Destroying the Electoral College: The Anti-Federalist National Popular Vote Scheme

[Mountain Man]

...there is no equivalent to the electoral college to prevent a large population in any one county from ruling the entire state.

So?

Again, the whole point of the electoral college is to prevent a large population in any one state from ruling the entire country, whether that population is clustered in a handful of counties or spread across the entire state. It makes no difference. I keep repeating this because I really don't think you get it. It's arguably "mob rule" on the state level, but that is mitigated on the national level by the electoral college, so I really don't see the problem.

Let's just put it this way: any problems you think exist under the electoral college would be significantly worse under a straight popular vote.

[Roy]

So?

So you are engaged in special pleading.

I keep repeating this because I really don't think you get it.

I not only get it, I understand it better, deeper and further than you do, and you have clearly failed to grasp the points I've made.

No more pearls.

[Mountain Man]

So you are engaged in special pleading.

It's not special pleading at all. In fact, I'm not even debating. Literally all I'm doing here is explaining to you why the electoral college exists and how it works. It's not even an argument, just a basic civics lesson. The fact that the electoral college mitigates disparate voting at the state level is proof positive that it's working as intended. Your claims of superior knowledge are laughable in light of your apparently complete inability to understand this.

[Roy]

It's not special pleading at all. In fact, I'm not even debating. Literally all I'm doing here is explaining to you why the electoral college exists and how it works. It's not even an argument, just a basic civics lesson.

Right. It's not an argument. It's not a civics lesson either. It's the political equivalent of mansplaining - slowly and condescendingly 'explaining' something who understands it better than you do because you can't grasp the fact that they are making points beyond your ability to comprehend.

[guacamole]

It really doesn't matter to me. As, to quote someone (Cowpoke I think), they both knew the rules and agreed to it. However, I don't really understand the arguments that the electoral college is inherently more fair or stable than a straight out popular vote. In almost every case, (except two apparently), the individual electoral contests-state by state--are popular vote contests. So it seems inconsistent to insist that the popular vote is some how flawed equal. Any of the given complaints about the popular vote still apply at the state level where the contest is still a popular vote contest.

One of the supposed merits of the system as it is--that the electoral system protects smaller states--is actually counter intuitive to people who, for whatever misguided reason, would expect the popular vote and the electoral vote to be immediately proportional to each other. But what I care about is why we should decide to favor smaller states over larger ones in the electoral system when one-person-one-vote-popular vote would seem to level out the playing field. As it is, smaller states receive less attention, fewer advertising dollars spent, and fewer visits from candidates (they may like this). In the electoral system, almost all of the strategy centers around a handful of "battle ground states," and the rest of the states are surrendered to the opposing team--Blue New England and the Red South for example (some strange exceptions obviously apply.)

fwiw,
guaca.

[One Bad Pig]

That argument works equally well for counties as for states. Arguably much better - Harris county (Texas) has 50,000 times as many voters as Loving county (Texas), yet California only has about 100 times the population of Wyoming. Yet you are not protesting the use of popular vote to determine the pledges of the electoral college voters in each state.

Your only problem is that this is wholly irrelevant; you're comparing apples to oranges. States are much smaller in area, so they don't have the same diversity concerns from county to county (or at least didn't). Further, counties do not have a history of being independent, like states did, and there doesn't seem to have been a concern that some parts of the state might dictate state-wide policy. If anything, your argument makes the case that states should go to an EC format for their state-wide offices.

[guacamole]

Your only problem is that this is wholly irrelevant; you're comparing apples to oranges. States are much smaller in area, so they don't have the same diversity concerns from county to county (or at least didn't). Further, counties do not have a history of being independent, like states did, and there doesn't seem to have been a concern that some parts of the state might dictate state-wide policy. If anything, your argument makes the case that states should go to an EC format for their state-wide offices.

People from states with large cities can tell you exactly how some parts of the state dictate state-wide policy. You're second point is consistent though. It might be better to go to micro-electoral college systems at the state level.

fwiw,
gauca.

[The Thinker]

I guess we'll chalk you up as another one who doesn't understand why the electoral college exists and how it works.

As I've pointed out before, it is mathematically possible to win the electoral college in 49-states but still lose the popular vote if a state like California votes overwhelmingly for the other guy. Are you saying that one state should be able to overturn the will of the people in the other 49-states? Because that would be insane.

No it wouldn't be insane. The majority should win. Instead today we have tyranny of the minority. That's insane. I know why it was set up, that doesn't mean it's rational today.

[Bill the Cat]

People from states with large cities can tell you exactly how some parts of the state dictate state-wide policy. You're second point is consistent though. It might be better to go to micro-electoral college systems at the state level.

fwiw,
gauca.

That's what Richmond does for their mayoral election.

Source: https://www.municode.com/library/va/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICH_CH3EL_S3.01.1ELMA

In the general election, the person receiving the most votes in each of at least five of the nine city council districts shall be elected mayor. Should no one be elected, then the two persons receiving the highest total of votes city wide shall be considered nominated for a runoff election. The runoff election shall be held on the sixth Tuesday after the November general election between the two nominees. The date of any such runoff election shall, as soon as possible, be posted at the courthouse and published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. In any such runoff election, write-in votes shall not be counted, and the person receiving the most votes in each of at least five of the nine city council districts shall be elected mayor. In the event the two candidates in a runoff election shall each win an equal number of council districts, the candidate receiving the most votes city wide shall be elected mayor.

© Copyright Original Source

[guacamole]

That's what Richmond does for their mayoral election.

Source: https://www.municode.com/library/va/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTICH_CH3EL_S3.01.1ELMA

In the general election, the person receiving the most votes in each of at least five of the nine city council districts shall be elected mayor. Should no one be elected, then the two persons receiving the highest total of votes city wide shall be considered nominated for a runoff election. The runoff election shall be held on the sixth Tuesday after the November general election between the two nominees. The date of any such runoff election shall, as soon as possible, be posted at the courthouse and published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the city. In any such runoff election, write-in votes shall not be counted, and the person receiving the most votes in each of at least five of the nine city council districts shall be elected mayor. In the event the two candidates in a runoff election shall each win an equal number of council districts, the candidate receiving the most votes city wide shall be elected mayor.

© Copyright Original Source

Likewise Chicago. The rest of Illinois might as well not exist. Maybe. There are a couple of college towns that swing blue, but a large portion of the state is fully red counties.

[Roy]

Your only problem is that this is wholly irrelevant; you're comparing apples to oranges. States are much smaller in area, so they don't have the same diversity concerns from county to county (or at least didn't).

Not entirely - the largest counties exceed the smallest states in area, and the most populous counties exceed most states in population numbers - if Los Angeles county was a state it'd rank 9th by population.

Further, counties do not have a history of being independent, like states did, and there doesn't seem to have been a concern that some parts of the state might dictate state-wide policy. If anything, your argument makes the case that states should go to an EC format for their state-wide offices.

Only if the argument works for the electoral college .

If an EC format is better than a straightforward vote for the presidential elections, it is better for other elections too, for mostly the same reasons including all those MM is pushing. If an EC format is not better - and I'm not convinced it is - it shouldn't be used anywhere.

Perhaps Hillary Clinton would have been more successful if she hadn't campaigned at all, but had simply waited until after the election and offered a $2,000,000 bribe to each electoral college member.

[Bill the Cat]

Likewise Chicago. The rest of Illinois might as well not exist. Maybe. There are a couple of college towns that swing blue, but a large portion of the state is fully red counties.

Most all states are basically red from an area perspective.

[guacamole]

Most all states are basically red from an area perspective.

Yeah, rural and urban America talk past each other quite a bit, and the suburbs seem to tip one way or the other to put someone over the top.

[rogue06]

No it wouldn't be insane. The majority should win. Instead today we have tyranny of the minority.

Iron E.jpg

[Bill the Cat]

Yeah, rural and urban America talk past each other quite a bit, and the suburbs seem to tip one way or the other to put someone over the top.

Unfortunately, there isn't a real good answer. One group will naturally be the consistent loser in any system.