Thoughts on the popular vote vs. Electoral College

[Paxil]

He means that Clinton didn't get over 50%...he got a plurality, which is more votes than the other guy but under 50% of the total.

So what difference at all does that make? The 50% marker doesn't mean anything unless there is only two candidates.

 

[Minstrel]

So what difference at all does that make? The 50% marker doesn't mean anything unless there is only two candidates.

I've never understood why Denny finds that a telling point.

 

[maxiep]

I misread this the first time. I'm not sure this helps that much. Why wouldn't Texas still be blown off by the Democrat? The vast majority of congressional districts in Texas are reliably red.

What I'd like to see is the electors in each state allocated in proportion to the popular vote.

barfo

Before this electoral wipeout of moderate Democrats, there were a significant number of Democratic districts from Texas.

 

[maxiep]

And that's precisely why the electoral college was enacted in the first place. The smaller states were afraid that their votes would mean less. They were worried they would be controlled by the bigger states.

All my idea would do is split up the country into 435 districts rather than 50 states. What happens now is that the states that are evenly split (the "swing" states) get a preponderance is the attention from the candidates because the solidly red and blue states are assumed to be locked up already. So it isn't large states that have power, but swing states.

 

[barfo]

All my idea would do is split up the country into 435 districts rather than 50 states. What happens now is that the states that are evenly split (the "swing" states) get a preponderance is the attention from the candidates because the solidly red and blue states are assumed to be locked up already. So it isn't large states that have power, but swing states.

Are you saying that the electors would be based on the congressional districts? That's what I thought at first, but then you seemed to be saying the state would still be winner-takes-all, the winner of the state would just be determined on a different basis.

As for Texas, it was 20-12 before the 2010 elections. That's not close enough to justify a fight, if it is winner-take-all.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Why is it bad that they'd spend the majority of time campaigning where more people are? Shouldn't they be making their case to the most people, rather than the largest tracts of land?

A representative democracy means politicians are representing people, not land. It makes perfect sense that more people are more relevant than less people. I don't see why there should be an artificial reason to go campaign to less people. Yes, those people count too...in proportion to their population. The whole "1 person, 1 vote" thing.

Because you would work your campaign dollars and time where it would grab the most voters. There would be vast tracts of this country where the interests of the population would be ignored. The large states and the large metropolitan areas still get the majority of the attention; the EC just means that places without major metropolitan areas on the interior of this country get a little attention, too. There really is a difference between people on the coasts and the interior, both in their concerns and their outlook on life and the role of government. I think a President should have an incentive to campaign in every single state to learn about these concerns and outlooks.

 

[Minstrel]

Because you would work your campaign dollars and time where it would grab the most voters.

Yes, because "the most voters" is the same thing as "the most people you represent."

There really is a difference between people on the coasts and the interior, both in their concerns and their outlook on life and the role of government. I think a President should have an incentive to campaign in every single state to learn about these concerns and outlooks.

I think a prospective President should have incentive to try and reach the greatest number of people he/she is going to represent. Ideally, that would be everyone. Since time is a limited resource, it should be the places where he can hear from and talk to the most citizens.

 

[maxiep]

Yes, because "the most voters" is the same thing as "the most people you represent."

If you can communicate with more people in the Bay Area than you can in Wyoming, the Dakotas and Nebraska, you're going to spend virtually all your money targeting those voters. And the urban and suburban voter is different than the rural one or one that lives in a small town. The voters would then be treated unequally. Right now, it's pretty close to equal. It's not perfect, but it's pretty close, and a damn sight closer than under a popular vote rule.

I think a prospective President should have incentive to try and reach the greatest number of people he/she is going to represent. Ideally, that would be everyone. Since time is a limited resource, it should be the places where he can hear from and talk to the most citizens.

And I think a prospective President should be forced to travel to the interior of this country and make the case in all 50 states why they should be elected. I'm not interested in the President from the Northeast, California and Chicago. We have that right now, and it's pretty clear he doesn't understand this country in the slightest. I prefer a President of the United States. Since you're from the Bay Area, I understand while you think differently. Of course, you already have Nancy Pelosi running an agenda with which most Americans disagree, so I think you're being a bit greedy asking for that President, too.

 

[Minstrel]

If you can communicate with more people in the Bay Area than you can in Wyoming, the Dakotas and Nebraska, you're going to spend virtually all your money targeting those voters.

Which is as it should be, since a leader should be communicating with more people rather than less people. If more people lived in Wyoming than the Bay Area, then the prospective President should spend more time there. In a representative democracy, someone running for office should be campaigning to the largest amount of his/her future constituency as possible.

 

[barfo]

If you can communicate with more people in the Bay Area than you can in Wyoming, the Dakotas and Nebraska, you're going to spend virtually all your money targeting those voters. And the urban and suburban voter is different than the rural one or one that lives in a small town. The voters would then be treated unequally. Right now, it's pretty close to equal. It's not perfect, but it's pretty close, and a damn sight closer than under a popular vote rule.

No one bothers going to Wyoming, Nebraska, or the Dakotas now. I don't see how they'd be losing much.

Heck, as we've discussed in this thread, there's a big difference between Harney County and Portland. Does that mean Presidential candidates should hold rallies in Burns?

Part of living in the boonies is you have to travel to the big city if you want big city attractions. You don't expect the big city to come to you.

You are arguing for special privileges for rural voters, because... because they are special, I guess. You can apply that special treatment to any number of minority groups, if you are inclined to think minority groups should get special treatment.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, I understand that. My point was, he still has 25% of the popular vote, no matter what the electoral vote comes out.



Because your arguments were non-arguments. I laid out how it should work: the guy with the most votes wins. If you don't like that, that's cool.

barfo

He wasn't elected because of the 25% and plurality. He was elected because he had an absolute majority of electoral college votes. See, there's this absolute majority thing with the electoral college, which is why I ask you about pluralities.

And no, I think a plurality is not good enough in a national election. I don't care how the parties nominate their candidates - a plurality is fine. If you don't like a party because it works like that, you can start a new one.

If you require a majority (50% + 1 vote), then we become a parliament with Libertarians and Greens and Communists and Fascists able to swing the election by throwing their support for one of the candidates. In the 99/1%/2% scenario, it would likely end up being the House selecting the president, which is the way parliaments work.

 

[Denny Crane]

I've never understood why Denny finds that a telling point.

Because there is an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY requirement in the electoral college. I asked if there were 99 candidates and 98 got 1% and the other 2% of the vote, should that election stand?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/electoralworks.htm

The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.

 

[Minstrel]

Because there is an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY requirement in the electoral college.

That's nice. Not particularly relevant if we ditched the electoral college system.

I asked if there were 99 candidates and 98 got 1% and the other 2% of the vote, should that election stand?

Yup. He or she is the one with the most support.

 

[barfo]

If you require a majority (50% + 1 vote), then we become a parliament with Libertarians and Greens and Communists and Fascists able to swing the election by throwing their support for one of the candidates.

We, the voters, become a parliament? How does that work? Everybody gets on a 300 million-way conference call the day before the election to decide how to vote?

Besides, our elections are rarely so close that the two dozen members of Libertarians and Greens and Communists and Fascists could possibly sway them even if they were organized.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

We, the voters, become a parliament? How does that work? Everybody gets on a 300 million-way conference call the day before the election to decide how to vote?

Besides, our elections are rarely so close that the two dozen members of Libertarians and Greens and Communists and Fascists could possibly sway them even if they were organized.

barfo

Clinton didn't get a majority either time. Nixon didn't the first time. JFK didn't.

So some sort of coalition to get to 50%+1 would have been needed. That's 4 of the past 10 elections, and 2 more were barely 50% (Carter 50.08%, for one).

Nixon beat Humphrey in 1968 with less than 50%, as I said. If a 50%+1 were required, maybe George Wallace would have gone back to his Democratic Party roots and threw his votes behind Humphrey. If Wallace's voters did as he asked htem, then yeah, it'd be a coalition of we voters.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's nice. Not particularly relevant if we ditched the electoral college system.



Yup. He or she is the one with the most support.

No president could claim much of a mandate with so little support.

I think your concept of "most support" is silly.

 

[barfo]

Clinton didn't get a majority either time. Nixon didn't the first time. JFK didn't.

So some sort of coalition to get to 50%+1 would have been needed. That's 4 of the past 10 elections, and 2 more were barely 50% (Carter 50.08%, for one).

Nixon beat Humphrey in 1968 with less than 50%, as I said. If a 50%+1 were required, maybe George Wallace would have gone back to his Democratic Party roots and threw his votes behind Humphrey.

I see, you were throwing out another possible scenario for how to elect a president. I missed that.

I guess there is some merit to that proposal, lots of countries use it more-or-less successfully.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

No president could claim much of a mandate with so little support.

I don't Presidents claim much of a mandate these days, anyway. Or, they claim it, but aren't able to proceed as if they actually had one.

I think your concept of "most support" is silly.

I'm mortified. Why'd you have to be so mean?

 

[barfo]

No president could claim much of a mandate with so little support.

I think your concept of "most support" is silly.

But your solution to the problem is to pick someone with even less support? How is that person going to claim a mandate?

"Most support" is how most people understand elections are decided. The guy with the most votes wins. It's actually the case in every election we hold in the US except for president.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

But your solution to the problem is to pick someone with even less support? How is that person going to claim a mandate?

"Most support" is how most people understand elections are decided. The guy with the most votes wins. It's actually the case in every election we hold in the US except for president.

barfo

270 electoral votes is 50% +1 support.

Clinton with his 43% couldn't claim a mandate and people could say 57% voted against him. Yet his 370 electoral votes were considerable.

 

[Minstrel]

270 electoral votes is 50% +1 support.

If there were no electoral college, then 270 electoral votes would be 0% +0 support.

 

[Denny Crane]

If there were no electoral college, then 270 electoral votes would be 0% +0 support.

If there were no popular vote, then the votes would be 0% + 0 support.

 

[barfo]

270 electoral votes is 50% +1 support.

So what? What's so magical about finding a set of numbers which adds up to 50%+1?

Let's say me and my immediate family get to decide every election. let's say there are 5 of us, so if 3 of us agree, it's decided.

That's a perfectly valid way to elect a president, according to your argument, because it results in a majority vote of some group.

It's ok with you, it's ok with me. I suspect others might have a problem with it.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

If there were no popular vote, then the votes would be 0% + 0 support.

True. So it sortof depends on which system we use. How many electoral votes gives a majority isn't particularly relevant to whether we should use an electoral college system at all (which seemed to be the question the OP was asking).

 

[barfo]

270 electoral votes is 50% +1 support.

Clinton with his 43% couldn't claim a mandate and people could say 57% voted against him. Yet his 370 electoral votes were considerable.

Ms. Lewinsky, what did you think of the president's electoral votes?

They were... considerable, Jane. Let's just say he was first in line when God was handing out the electoral votes.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

So what? What's so magical about finding a set of numbers which adds up to 50%+1?

Let's say me and my immediate family get to decide every election. let's say there are 5 of us, so if 3 of us agree, it's decided.

That's a perfectly valid way to elect a president, according to your argument, because it results in a majority vote of some group.

It's ok with you, it's ok with me. I suspect others might have a problem with it.

barfo

There are voting rules that people have figured out over thousands of years. To use your own example, there are 5 of you, but only 3 vote, so it's 2-1. Is it a quorum?

The MVP voting uses a wholly different point system. X points for 1st place, Y for 2nd, etc.

I say your plurality rules is a terrible way to do any national election.

 

[barfo]

There are voting rules that people have figured out over thousands of years. To use your own example, there are 5 of you, but only 3 vote, so it's 2-1. Is it a quorum?

The MVP voting uses a wholly different point system. X points for 1st place, Y for 2nd, etc.

Sure, there are various voting systems.

I say your plurality rules is a terrible way to do any national election.

You say that, but why do you say that? Your only arguments against it so far are (a) that's not the way we currently do it, and (b) if there are 100 candidates the winner might win with a small percentage of the overall vote. Neither of those arguments is very compelling.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Sure, there are various voting systems.



You say that, but why do you say that? Your only arguments against it so far are (a) that's not the way we currently do it, and (b) if there are 100 candidates the winner might win with a small percentage of the overall vote. Neither of those arguments is very compelling.

barfo

If there are 3 candidates and one gets 34% to "win" it's a problem.

 

[barfo]

If there are 3 candidates and one gets 34% to "win" it's a problem.

What sort of a problem is it? Please explain why this is a problem.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Which is as it should be, since a leader should be communicating with more people rather than less people. If more people lived in Wyoming than the Bay Area, then the prospective President should spend more time there. In a representative democracy, someone running for office should be campaigning to the largest amount of his/her future constituency as possible.

Yep. Only pay attention to the areas of population concentration. Blow off rural America, it doesn't matter. I'm a fan of all of America and think it should have a voice. I get why your opinion differs.