Only a couple of instances of voter fraud per state, and caught

[LiconaFan97]

For those who wish to dispense with the EC -- Have you ever seen a map of Presidential election results by county? How would you protect the residents of the vast, red "flyover country" from having their values and wishes trampled by people in the relatively tiny blue urban centers?

I would point out that land doesn't vote, people do. And I would point out that there are lots of Republicans in California and New York who are totally ignored during the presidential campaign as is. Last I would point out that once Texas goes blue, and it is a demographic certainty that that will happen within the next decade or at absolute most two decades, no Republican will have a meaningful voice in choosing the president ever again under our current system.

That aside, we can retain the EC if you really want by doubling or tripling the number of congressional districts to deny tiny states their outsized influence. If your concern is really about the EC and not about the power of the minority you should have no problem with that.

[LiconaFan97]

Yes, in public school in PA in the '70s, the reason emphasized for the EC was protecting the rural areas from being dominated by the urban centers.

How would the original formulation of the EC achieve that?

I don't mean theoretically but practically.

[NorrinRadd]

I would point out that land doesn't vote, people do.

Irrelevant and predictably asinine. People live in those red areas. Their values, desires, and needs are often markedly different from those people who live in the blue areas. What protects them from being trampled?

And I would point out that there are lots of Republicans in California and New York who are totally ignored during the presidential campaign as is.

Yes, they should make every effort to abandon those hell-holes and move to better States.

Last I would point out that once Texas goes blue, and it is a demographic certainty that that will happen within the next decade or at absolute most two decades, no Republican will have a meaningful voice in choosing the president ever again under our current system.

Probably true, unless the fecklessness and hypocritical fascism of California's leadership causes a Republican exodus to Texas.

That aside, we can retain the EC if you really want by doubling or tripling the number of congressional districts to deny tiny states their outsized influence. If your concern is really about the EC and not about the power of the minority you should have no problem with that.

Off the top of my head, it seems like that would have the practical result of making the House permanently Democratic.

[Terraceth]

I disagree. That is one interpretation of the description in the first link.

The only quotes it offers about the electoral college are the ones from the Federalist Papers, which as noted are very clear in being about the presumption that the presidential office would be best selected by a specific and well-informed group of people rather than the general populace, which is exactly what I've said. Granted, the electoral college fails utterly in that, as the electors in practice do nothing more than rubber stamp what the general populace of each state votes for, but that was the reasoning given.

Everything I have seen from actual quotes demonstrates that the electoral college had nothing to do with population considerations, outside of the fact that some states had a larger population than others of people who were forbidden to vote due to slavery. Even if that was a good reason, it's clearly inapplicable now.

Well, I have neither the time nor inclination to pursue it. There may be better systems than the Electoral College, and I believe election reform is overdue (although probably not for the reasons you would agree with).

But simple popular vote for POTUS is not one of them. I would prefer a parliamentary system over that.

The issue here isn't whether the electoral college is good or not, or even whether it has the effect of protecting smaller states against larger states or rural areas against urban areas. The issue here is whether the founders made the electoral college with the intention of having that effect. I haven't ever seen anyone provide proof they did.

[LiconaFan97]

Irrelevant and predictably asinine. People live in those red areas. Their values, desires, and needs are often markedly different from those people who live in the blue areas. What protects them from being trampled?

It isn't irrelevant or asinine. You're looking at a picture of land, much of which contains very few people, and complaining that the few people in that land should count more than the many people the highly populated areas. On here you can see the same map but sizing each county by its population. It gives a very different picture.

But to answer your question they have the same protection for their values as everyone else -- they need to compete in the marketplace of ideas and convince others that their perspective is the more correct one. Just like I have to.

Yes, they should make every effort to abandon those hell-holes and move to better States.

Wow, suddenly you're not too worried about their "values, desires, and needs" if they don't have the desire or means to move to where you think they belong. Wowza.

Probably true, unless the fecklessness and hypocritical fascism of California's leadership causes a Republican exodus to Texas.

Can you tone it down a little? You don't like California, good for you. I'm just pointing out that inevitably Republicans will be getting a whole lot less of a voice in the presidential elections if we retain our current system.If we move to a system that I certainly think is more fair then they will get to keep a pretty sizable voice instead of zero.

Off the top of my head, it seems like that would have the practical result of making the House permanently Democratic.

Why would that be? I think it should only increase the power of populated states by a fraction of a seat (compared to the power of current seats) but beyond that it would be mostly a wash as far as the house goes. The less populated states would similarly lose a fraction of a seat true but they already have practically no power with only one or two votes per state as is so they're hardly calling the shots even today.

ETA: Alternatively, if we simply doubled the number of seats and ensured everyone got twice as many seats as they currently have it would also go a long ways towards addressing this and without impacting the relative power of the house at all.

[CivilDiscourse]

For those saying we have a good system for checking if dead people voted. That same logic would mean we have a good system for purging dead people from the voter rolls.

Here's what Brennan System for Justice has to say on purging dead voters:

Source: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/Purge.Exec_.pdf

Purges rely on error-ridden lists. States regularly attempt to purge voter lists of ineligible voters or duplicate registration records, but the lists that states use as the basis for purging are often riddled with errors. For example, some states purge their voter lists based on the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File, a database that even the Social Security Administration admits includes people who are still alive.5 Even though Hilde Stafford, a Wappingers Falls, NY resident, was still alive and voted, the master death index lists her date of death as June 15, 1997.6 As another example, when a member of a household files a change of address for herself in the United States Postal Service’s National Change of Address database, it sometimes has the effect of changing the addresses of all members of that household. Voters who are eligible to vote are wrongly stricken from the rolls because of problems with underlying source lists.

Bad “matching” criteria leaves voters vulnerable to manipulated purges. Many voter purges are conducted with problematic techniques that leave ample room for abuse and manipulation. State statutes rely on the discretion of election officials to identify registrants for removal. Far too often, election officials believe they have “matched” two voters, when they are actually looking at the records of two distinct individuals with similar identifying information. These cases of mistaken identity cause eligible voters to be wrongly removed from the rolls. The infamous Florida purge of 2000 — conservative estimates place the number of wrongfully purged voters close to 12,000 — was generated in part by bad matching criteria.7 Florida registrants were purged from the rolls in part if 80 percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those of persons with criminal convictions.8 Those wrongly purged included Reverend Willie D. Whiting Jr., who, under the matching criteria, was considered the same person as Willie J. Whiting.9 Without specific guidelines for or limitations on the authority of election officials conducting purges, eligible voters are regularly made unnecessarily vulnerable.

© Copyright Original Source

Remember, the systems and methods checking post-vote would be the same ones used pre-vote. So the accuracy after the fact could be used for voter purges of the registration rolls.

[EvoUK]

I would point out that land doesn't vote, people do.

Quite.

6a00d83451b54669e20263e9748fb2200b.jpg

[Watermelon]

For those saying we have a good system for checking if dead people voted. That same logic would mean we have a good system for purging dead people from the voter rolls.

Here's what Brennan System for Justice has to say on purging dead voters:

Source: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/Purge.Exec_.pdf

Purges rely on error-ridden lists. States regularly attempt to purge voter lists of ineligible voters or duplicate registration records, but the lists that states use as the basis for purging are often riddled with errors. For example, some states purge their voter lists based on the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File, a database that even the Social Security Administration admits includes people who are still alive.5 Even though Hilde Stafford, a Wappingers Falls, NY resident, was still alive and voted, the master death index lists her date of death as June 15, 1997.6 As another example, when a member of a household files a change of address for herself in the United States Postal Service’s National Change of Address database, it sometimes has the effect of changing the addresses of all members of that household. Voters who are eligible to vote are wrongly stricken from the rolls because of problems with underlying source lists.

Bad “matching” criteria leaves voters vulnerable to manipulated purges. Many voter purges are conducted with problematic techniques that leave ample room for abuse and manipulation. State statutes rely on the discretion of election officials to identify registrants for removal. Far too often, election officials believe they have “matched” two voters, when they are actually looking at the records of two distinct individuals with similar identifying information. These cases of mistaken identity cause eligible voters to be wrongly removed from the rolls. The infamous Florida purge of 2000 — conservative estimates place the number of wrongfully purged voters close to 12,000 — was generated in part by bad matching criteria.7 Florida registrants were purged from the rolls in part if 80 percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those of persons with criminal convictions.8 Those wrongly purged included Reverend Willie D. Whiting Jr., who, under the matching criteria, was considered the same person as Willie J. Whiting.9 Without specific guidelines for or limitations on the authority of election officials conducting purges, eligible voters are regularly made unnecessarily vulnerable.

© Copyright Original Source

Remember, the systems and methods checking post-vote would be the same ones used pre-vote. So the accuracy after the fact could be used for voter purges of the registration rolls.

Then the system would be over counting the number of dead people......

[NorrinRadd]

Quite.

6a00d83451b54669e20263e9748fb2200b.jpg

So you believe only the big cities matter.

[Ronson]

So you believe only the big cities matter.

“The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That’s one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can ever help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population — the intelligent ones or the fools? I think we can agree it’s the fools, no matter where you go in this world, it’s the fools that form the overwhelming majority.” – Henrik Ibsen

And is why the framers of our country opted to avoid pure democracy and settled on a republic. And now the lynch mob - the ones burning and looting their cities - want to overthrow the republic.