The point is, we need to get rid of "battleground states." A few states shouldn't get to decide every election. The Electoral College's "winner takes all" for each state needs to go. It should be one person, one vote when it comes to presidential elections. (Yes, even if it doesn't always go the way I want it to.) https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/newsletter/2020-11-07/arts-newsletter-template-essential-arts
That takes a rewrite the constitution. States have the power to make those decisions. The system was weighted, intentionally, in favor of rural and small states to get unanimous approval for a united states constitution. Electoral reform requires amending the constitution. On the other hand, if we allow the courts, Congress and the rule of law to be torn down, we wonтАЩt have to worry about it. All those decisions will be made without our input. Meanwhile, as we still have some semblance of our democratic institutions, those who donтАЩt support a right wing authoritarian agenda will continue to need in the range of 50% +7 to 10% majority.
You can see here that only in the past 20 years have we had such consistently narrow presidential elections where the popular vote was within a few percentage points.
How are the "courts, Congress and rule of law to be torn down" affecting the current Electoral College system? It's working as designed. It's not designed to be a popular vote.
The fact that a couple elections have been won while not winning the popular vote is an example of why the Electoral College works. It was a compromise that has an element of the popular vote built in, but is not solely dependent on just popular vote.
Imagine if the state of Texas had 100 Million voters and 85% voted for one candidate. So 85 Million people in Texas would effectively decide the election for the entire country. I don't think that would be desired.
Sorry, but I don't see Trump getting elected while having lost the popular vote by 3 million as an example of the Electoral College "working." It is a minoritarian system and should be scrapped or bypassed (a la the National Popular Vote initiative).
More than a couple. And itтАЩs becoming more of a risk. Yes, itтАЩs become a problem in the last 20 years as the majority in the popular vote has shrunk. So hereтАЩs a reasonable solution that works around the constitutional requirement. It preserves the well as a majority and the constitution.
The electoral college has become more of a problem because it tends to favor states with fewer voters. That makes a bigger difference when you have a smaller majority.
But I suspect your real issue of saving the electoral college forever lies in something not stated. I say that because your arguments do not support your initial statement, which was not actually correct.
тАФThe Electoral College is based off of people, not acreage. The more people in a state, the more Electoral Votes that state gets.тАФ
How does it "tend to favor states with fewer voters"
Each state gets electors based off of the number of Senators (2) and the number of representatives it has (which is based off of population). If you look at the context of my initial statement, how is that not correct?
тАФMore meaningful in the fact that the people of Alaska have more influence under the current system than if it was only based on popular vote. Currently they get 3 of the 538 Electoral votes. The less populated states (with fewer Electors) get more of a say under the current system.тАФ
Yes, the states with fewer Electoral votes can potentially play a bigger role when you have a smaller majority. That is how it was designed, and people can change it (via popular vote) by electing Representatives and amending our Constitution.
This was a workaround. The authors and founders also anticipated the document being amended frequently as needed. But once hours is given, itтАЩs very hard to get back
I doubt they saw the computer age and log rhythms. Calculation of electoral votes for each state is one problem. Here is what you can do block by block, street by street with computer computer driven gerrymandering. ItтАЩs an extreme example but ItтАЩs really the main reason the GOP prefers more control over who votes and not expanding voting access or rights. Thomas Hofeller had a well kept secret until after his death.
It was also the meaning of a Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. Sims, in 1964. To the extent that it doesn't bear a relationship to reality today, that's primarily, if not exclusively, the Republicans' fault at this point. But then for at least the last 50 years, Republicans haven't given a damn about the law where their own behavior is concerned.
Well, mostly. Every state gets two electors, just as it has two senators, regardless of population. Then, based on population, they get anywhere between one more elector (as in Wyoming) and dozens more (New York, California, Texas, etc.).
But the biggest problem with the Electoral College is the chosen Electors are sworn to commit to a specific candidate of a specific political party. They are not free to 'vote' for any other person, any other political party. It bears a harsh similarity to elections in Russia or other dictator type governments
That's like saying our system "bears a harsh similarity to elections in Russia" because we don't vote on laws, we elect representatives and senators to do it for us. It's not ideal, but neither is it a symptom of autocracy.
I didn't change the meaning or otherwise "edit" what you wrote. I drew an analogy, and that analogy is valid in that in both instances, voters, rather than voting directly for whom/what they want, are having people represent them.
Totally agree with you. Acreage doesn't vote. People do.
The Electoral College is based off of people, not acreage. The more people in a state, the more Electoral Votes that state gets.
The point is, we need to get rid of "battleground states." A few states shouldn't get to decide every election. The Electoral College's "winner takes all" for each state needs to go. It should be one person, one vote when it comes to presidential elections. (Yes, even if it doesn't always go the way I want it to.) https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/newsletter/2020-11-07/arts-newsletter-template-essential-arts
That takes a rewrite the constitution. States have the power to make those decisions. The system was weighted, intentionally, in favor of rural and small states to get unanimous approval for a united states constitution. Electoral reform requires amending the constitution. On the other hand, if we allow the courts, Congress and the rule of law to be torn down, we wonтАЩt have to worry about it. All those decisions will be made without our input. Meanwhile, as we still have some semblance of our democratic institutions, those who donтАЩt support a right wing authoritarian agenda will continue to need in the range of 50% +7 to 10% majority.
You can see here that only in the past 20 years have we had such consistently narrow presidential elections where the popular vote was within a few percentage points.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-Presidential-Election-Results-1788863
Here is an alternative solution that does not require a rewrite of the constitution and preserves the majority vote. Some states have already agreed. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
How are the "courts, Congress and rule of law to be torn down" affecting the current Electoral College system? It's working as designed. It's not designed to be a popular vote.
I said if they are torn down, we wonтАЩt have to worry about it. Another words, we wonтАЩt have to worry about the electoral college..
The fact that a couple elections have been won while not winning the popular vote is an example of why the Electoral College works. It was a compromise that has an element of the popular vote built in, but is not solely dependent on just popular vote.
Imagine if the state of Texas had 100 Million voters and 85% voted for one candidate. So 85 Million people in Texas would effectively decide the election for the entire country. I don't think that would be desired.
Sorry, but I don't see Trump getting elected while having lost the popular vote by 3 million as an example of the Electoral College "working." It is a minoritarian system and should be scrapped or bypassed (a la the National Popular Vote initiative).
I appreciate your opinion. It's working as it was designed and can be changed through an amendment to our Constitution.
Which will never happen in our polarized society.
More than a couple. And itтАЩs becoming more of a risk. Yes, itтАЩs become a problem in the last 20 years as the majority in the popular vote has shrunk. So hereтАЩs a reasonable solution that works around the constitutional requirement. It preserves the well as a majority and the constitution.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
Why are close elections where "the majority in the popular vote is getting shrunk" a problem?
The electoral college has become more of a problem because it tends to favor states with fewer voters. That makes a bigger difference when you have a smaller majority.
But I suspect your real issue of saving the electoral college forever lies in something not stated. I say that because your arguments do not support your initial statement, which was not actually correct.
тАФThe Electoral College is based off of people, not acreage. The more people in a state, the more Electoral Votes that state gets.тАФ
How does it "tend to favor states with fewer voters"
Each state gets electors based off of the number of Senators (2) and the number of representatives it has (which is based off of population). If you look at the context of my initial statement, how is that not correct?
The senators are not based on population.
And according to youтАж
тАФMore meaningful in the fact that the people of Alaska have more influence under the current system than if it was only based on popular vote. Currently they get 3 of the 538 Electoral votes. The less populated states (with fewer Electors) get more of a say under the current system.тАФ
Yes, the states with fewer Electoral votes can potentially play a bigger role when you have a smaller majority. That is how it was designed, and people can change it (via popular vote) by electing Representatives and amending our Constitution.
This was a workaround. The authors and founders also anticipated the document being amended frequently as needed. But once hours is given, itтАЩs very hard to get back
I doubt they saw the computer age and log rhythms. Calculation of electoral votes for each state is one problem. Here is what you can do block by block, street by street with computer computer driven gerrymandering. ItтАЩs an extreme example but ItтАЩs really the main reason the GOP prefers more control over who votes and not expanding voting access or rights. Thomas Hofeller had a well kept secret until after his death.
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote
"One person, one vote" actually has been the law of the land for about 60 years.
That's an oft-quoted slogan which bears little relation to reality.
It was also the meaning of a Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. Sims, in 1964. To the extent that it doesn't bear a relationship to reality today, that's primarily, if not exclusively, the Republicans' fault at this point. But then for at least the last 50 years, Republicans haven't given a damn about the law where their own behavior is concerned.
Well, mostly. Every state gets two electors, just as it has two senators, regardless of population. Then, based on population, they get anywhere between one more elector (as in Wyoming) and dozens more (New York, California, Texas, etc.).
But the biggest problem with the Electoral College is the chosen Electors are sworn to commit to a specific candidate of a specific political party. They are not free to 'vote' for any other person, any other political party. It bears a harsh similarity to elections in Russia or other dictator type governments
That's like saying our system "bears a harsh similarity to elections in Russia" because we don't vote on laws, we elect representatives and senators to do it for us. It's not ideal, but neither is it a symptom of autocracy.
I was Specific about the Electoral College Lex, Not "our (entire) system". Changing the entire meaning of a comment isn't editing.
I didn't change the meaning or otherwise "edit" what you wrote. I drew an analogy, and that analogy is valid in that in both instances, voters, rather than voting directly for whom/what they want, are having people represent them.
But it's proportionate only to a certain point, which is not even close to being one-to-one.