antiquated system that has no benefit in the modern day and age of internet, tv, and instant news?

Please to explain if I am wrong and it still serves some purpose.

Otherwise, why don't we abolish it and go to a popular vote? Because we are worried Al Gore might stroke out if we do? ha ha

[msmerymac]

The intent of the Founding Fathers. HTH!

Seriously, they didn't mean for us to be a direct democracy. Straight popular vote almost gives people TOO much leeway. We are a republic. This isn't ancient Athens, people!

Honestly, the candidates would just concentrate in major population centers and ignore most of the country. The top 25 most populous cities would always be the ones to decide the vote, basically.

[Deleted]

It is still relevant.

Without the electoral college no one would pay attention to states in the middle of the country.

[hawkeye]

Aug 17, 2012 12:12:59 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

The intent of the Founding Fathers. HTH!

Seriously, they didn't mean for us to be a direct democracy. Straight popular vote almost gives people TOO much leeway. We are a republic. This isn't ancient Athens, people!

Honestly, the candidates would just concentrate in major population centers and ignore most of the country. The top 25 most populous cities would always be the ones to decide the vote, basically.

Ok, but with the electoral college isn't it really just a few states who technically decide the outcome of an election?

[overture]

Aug 17, 2012 12:12:59 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

The intent of the Founding Fathers. HTH!

Seriously, they didn't mean for us to be a direct democracy. Straight popular vote almost gives people TOO much leeway. We are a republic. This isn't ancient Athens, people!

I guess when it comes to stuff like this my gut reaction is "who cares what they intended."

If it doesn't work for us anymore, it should be changed. They're dead, we're not. We win.

[overture]

Aug 17, 2012 12:14:20 GMT -5 @septimus said:

It is still relevant.

Without the electoral college no one would pay attention to states in the middle of the country.

And living in the most populous state in the nation, it offends me a little that my vote rarely, if ever, matters.

[ladybrettashley]

Aug 17, 2012 12:14:20 GMT -5 @septimus said:

It is still relevant.

Without the electoral college no one would pay attention to states in the middle of the country.

But the government is not 'Of the states, by the states, for the states', it is 'Of the people, by the people, for the people.'

The government should represent the people, regardless of where they live. A vote in BFE Ohio should not be worth more than a vote in NYC.

[msmerymac]

Aug 17, 2012 12:14:21 GMT -5 hawkeye said:

Aug 17, 2012 12:12:59 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

The intent of the Founding Fathers. HTH!

Seriously, they didn't mean for us to be a direct democracy. Straight popular vote almost gives people TOO much leeway. We are a republic. This isn't ancient Athens, people!

Honestly, the candidates would just concentrate in major population centers and ignore most of the country. The top 25 most populous cities would always be the ones to decide the vote, basically.

Ok, but with the electoral college isn't it really just a few states who technically decide the outcome of an election?

Sometimes, but they change every so often. (Sometimes not - please see 1972 and 1984 for details of how a few states did NOT decide those elections.) California was blue in 1980, you know. Virginia was absolutely not a swing state a few election cycles ago.

The most populous states don't change that much.

1930 census info for states by population:

1 New York 12,588,066
2 Pennsylvania 9,631,350
3 Illinois 7,630,654
4 Ohio 6,646,697
5 Texas 5,824,715
6 California 5,677,251
7 Michigan 4,842,325
8 Massachusetts 4,249,614
9 New Jersey 4,041,334
10 Missouri 3,629,367

1950 census info:

1 New York 14,830,192
2 California 10,586,223
3 Pennsylvania 10,498,012
4 Illinois 8,712,176
5 Ohio 7,946,627
6 Texas 7,748,000
7 Michigan 6,421,000
8 New Jersey 4,860,000
9 Massachusetts 4,690,000
10 North Carolina 4,060,000

1970 census info:

1 California 19,953,134
2 New York 18,241,266
3 Pennsylvania 11,793,909
4 Texas 11,196,730
5 Illinois 11,113,976
6 Ohio 10,652,017
7 Michigan 8,875,083
8 New Jersey 7,168,164
9 Florida 6,789,443
10 Massachusetts 5,689,170

1990 census info:

1 California 29,760,021
2 New York 17,990,455
3 Texas 16,986,510
4 Florida 12,937,926
5 Pennsylvania 11,881,643
6 Illinois 11,430,602
7 Ohio 10,847,115
8 Michigan 9,295,297
9 New Jersey 7,730,188
10 North Carolina 6,628,637

2010 census info:

1 California 33,871,648 37,253,956 increase 3,382,308 increase 10.0%
2 Texas 20,851,820 25,145,561 increase 4,293,741 increase 20.6%
3 New York 18,976,457 19,378,102 increase 401,645 increase 2.1%
4 Florida 15,982,378 18,801,310 increase 2,818,932 increase 17.6%
5 Illinois 12,419,293 12,830,632 increase 411,339 increase 3.3%
6 Pennsylvania 12,281,054 12,702,379 increase 421,325 increase 3.4%
7 Ohio 11,353,140 11,536,504 increase 183,364 increase 1.6%
8 Michigan 9,938,444 9,883,640 decrease -54,804 decrease -0.6%
9 Georgia 8,186,453 9,687,653 increase 1,501,200 increase 18.3%
10 North Carolina 8,049,313 9,535,483



So there are like 2-3 states that have shifted either from or to the list over the past 80 years.

[ringstrue]

Aug 17, 2012 12:26:43 GMT -5 ladybrettashley said:

Aug 17, 2012 12:14:20 GMT -5 @septimus said:

It is still relevant.

Without the electoral college no one would pay attention to states in the middle of the country.

But the government is not 'Of the states, by the states, for the states', it is 'Of the people, by the people, for the people.'

The government should represent the people, regardless of where they live. A vote in BFE Ohio should not be worth more than a vote in NYC.

Preach it!

All votes should be equal.

[hawkeye]

Aug 17, 2012 12:12:59 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

The intent of the Founding Fathers. HTH!

Seriously, they didn't mean for us to be a direct democracy. Straight popular vote almost gives people TOO much leeway. We are a republic. This isn't ancient Athens, people!

Honestly, the candidates would just concentrate in major population centers and ignore most of the country. The top 25 most populous cities would always be the ones to decide the vote, basically.

Can you elaborate on how a strict popular vote gives people too much leeway?

It just seems to me a vote should be a vote whether you live in NY or FL or KS.

So what if they don't campaign in the middle states? People that live there have just as much access to each candidates platforms as everyone else?

I mean Obama doesn't do much campaigning in my state but I still know what he is about etc etc.

[downtoearth]

Le Sigh...I like the electoral college when I lived in CO and felt like my vote counted a ton. Now that I'm in MT, it feels less like my vote for president/vice-president counts less.

However, I now have much more contact and communication with our Congress people since fewer people are represented by more Senators.

[overture]

I'm puzzled as to how having my vote counted as equal to someone in Florida or Ohio gives me too much leeway.

[sonrisa]

Aug 17, 2012 12:36:46 GMT -5 hawkeye said:

Can you elaborate on how a strict popular vote gives people too much leeway?

Aug 17, 2012 12:40:46 GMT -5 overture said:

I'm puzzled as to how having my vote counted as equal to someone in Florida or Ohio gives me too much leeway.

"too much leeway" in the views of the founding fathers who put multiple constraints on direct democracy in the Constitution.

[Deleted]

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I can see how candidates might ignore less populated areas. So I do understand the purpose of the electoral college.

But I think the 2008 campaign taught us that it doesn't HAVE to be that way.

Part of how Obama won Ohio was to campaign in areas where Democrats don't traditionally do that well. The philosophy was that he wasn't going to win these rural counties, but if could change the margin from 55/45 to 51/49, those votes added to his urban votes would be sufficient to beat McCain. And it worked. Howard Dean's 2004 50 states strategy was the framework for it.

So in theory, a candidate could pay attention to smaller areas. You might see the Republican campaigning in New York State, for example. Even if he loses the state as a whole, turning all of non-NYC to a smaller margin of loss could be enough votes when added to others.

In the end, I think I'd support eliminating it, but it's approximately item #1,275,349 on my List of Shit I Care About.

[marie427]

A system where one guy could get more votes than the other and still lose the election is a faulty system.

Sincerely,
Someone Whose Vote Never Really "Counts"

[msmerymac]

Aug 17, 2012 12:43:39 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

Aug 17, 2012 12:36:46 GMT -5 hawkeye said:

Can you elaborate on how a strict popular vote gives people too much leeway?

Aug 17, 2012 12:40:46 GMT -5 overture said:

I'm puzzled as to how having my vote counted as equal to someone in Florida or Ohio gives me too much leeway.

"too much leeway" in the views of the founding fathers who put multiple constraints on direct democracy in the Constitution.

This.

But, look at it another way. We're the United STATES of America. The EC allows for the fact that we each live in separate states to factor into the election. A direct, popular vote takes the states rights aspect out of the equation. It's a way to sort of... keep a check on too much direct involvement between the feds and the citizens. If you think the federal government exists to basically wrangle the states together and make sure they're all fairly equal in certain ways, it kind of makes sense.

It's not a hill I want to die on by any means. But then, I'd also probably favor a parliamentary system over a direct popular vote for head of state. (And, come to think of it, many other democracies do have a parliamentary system. Popular vote for the head of state isn't all that common, IMO.)

[marie427]

Aug 17, 2012 15:37:10 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Nope. I like it.

Otherwise, every election would be decided by California and New York. And even *I* don't want the conservative voice shut down that much.

But there are conservatives in California and New York!

ETA: I'm kind of a Bitter Betty about the Electoral College but it's also not something I am vehemently against to the point where I bitch about it all the time. It's never going away so I just vent and then move on.

[emisi]

Aug 17, 2012 15:37:10 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Nope. I like it.

Otherwise, every election would be decided by California and New York. And even *I* don't want the conservative voice shut down that much.

Hey, better than decided by the old farts in Florida, right?

[overture]

As it stands though, there are many conservative voices in California and New York getting shut down (and liberal voices in, say, Texas and Missouri). McCain got 4.5 million votes in California.

I'm curious...do you think the average citizen has more interaction (via taxation, programs, etc.) with their state government or with the federal government?

[downtoearth]

Aug 17, 2012 16:23:13 GMT -5 marie427 said:

Aug 17, 2012 15:37:10 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

Nope. I like it.

Otherwise, every election would be decided by California and New York. And even *I* don't want the conservative voice shut down that much.

But there are conservatives in California and New York!

ETA: I'm kind of a Bitter Betty about the Electoral College but it's also not something I am vehemently against to the point where I bitch about it all the time. It's never going away so I just vent and then move on.

But conservatives, like Sarah Palin, hate California...how could there be conservatives there?

articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/12/news/la-pn-sarah-palin-loves-romneyryan-ticket-by-hating-california-20120812