Something about the electoral college

Many defenders of the electoral college point out that the electoral college is meant to protect small states from big states (which it doesn't) and that it protects us from the "tyrranny of the majority" (which treating a 51% majority in one state as a 100% majority totally isn't). So here are a few reasons why it was created.

1. The founders feared that a direct election of the president would result in the candidates pandering to the whims of the people rather than be focused on actual issues so they allowed states to decide how to distribute electors. Nowadays, a complex election system seems pretty silly but at a time when the only experience humanity had with democracy was in Rome and Athens which got chaotic at times, this idea made perfect sense.

2. Counting a few hundred votes is simply easier than several million. Back when the constitution was being framed, it took days for electors to reach DC to nominate the president. Just imagine a cart full of ballots and somebody maybe stealing a few.

3. They wanted to protect small states.

So now you know why the electoral college was created. Since our constitution was created however, our country's government has evolved and technology has changed circumstances. Many people state that a NPV would cause candidates to only focus on the coastline states and ignore "flyover states". If that happens then that means over 50% of the population lives there (the same cannot be said for the swing states, clocking in at only 28%). What they don't mention is that that's how our senators and governors are elected and nobody is making a fuss about the lack of an electoral college at the state level.

To add:

Madison also proposed the EC as a way for the southern states, such as his Virginia, to not lose representation due to the 3/5ths Compromise.

Masterhawk said:

Many defenders of the electoral college point out that the electoral college is A: meant to protect small states from big states (which it doesn't) and that B: it protects us from the "tyrranny of the majority" (which treating a 51% majority in one state as a 100% majority totally isn't). So here are a few reasons why it was created.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...let's examine your points one by one.

A: It was not designed to "protect small states from big states." It was designed to give small states some impact on the election of the Chief Executive of a new and growing nation.

B: How can you argue that it doesn't prevent a Tyranny of the Majority when this very election (and three previous ones) demonstrated how States with smaller and medium populations can combine to elect the President of the USA despite the popular vote concentrations in New York and California where Clinton got all those extra votes? I'd say that was a pretty clear indication the system worked as designed.

BTW, if you would prefer proportional electoral college distribution rather than winner-take-all? All you have to do is petition your State Legislature, since they decide how their Electors will be awarded. Exercise some local activism buddy. That's how you can help make your local vote count more than it does currently.

Masterhawk said:

1. The founders feared that a direct election of the president would result in the candidates pandering to the whims of the people rather than be focused on actual issues so they allowed states to decide how to distribute electors. Nowadays, a complex election system seems pretty silly but at a time when the only experience humanity had with democracy was in Rome and Athens which got chaotic at times, this idea made perfect sense.

Click to expand...

1. This is exactly what was meant by "Tyranny of the Majority." The top four States; California, Texas, Florida, and New York have over 106.5 million people. Add the next 3 or 4 big States to your campaign trail and you can get a President elected by popular vote focusing them and never setting foot anywhere else in the nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

The rest of the nation would be ruled by those large States, and in short order you'd see apathy followed by desires for secession as the other 40 States come to realize no one in those big Eight States gives one good damn about them.

Masterhawk said:

2. Counting a few hundred votes is simply easier than several million. Back when the constitution was being framed, it took days for electors to reach DC to nominate the president. Just imagine a cart full of ballots and somebody maybe stealing a few... Since our constitution was created however, our country's government has evolved and technology has changed circumstances.

Click to expand...

2. Really? Do you realize they were STILL counting the popular vote as of today?

Two weeks later, Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead grows as vote count continues

Click to expand...

Two weeks later, Hillary Clinton's popular vote lead grows as vote count continues

Masterhawk said:

3. They wanted to protect small states.

Click to expand...

3. No, not protect them but rather ensure they have a voice and active participation in the selection of the President.

People who argue for direct democracy are thinking selfishly. Nor have they learned the lesson's of history.

Our nation is not a homogeneous whole, but rather a group of segments represented by various States with different levels of ethnic, religious, cultural, and ideological differences that can easily be seen by simply driving across the country passing through border after border.

If we go with a direct popular vote this country would quickly balkanize as the nation's top leadership is always drawn from the Big States and panders to them at the expense of the rest of the nation.

The reason why we survived so long even as we grew larger expanding across the continent is because every State knew it had a stake in the preservation of the whole and could count on a voice in maintaining it. Direct popular voting would destroy this ideal and tear this nation apart.

Captain Adverse said:

3. No, not protect them but rather ensure they have a voice and active participation in the selection of the President.

Click to expand...

And they do ... a bigger one than they merit.

California, for example, has a population of 38.8 million people and carries 55 electoral votes. That's ~705K people per electoral vote.

Wyoming, on the other hand, has a population of 584,153 people and carries 3 electoral votes. That's ~195k people per electoral vote.

Why does the average Wyoming voter's vote count for roughly three and a half times the average California voter's vote when it comes to selecting the president? California has an exponentially bigger impact on America's fortunes than Wyoming does.

Now, I'm not saying to abandon the electoral college, but I do think some changes need to be made to deal with the vast over-representation that small, low-populated states currently hold. And yes, there are blue states that fit that bill as well -- Hawaii, to name one. Delaware is another. So is Vermont.

Kobie said:

And they do ... a bigger one than they merit.

California, for example, has a population of 38.8 million people and carries 55 electoral votes. That's ~705K people per electoral vote.

Wyoming, on the other hand, has a population of 584,153 people and carries 3 electoral votes. That's ~195k people per electoral vote.

Why does the average Wyoming voter's vote count for roughly three and a half times the average California voter's vote when it comes to selecting the president? California has an exponentially bigger impact on America's fortunes than Wyoming does.

Click to expand...

This question has been asked and answered many times in the Forum recently.

It is simply because it was intentionally set up that way. Every State will have a minimum of three Electoral College votes, one for each member of Congress (2 for the State Senators, and at least one for a State Representative).

This was to ensure that EVERY state, no matter it's size or population has some actual impact on the election of the President.

Had this not been done back at the Foundation of the nation, it is likely that one or more of the four smallest States would have refused to ratify the Constitution and remained independent Nations.

Moreover, this would set both the example and the tone for all westward expansion; with many settlers rejecting the claim of the remaining Federal government to all western land, instead carving out their own little nation-states. Our history would be much different than it is today.

Lastly, you appear to have completely ignored everything I stated in the response you quoted about the why's and wherefore's of maintaining the Electoral College even today. Do you really think this would remain a "United" nation once all the "little States" find that they become factually backwaters of the Big States in government?

It is a fair system. California currently has 55; I say again FIFTY-FIVE electoral votes to Wyoming's THREE, and you are really making an issue of it? Geez.

In California you have a direct vote in local and State elections and are fairly represented. You have TWO Senators and FIFTY-THREE Representatives in Congress, all directly elected. You don't think California or any other large States isn't fairly represented in these levels of government?

For heaven sake man, The Electoral College serves a valuable purpose, which I've already explained. Re-read it.

Captain Adverse said:

This question has been asked and answered many times in the Forum recently.

It is simply because it was intentionally set up that way. Every State will have a minimum of three Electoral College votes, one for each member of Congress (2 for the State Senators, and at least one for a State Representative).

This was to ensure that EVERY state, no matter it's size or population has some actual impact on the election of the President.

Had this not been done back at the Foundation of the nation, it is likely that one or more of the four smallest States would have refused to ratify the Constitution, and remained independent Nations. Moreover, this would set the tone for all westward expansion, with many settlers rejecting the claim the of the remaining Federal government and instead carving out their own little nation-states. Our history would be much different than it is today.

Lastly, you appear to have completely ignored everything I stated in the response you quoted about the why's and wherefore's of maintaining the Electoral College even today. Do you really think this would remain a "United" nation once al the "little States" find that they become backwaters of the Big States in government?

It is a fair system. California currently has 55; I say again FIFTY-FIVE electoral votes to Wyoming's THREE, and you are really making an issue of it? Geez.

In California you have a direct vote in local and State elections and are fairly represented. You have TWO Senators and FIFTY-THREE Representatives in Congress, all directly elected. You don't think California or any other large States isn't fairly represented in these levels of government?

For heaven sake man, The Electoral College serves a valuable purpose, which I've already explained. Re-read it.

Click to expand...

I see we've entered full condescension mode.

I understand WHY the EC is set up as it is; I understand the need for small states to have adequate representation. I'm simply saying they have TOO MUCH representation. I'm not proposing giving them NO representation; I haven't proposed anything. Unclench.

How is a Wyoming voter's vote having three and a half times the impact of a Californian voter's vote "fair"? We're not talking about senators and representatives. We're talking about the Electoral College only. Please try to stay on topic.

Kobie said:

I see we've entered full condescension mode.

I understand WHY the EC is set up as it is; I understand the need for small states to have adequate representation. I'm simply saying they have TOO MUCH representation. I'm not proposing giving them NO representation; I haven't proposed anything. Unclench.

How is a Wyoming voter's vote having three and a half times the impact of a Californian voter's vote "fair"? We're not talking about senators and representatives. We're talking about the Electoral College only. Please try to stay on topic.

Click to expand...

No condescension, just frustration.

If you already know why the EC was set up the way it is, and that it does give every State some actual impact it would not otherwise have on the Presidential election...what further explanation is needed? :coffeepap:

Captain Adverse said:

No condescension, just frustration.

If you already know why the EC was set up the way it is, and that it does give every State some actual impact it would not have otherwise on the Presidential election...what further explanation is needed? :coffeepap:

Click to expand...

The EC was set up the way it is when we had 13 states and a much more balanced population, the 3/5 compromise notwithstanding. In TODAY'S environment, when certain states have exponentially larger populations than others, I'm saying that the system deserves a second look. Not everything concocted in 1787 is perfect. I don't know why it "frustrates" you that I think a Wyoming resident voting for president has his or her vote count more than triple that of a California resident is kinda wack.

Kobie said:

The EC was set up the way it is when we had 13 states and a much more balanced population, the 3/5 compromise notwithstanding. In TODAY'S environment, when certain states have exponentially larger populations than others, I'm saying that the system deserves a second look. Not everything concocted in 1787 is perfect. I don't know why it "frustrates" you that I think a Wyoming resident voting for president has his or her vote count more than triple that of a California resident is kinda wack.

Click to expand...

Not quite.

In 1780 the estimated population of Delaware was 45,400 while New York was 210,500 (5 times larger), Massachusetts was 268,600 (6 times larger), Pennsylvania was 327,300 (7 times larger), and Virginia was 538,000 (12 times larger).

Those four states had a total estimated population of 1,344,400 out of a total 2,780,400, almost equal to all the other 12 States combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

It's all relative, but the system worked. It still does. :shrug:

Captain Adverse said:

Not quite.

In 1780 the estimated population of Delaware was 45,400 while New York was 210,500 (5 times larger), Massachusetts was 268,600 (6 times larger), Pennsylvania was 327,300 (7 times larger), and Virginia was 538,000 (12 times larger).

Those four states had a total estimated population of 1,344,400 out of a total 2,780,400, almost equal to all the other 12 States combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States

It's all relative, but the system worked. It still does. :shrug:

Click to expand...

12 times larger is not 66 times larger, sticking with the California-Wyoming theme.

Masterhawk said:

Many defenders of the electoral college point out that the electoral college is meant to protect small states from big states (which it doesn't) and that it protects us from the "tyrranny of the majority" (which treating a 51% majority in one state as a 100% majority totally isn't). So here are a few reasons why it was created.

1. The founders feared that a direct election of the president would result in the candidates pandering to the whims of the people rather than be focused on actual issues so they allowed states to decide how to distribute electors. Nowadays, a complex election system seems pretty silly but at a time when the only experience humanity had with democracy was in Rome and Athens which got chaotic at times, this idea made perfect sense.

2. Counting a few hundred votes is simply easier than several million. Back when the constitution was being framed, it took days for electors to reach DC to nominate the president. Just imagine a cart full of ballots and somebody maybe stealing a few.

3. They wanted to protect small states.

So now you know why the electoral college was created. Since our constitution was created however, our country's government has evolved and technology has changed circumstances. Many people state that a NPV would cause candidates to only focus on the coastline states and ignore "flyover states". If that happens then that means over 50% of the population lives there (the same cannot be said for the swing states, clocking in at only 28%). What they don't mention is that that's how our senators and governors are elected and nobody is making a fuss about the lack of an electoral college at the state level.

Click to expand...

RetiredUSN said:

View attachment 67210215

Click to expand...

so the top 4 states add up to a third of our population. That's still not enough to win the election. Meanwhile, 2/3 of the campaigning takes place in 4 states which collectively add up to only 17.02% of the population.



But the worst thing about our current winner take all system is that New Hampshire gets more attention than California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Washington, Illinois, and NEw York combined even though all of the listed states have more electoral votes than New Hampshire. Why is this? Because our current system gives the entire election to the swing states.

The current system does not protect small states. Every state smaller than New Hampshire collectively adds up to 34 electoral votes, more than Florida. All of those states got zero campaigning events.