03/10/2010 12:00:04 AM EST

The electoral college

posted by Smokin

So I was in the TYT chat room where someone at some point started to argue that our electoral college was somehow unfair and that was a corrupt system, that somehow it didn't reflect what the american people think they are voting for. That America should elect a president by popular vote only.

I had a difficult time explaining why the electoral system was a good system and was fair before I had to bail, so Im taking the time to post a couple of vids for those of us who need a little refresher on how it works and why.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook


< Defending Cenk on Dkos | Cenk, the Turkish Barbarian, is a sexist >
 Display:
The electoral college | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
Cartoons are fun, but... (none / 0)

...the electoral college is completely weighed toward the small states.  That might not have been the case in 1790 or even in 1950.  But it is now, and will surely be more and more so in the foreseeable future.

California, Texas, New York, Florida (4 biggest pop. states) = 99.6 million people = 147 electoral votes combined.  (These stats might be from as early as 2000, but are roughly the same now.)

Alaska, Delaware, Wash DC, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming (7 smallest pop. states + DC) = 5.7 million people = 24 electoral votes combined (each has 3).  

So 99.6 million people get 147 electoral votes and 5.7 million people get 24 electoral votes.  Roughly 17.5 times as many people get represented with roughly 6.1 times as many votes.  And while the extremes are the most obvious way to prove the point of unfair weight, the scale of votes to population continues to favor the smaller states all the way down the line (in large part because tiny states still get 2 senators, so they still get two built-in electoral votes.)  In doing the math, it works out to the fact that the smaller states get represented about 2.6 times as much as the bigger states (or at least they did in 2000, and the population explosions in this country are not expected to flood the smaller states as quickly as they do the bigger ones, so the disparity should only be increasing.)

I can understand that if there were only the popular vote, presidential hopefuls could only campaign in the cities (where most of the country is), and not worry about the small towns.  The Founders wanted to protect against "Big City Tyranny", especially when the politicians were travelling by horse and had a very limited schedule to campaign.  But the time has changed.  Now every speech (which are all the same anyway) is broadcast on national TV, and every state race is huge news for the country.  ("Obama and McCain are criss-crossing Florida.  Let's have a look in and see why this matters to you, even if you live in Oregon.")  So you now have an antiquated system which happens to weigh certain citizens more prominently for no reason other than where they live.

Combining this with the fact that the Senate is also heavily weighted WAYYYYY toward the small states (Wyoming and its 500,000 people have the same representation as California's 37 million), and you have an entire system geared toward "Small Town Tyranny."  The ingenious correction in the 18th century is now more egregiously wrong than the original problem. 

And, to be honest, the reason that we are particularly upset is also political--the small states tend to usually be Red states (McCain only won 2 of the top 10 population states), and it gives a markedly unfair weight to Republican politics in Congress.  Combine _that_ with the filibuster rules and only about 29% of the country was represented by the 40 GOP Senators before Brown was elected.  Throw in small-state Lieberman and those 41 were able to block all legislation after being voted in by 30% of the country.

So in terms of fairness, it is time for the Electoral College to go, and because Democrats play softball and Republicans play hardball, this ensures that it will never happen.

 

by Milltycoon on 03/10/2010 04:14:55 AM EST

Too slow... (none / 0)
"I had a difficult time explaining why the  system was a good system"

Well, no wonder. That's because it isn't a good system.

I was going to explain why I thought so but Milltycoon said pretty much what I was going to.

I will add that at the time the E.C. was concieved (1787), you had to be a male, white land owner to vote. Since that dynamic has changed and everyone can cast a vote, that's the way they should be counted. One person, one vote.

Let the chips fall where they may...

 

by MedfordTim on 03/10/2010 02:03:00 PM EST

Well I find that disappointing (none / 0)
The argument of how much states get considered and how much they should be weighted considering the population is a fair one to make, but to do away with a system that ensures every state gets representation and is worth fighting for a system that ignores them all together in favor of the more populated areas is weak sauce at best.

All I hear here is "well Dems would win big if it was based on the popular vote, therfore we should do away with it".

Every state and every region deserves representation and to have their concerns and issues addressed by candidates. The less populated areas should not be silenced and ignored by large populated states. A competition to have issues heard should be constantly made and that helps America as a whole. Many of the issues Alaska has wont be shared by any other state, to adopt a popular vote would ensure that Alaska will never again be important place to campaign, visit, or care if it prospers or thrives again because it only accounts for a fraction of a percent of possible votes. Like it or not, America is a better place with a prosperous thriving Alaska, and Wyoming, and Hawii, and Main, etc etc etc.

by Smokin on 03/10/2010 02:39:39 PM EST

Apples and Oranges (none / 0)
To be clear, I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat  - and what you aren't taking into consideration is it would give more status to 3rd party candidates who wouldn't have to rely on Republican or Democratic Congress critters to "allow" them to take office.

But, your premise is skewed. It is only the Presidential race which is affected by the E.C. and then only after the fact.- the states would still have the same number of Representatives and Senators they currently have and THEY are the ones who push for things for their states.

It's up to the people living in those areas to make a fuss if some candidate slights them by not campaigning there - not that they aren't; TV, Internet, Newspapers and Radio are all there to help get the candidates "message" out.

Again, things have changed since 1787. Mass communication, minority voting rights - these are things that weren't available then.

If we still did things the same, Senators would be appointed instead of being voted on by the people. Would you rather have that system still in place?

The e.c. only affects the President and the President really doesn't have much say about things on a local or state level. What difference does it really make if he (she) stops in Biloxi or Juneau to give a stump speech on free trade?

by MedfordTim on 03/10/2010 03:16:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hardly apples and oranges (none / 0)
The president needs to be and should always be a representative of the AMERICAN people, not just of California, Ohio, Texas, NY, and Florida. The president has alot to say and alot of influence over what happens on a state level he ultimately signs bills into law or vetos them and has a tremendous amount of push.

Its imo a silly point to suggest that radio and the internet gets the same message out and shouldn't matter where the message is broadcast from. The point is NOT to have a message heard at specific places, its to have presidential candidates visit these locations and learn about those locations and to understand their concerns and issues, its not about having the same soap box at a different place, its about giving the people of these small states a soap box to tell their potential president what is important to them.

Things may have changed since 1787, but the point of the electoral college has not nor have I seen a compelling argument against it or a better system to replace it. The popular vote would be absolutely unfair to most of America shifting the "tyranny of a small state" to the "tyranny of a few large ones".

by Smokin on 03/10/2010 04:01:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your assumptions are frustrating (none / 0)
The popular vote would be absolutely unfair to most of America shifting the "tyranny of a small state" to the "tyranny of a few large ones".

How, exactly, does that work? There would be a candidate who is only popular in big cities and carries 80% of their votes? I think that's just crazy talk.

You don't NEED a system to replace it - that's the point! It's the "appendix" of the US political being - the only time you'll notice it's there is if it explodes. The "system" of "one person, one vote" is already in place and being used on a very regular basis.

(full disclosure: if it were up to me, the U.S. would have mandatory voting as is done in Australia. Our low turnout is a bigger worry to me than the e.c.)

its about giving the people of these small states a soap box to tell their potential president what is important to them

...they could write him (her) a letter. It would probably be just as effective as a two hour stopover in some town just so they could say they went there. 

Any smart politician would know that it is wise to go to these smaller states whether there was an e.c. hanging over their heads or not. I truly doubt that it is even a consideration in current campaigns.

Seems to me, it boils down to: if you don't accept one person, one vote as viable, you aren't going to see  "a compelling argument against it." But, you know what?

That's okay. 

Take solace in knowing that I am rarely consulted when it comes to policy matters...

by MedfordTim on 03/10/2010 05:04:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Too literal there (none / 0)
"...they could write him (her) a letter. It would probably be just as effective as a two hour stopover in some town just so they could say they went there."

Im not saying that a president should actually physically hear concerns and hear issues from every state, but rather to have an incentive to address them in some way shape or form. If there is no incentive to address the issues of every state, then you can guarantee that they will be ignored.

For example, when Bush was elected into office, California was driven into an energy crisis. A made up crisis designed to drum up serious money for Texas based energy providers. Bush understanding that California is not a state he will ever win and will ever need to compete for, decided to do nothing despite pleas from our former governor to intervene and stop the corruption going on through federal means. This is one example of how a lack of incentive to address the issues of state compounded the problem. California gives no incentive to a republican president to give a flying fuck about what happens there, now one can say that would change if a popular vote was implemented instead. While it would be true for California that it would automatically become a state both republican and democratic presidents would work to impress, several state with much smaller populations would get the short end of the stick and lose any incentives that a president may have had to look out for their best interest.

by Smokin on 03/10/2010 05:44:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Shortcomings of state-by-state winner-take-all (none / 0)

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states.  In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states.  Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia).  In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. 

Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. 

 

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

 

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

 

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

by toto on 03/10/2010 08:21:12 PM EST

The National Popular Vote bill (none / 0)

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

 

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just  undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

 

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

 

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

 

The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,707 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

 

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska – 70%, DC – 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%;  in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota – 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

 

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon,  and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

 

See http://www.NationalPopularV ote.com

by toto on 03/10/2010 08:22:35 PM EST

12 of the 13 smallest states are not important (none / 0)
Political clout in presidential elections with state-by-state winner-take-all rules comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

 

12 of the 13 smallest states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections.  Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.  So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.

 

These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

by toto on 03/10/2010 08:31:53 PM EST

A few big states could not decide an election (none / 0)
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate.  However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes. 

 

Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question.  In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey).  The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country.  For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 

 

Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched.  Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:

* Texas (62% Republican),

* New York (59% Democratic),

* Georgia (58% Republican),

* North Carolina (56% Republican),

* Illinois (55% Democratic),

* California (55% Democratic), and

* New Jersey (53% Democratic). 

 

In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally.  Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:

* Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican

* New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic

* Georgia -- 544,634 Republican

* North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican

* Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic

* California -- 1,023,560 Democratic

* New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic

 

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000  "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9<sup>th</sup> and 10<sup>th</sup> largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).  Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

by toto on 03/10/2010 08:34:16 PM EST

The electoral college | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: