Popular Vote vs. Electoral College and non-voting Americans

[Kelly]

This has now once again become a debate in our country, following an election where one candidate received the most votes in the popular vote and one candidate received the most electoral votes. This has happened only 4 times in our countries history, but now 2x in the last 2 decades.

1876, Samuel Tilden beat Rutherford B. Hayes in the popular vote, but ultimately lost in a complicated political deal known as the Compromise of 1877.

1888 the year Benjamin Harrison was elected president even though Grover Cleveland won the popular vote.

Of course we remember 2000 and Gore vs. Bush...

As I was driving home from classes today, listening to NPR I heard from Rob Richie Executive Director of FairVote....he had some very interesting things to say, some I agreed with, some I didn't...but definitely something to think about.

http://www.fairvote.org/

"Too often gridlock, low turnout elections, and increased polarization are preventing American democracy from living up to the expectations of its citizens. It’s easy to see that something is broken in American politics. It’s harder to figure out why – or how to move forward. We examine some of the most pressing problems in American democracy and discuss ways to address these issues."

They look at the issues of: "Polarization" and "Gerrymandering"

It was very interesting, take a look and give your opinion....

 

[Manowar]

You have to keep the Electoral vote. If it was by popular vote, than candidates would only campaign in a the most populated states, California, New York, Florida and maybe Texas and ignore the rest of the country.

 

[2kt09]

You have to keep the Electoral vote. If it was by popular vote, than candidates would only campaign in a the most populated states, California, New York, Florida and maybe Texas and ignore the rest of the country.

Pretty Much.

Kelly wants to talk about the RCV for whatever reason, which I'm fine with more states implementing.
Would likely make this election process even more drawn out, possibly.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

You have to keep the Electoral vote. If it was by popular vote, than candidates would only campaign in a the most populated states, California, New York, Florida and maybe Texas and ignore the rest of the country.

Yeah agreed.

 

[Kelly]

The RCV is only a portion of what Fairvote is about...they also want a 1 day primary, probably around June 2....still have in place what we have to narrow the field, but one day to choose the final candidates....

Also, as far as the Electoral College would mean they would only campaign in a few states, are you kidding? What do you think they do now? And with the last 3 Presidents we have had, 2 of those for their first term were chosen....Bush by one state, and Trump by only 4. The Electoral College as it stands right now, is a tired system....and needs some changes. What those changes are? that is what can be discussed here.

Also, myself, nor the FairVote people ever mentioned only popular vote. No one said you throw the baby out with the bath water....

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Democracy doesn't work, which means the problem is not the popular vote vs the elector college.
It goes way deeper than that.
Democracy is amazing in theory, but it doesn't work in practice.
Besides, democracy work in a majority vs minority, on a moral superiority issue.

For democracy to work, EVERYONE need to be informed, have the same background and have the same mentality about social issues.

Aprioristic Equality
One of the foundations of democracy is the assumption that all votes are equal. Well, that’s the theory—but in fact it is rarely so. It assumes that all opinions are worth the same, which is quite a big leap of faith, since we are putting the same value on the opinions of the educated and the ignorant, and the law-abiding citizens and crooks.

Even if you think that all people are created equal, it is obvious that their environments are very different—and as a result, so is their character. By assuming that all opinions are equal you are also assuming that most people are able to reach a rational, informed decision after seriously exploring all pros and cons.

Populism
A common criticism of democracy is that in the end it devolves into a popularity contest. Polls don’t decide who is right—that’s simply decided by whoever is most willing to say what people like to hear. As a result, many candidates to political office resort to populism, pursuing policies that focus on the immediate satisfaction of whims instead of long-term improvements.

Populist leaders focus on emotion before reason and “common sense” over more academic wisdom, which often produces bad ideas that will be defended with the stubbornness of a mule, regardless of whether they are good or bad.

Trump anyone?


Tribal Mentality
Let’s be honest here: mankind has not evolved much since the Stone Age. Yes, we have tamed the forces of nature and discovered a lot of things—and this Internet business is amazing. But human nature remains the same, more or less. We still think in tribal terms, “my people vs. your people”. Call it class struggle, xenophobia, nationalism, or whatever you like—the thing is that most of us identify with one group or another, and almost every meaningful group has alliances or enmities with other groups. This is part of human nature, and can work peacefully . . . or not.

In a democracy, tribal mentality is very dangerous, because it will make you vote “for your team” instead of voting according to issues. That means that whoever leads “your team” can rest assured that they have your vote, and instead of focusing on your interests, they can proceed to deal with their own. Unfair legislation can be passed if there are vocal groups in the majority (by oppressing the minority) or in the minorities (by entitling them to privileges that the majority can’t enjoy)




And those are just 3 issues.
You can read the rest here: http://listverse.com/2013/06/16/10-reasons-why-democracy-doesnt-work/

So, what would work? I have no idea...

 

[Clark-Kent]

I feel like Trump really flipped the expectations and system itself on it's head. Many Democrats tended to feel certain states were always a lock, and the electoral map favored them. If you look at the typical electoral allocation it usually leaves 11 battleground states, where Republicans have to flip a pretty ridiculous amount. Normally left with trying to make up an 80% deficit in electoral votes. Trump somehow won some states like PA and WI that haven't been won since 1988. Now had he won the popular vote, and Clinton demolished him in the electoral.............. I question if we'd have the same people on same sides of the electoral college system.

 

[Kyle]

A larger problem at hand is apathy. 46% of the country didn't vote. The "half the country voted for this or that candidate" is not technically correct at all. It's the LOWEST turn out in comparison to the past couple of elections by a staggering number. Technically the only correct way to phrase it is "half of the half of the country that voted."

 

[SV Fan]

I think the electoral vote could work they just need to tweek it. When they first came out with the system this country had like 4M people and 100 electoral votes, as the country grew they added more electoral votes until like the 1913 when we got up to 435 congressmen(each worth 1 electoral vote) and 100M people. Problem is since then we added a couple states and tripled the population and the amount of electors hasn't changed beyond the 2 electoral votes added for both states.

We basically need to add more electors

 

[Clark-Kent]

I just don't know if social media (not this thread as I'm sure Kelly being a teacher would still have considered topic) would be having the conversation had this gone another way. Let's be honest, most of us got knocked off our butt from the shock of this election result.

 

[Kyle]

I just don't know if social media (not this thread as I'm sure Kelly being a teacher would still have considered topic) would be having the conversation had this gone another way. Let's be honest, most of us got knocked off our butt from the shock of this election result.

What's going on now further got sparked by:
- Actual hate crimes on both sides
- Trump supporters trying to act like that's a conspiracy from every news outlet
- Increasing rise of nazism across the world, today it reached Liverpool - yesterday Sweden
- Trump remains silent

Although I didn't like Hillary, I doubt her entering would have sparked this.

 

[2kt09]

The RCV is only a portion of what Fairvote is about...they also want a 1 day primary, probably around June 2....still have in place what we have to narrow the field, but one day to choose the final candidates....

A big portion is the RCV and then they briefly describe other ballot-based solutions. I'm not really seeing this 1 day primary on their site.

Also, as far as the Electoral College would mean they would only campaign in a few states, are you kidding? What do you think they do now? And with the last 3 Presidents we have had, 2 of those for their first term were chosen....Bush by one state, and Trump by only 4. The Electoral College as it stands right now, is a tired system....and needs some changes.

I guess I should explain further that even if they campaign in a couple states, they shouldn't expect to win with the electoral college doing what they were intended to do (an issue I am noticing because people are signing a petition so that those voters don't represent their majority and be forced to pay a fine in doing so) and not let the election be decided by the same few population-heavy states and cities that have built a history of voting one way.

In any case, that county map is still the most incredible piece to come out of this.

Be it that "silent majority" or this was a bound-to-happen demographic shift since 2008.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Changing the electoral college won't happen because there are more states that benefit from it (small states, swing states) than are hurt by it (large non-swing states). Changing it would require that those states vote to put the federal government over their own self-interests. That will never happen. States always want more power, not less.

 

[Kelly]

A big portion is the RCV and then they briefly describe other ballot-based solutions. I'm not really seeing this 1 day primary on their site.


I guess I should explain further that even if they campaign in a couple states, they shouldn't expect to win with the electoral college doing what they were intended to do (an issue I am noticing because people are signing a petition so that those voters don't represent their majority and be forced to pay a fine in doing so) and not let the election be decided by the same few population-heavy states and cities that have built a history of voting one way.

In any case, that county map is still the most incredible piece to come out of this.
Be it that "silent majority" or this was a bound-to-happen demographic shift since 2008.

That isn't on there, the executive director was asked specifically about the Primary system, and what I posted was his answer....sorry, should have made that clear.

 

[Kelly]

A big portion is the RCV and then they briefly describe other ballot-based solutions. I'm not really seeing this 1 day primary on their site.


I guess I should explain further that even if they campaign in a couple states, they shouldn't expect to win with the electoral college doing what they were intended to do (an issue I am noticing because people are signing a petition so that those voters don't represent their majority and be forced to pay a fine in doing so) and not let the election be decided by the same few population-heavy states and cities that have built a history of voting one way.

In any case, that county map is still the most incredible piece to come out of this.
Be it that "silent majority" or this was a bound-to-happen demographic shift since 2008.

I see as the bigger problem....the people that did not vote. That to me is a far greater thing to study, look at, and ask why?

 

[2kt09]

I see as the bigger problem....the people that did not vote. That to me is a far greater thing to study, look at, and ask why?

As if you didn't have more than enough reasons for this election
The obvious would be that this a constitutional right, not a moral right, people choose to abstain from.
Even when you discount the eligible voting age populace who physically or lawfully can't, that would still be the resounding observation.

 

[DeadPresident]

On a slightly related note, what would happen if each party presented two candidates to be voted for in the general election? In retrospect it seems designed to do little more than offering people (theoretically) Marco Rubio vs Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders; it seems like a logical way to avoid extremes being the only option as well as two suboptimal options being the only ones available.

It would also lessen the possibility that a single loud (and unqualified) voice could dominate party primaries where the media covers one spectacle for ratings and ends up diminishing the relevance of other candidates due to the opportunity cost of covering multiple candidates.

 

[Victarion]

I would leave the EC in place. The results of this election are a clear reminder to the apathetic that, yes, your vote does matter.

 

[2kt09]

On a slightly related note, what would happen if each party presented two candidates to be voted for in the general election?

You lose the direct democracy of our election system. Yes, anyone with the simple qualifications of age, nationality, and residency can partake in the presidential race. Other qualifications do not matter to enter.

It would also lessen the possibility that a single loud (and unqualified) voice could dominate party primaries where the media covers one spectacle for ratings and ends up diminishing the relevance of other candidates due to the opportunity cost of covering multiple candidates.

The media you're referring to is a conglomeration of private entities and the best way to change that is to change those entities, not the election system.
I know very well that they have their allegiances and blocking out candidates even popular ones who get massive donations from the people in record time is par for the course.

 

[Kelly]

As if you didn't have more than enough reasons for this election
The obvious would be that this a constitutional right, not a moral right, people choose to abstain from.
Even when you discount the eligible voting age populace who physically or lawfully can't, that would still be the resounding observation.

Registered voters dropped as well...for I'm sure their very strong reasons....I think those reasons need to be discussed.

 

[Thundercrack85]

It's not going to change. Republicans need the electoral college to win national elections, and they control congress.

 

[Mace Dolex]

Im a bit naive on this but how do I know if my ballot was the popular or electoral college, would it have said on the ballot itself? For the record I live in California.

 

[BestGirl]

I would like it if all states organized their electoral votes the way Nebraska and Maine do, so that each candidate receives the percentage of electoral votes that correspond to their win of the popular vote.

 

[Kelly]

Im a bit naive on this but how do I know if my ballot was the popular or electoral college, would it have said on the ballot itself? For the record I live in California.

The actual presidential election is a three part process that begins on Election Day when, by casting a ballot for a presidential candidate, voters effectively vote for that candidate’s slate of electors. These are usually party loyalists, donors or other key players the candidate or the candidates’ party wants to reward. In all but two states the candidate who wins the state, regardless of his or her margin of victory, gets all of the electors. By law, these electors will gather in their respective state capitals on Dec. 19 for the second stage of the process — officially casting their votes. Generally the electors vote as they are pledged, though there is now a petition at Change.org to ask this year’s crop to do otherwise. The states’ governors certify the tally and complete certificates (some of them quite elaborate). The certificates are then sent to a nondescript federal office building in Washington, where the Federal Register staffers compile them and, eventually, take them to the US Capitol for a formal tabulation before a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding. (Gore had to preside over the tally of his own defeat in 2001.)

 

[2kt09]

It's not going to change. Republicans need the electoral college to win national elections, and they control congress.

They also control the House and State Governors.

Im a bit naive on this but how do I know if my ballot was the popular or electoral college, would it have said on the ballot itself? For the record I live in California.

It's inherently a popular vote to simply count your vote.