Are Electors still relevant?

[BrotherFease]

Badly designed.

If you were alive in the late 18th century, it was a necessity. The founders had very different viewpoints on how the country should be structured.

National popular vote creates a 1:1 ratio. The electoral college creates up to a 4:1 ratio.

 

[BrotherFease]

I think you mean the House of Representatives...and how exactly does it benefit the large states ?

The number of house members are based on the number of congressional districts. The largest states have the most say in the direction of the house.

 

[marke]

I have been doing some homework or refresher on early presidential elections. I discovered/re-learned that the founders were really torn on our presidential election system. Half wanted to go with the direct vote for President aka national popular vote, while the other half wanted congress to pick the President. Their compromise or 11th hour decision was electors. The belief here was that the average Joe were uneducated/uninformed on the issues, needed political experts to vote on their behalf, and feared they would pick a tyrant. Electors were the middle-ground people. They were not members of the U.S Senator or Congress. They were local political figures and had a broad understanding of the world around them.

Fast forward to 2020. We live in an age of the internet, social media, television, radio, and wide range of transportation options. Most of the population has some sort of post High School education. On one hand, we're all more educated than we were in the late 18th century, but at the same time, very few people actually watch the news on a regular basis. We have people to live in their own bubble and vote by party line. You watch Fox News, you get the impression that Trump is a victim and the Democrats are evil. You watch CNN or MSNBC, you get the impression that Democrats are heroes and Trump is a clown dressed in a suit.

Does the concept of electors really matter anymore? Originally they were suppose to be free thinking and provide a check on the American people. In the 20th century, we literally had only 7 faithless electors total. So far this century, we have had 8 total. The 2016 election brought forth 6 of the 8. I am just curious if we still need political experts to vote on our behalf.

Without electors the big blue cities and states would determine the outcome of all national elections and voters in less populous states would be completely marginalized.

 

[Rich2018]

If you were alive in the late 18th century, it was a necessity. The founders had very different viewpoints on how the country should be structured.

National popular vote creates a 1:1 ratio. The electoral college creates up to a 4:1 ratio.

4:1 ratio in what ?

 

[Rich2018]

The number of house members are based on the number of congressional districts. The largest states have the most say in the direction of the house.

Because they have the most people in them

How is that granting them an "advantage" ?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

We absolutely do not need electors.

I think the big advantage of electors is it stops mob rule. It gives strength to the minority same as the senate. I think most small states would never have joined the union otherwise. Just like our constitution is supposed to protect the minority and the individual from mob rule as well. Seems majority rule or mob rule however you want to describe it has become popular. Especially when wanting to take away the rights of the minority and the individual.

 

[BrotherFease]

4:1 ratio in what ?

To answer both questions for you.

As noted in my original response to Swing_Voter, under the National Popular Vote system, every vote would be counted the same. It would be a 1:1 ratio. Under the EC, every vote gets counted differently depending on the state you live in. The state of Georgia has a low vote per capita.

For the example about the House, California and Texas have the most political say. Cal has 53 congressional representatives. Texas has 36. Meanwhile, Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, Delaware, and so forth have only 1.

 

[Rich2018]

The number of house members are based on the number of congressional districts. The largest states have the most say in the direction of the house.

They should be just based on the number of people within the state.

 

[BrotherFease]

I think the big advantage of electors is it stops mob rule. It gives strength to the minority same as the senate. I think most small states would never have joined the union otherwise. Just like our constitution is supposed to protect the minority and the individual from mob rule as well. Seems majority rule or mob rule however you want to describe it has become popular. Especially when wanting to take away the rights of the minority and the individual.

I agree to most of that. Reviewing history makes me appreciate the EC. The fear of the demagogue is the primary reason for electors. There was a reason why 2016 had so many faithless electors: Voters picked the wrong candidates on the Republican and Democrat side.

I would argue that minority mobs can be just as brutal.

 

[BrotherFease]

They should be just based on the number of people within the state.

Population size determines how many congressional representatives.

 

[Rich2018]

I think the big advantage of electors is it stops mob rule.

How would "mob rule" take over if there waere no electors or EC

In 2016 Hilary would be elected president - why would her election be "mob rule" ?

 

[Samwise]

I think most small states would never have joined the union otherwise.

This ^^^^

Without the EC there would be no union.

 

[Rich2018]

To answer both questions for you.

As noted in my original response to Swing_Voter, under the National Popular Vote system, every vote would be counted the same. It would be a 1:1 ratio. Under the EC, every vote gets counted differently depending on the state you live in. The state of Georgia has a low vote per capita.

For the example about the House, California and Texas have the most political say. Cal has 53 congressional representatives. Texas has 36. Meanwhile, Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, Delaware, and so forth have only 1.

So how do you calculate 4:1 ?

Population size determines how many congressional representatives.

On a 1:1 ratio ?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I agree to most of that. Reviewing history makes me appreciate the EC. The fear of the demagogue is the primary reason for electors. There was a reason why 2016 had so many faithless electors: Voters picked the wrong candidates on the Republican and Democrat side.

I would argue that minority mobs can be just as brutal.

Without question the electoral can be bad. The problem is we do not have a candidate of the people and funded by the people. Our choices are funded by the 2 corrupt parties that are owned and controlled by the rich, the powerful, and corporate America.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

How would "mob rule" take over if there waere no electors or EC

In 2016 Hilary would be elected president - why would her election be "mob rule" ?

If you do not know you have a lot of researching to do. The same reason we have a senate for starters and not just a congress. Everyone is represented not just the majority.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

This ^^^^

Without the EC there would be no union.

Not as we know it. There would be more countries like Europe.

 

[BrotherFease]

So how do you calculate 4:1 ?



On a 1:1 ratio ?

Here's some examples:

A vote in California equals almost 4 votes in Wyoming. That would be a 4:1 ratio for Wyoming.

No electoral college, then each vote would carry the same weight. A vote in California would carry the same weight as a vote in Wyoming, making it a clean 1:1 ratio.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

How would "mob rule" take over if there waere no electors or EC

In 2016 Hilary would be elected president - why would her election be "mob rule" ?

That is a stupid statement because we do not know what the outcome would have been. Trump would have campaigned to the popular vote not the EC. I an not buying into that lie.

 

[Rich2018]

If you do not know you have a lot of researching to do. The same reason we have a senate for starters and not just a congress. Everyone is represented not just the majority.

Translation, you're unable to explain how having a president elected by popular vote is "mob rule"

"Mob rule" is better likened to the majority being terrorized into submission by a minority

That's how the Nazis and Bolseviks (its very name meaning minority) came to power

So I oppose the EC because I oppose "mob rule"

That is a stupid statement because we do not know what the outcome would have been. Trump would have campaigned to the popular vote not the EC. I an not buying into that lie.

Are you saying that if there were no EC, a significant number of people would have voted to other way, or voted in staying at home ?

Do you have any evidence to support this ?

 

[Fishking]

To put it plainly, the highest populated states have the lowest vote per capita, the lowest populated states have the highest vote per capita.

LARGEST STATES
California - 40 million residents, 55 electoral college votes, 727k votes per elector
Texas - 29 million residents, 38 electoral college votes, 763k votes per elector
Florida - 21 million residents, 29 electoral college votes, 724k votes per elector
New York - 19 million residents, 29 electoral college votes, 655k votes per elector
Penn - 12.8 million residents, 20 electoral college votes, 640k votes per elector
Illinois - 12.7 million residents, 20 electoral college votes, 635k votes per elector

SMALLEST STATES
Wyoming - 577k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 192k votes per elector
Alaska - 731k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 243k votes per elector
North Dakota - 762k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 254k votes per elector
South Dakota - 884k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 294k votes per elector
Vermont - 623k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 207k votes per elector
Delaware - 973k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 324k votes per elector
Montana - 1 million residents, 3 electoral college votes, 333k votes per elector.

In the most extreme example, a vote in Wyoming holds about 3.5 times more weight than a vote in either California or Texas.

That's only a part of it. And the reason why there is an imbalance is there is a minimum number of EC votes per state so state with a very small population still get that minimum. It's part of what made the U.S. possible. It would've been much harder to get people to join the Union if they mattered even less.

 

[Fishking]

The electoral college also gives the small states some power. I forget how, but I know I've heard that somewhere.

The main way this happens is that large radical states cannot basically decide the whole election themselves. California is a good example of this premise. It's the largest population and it is among the most radical. California gets 55 EC votes, no matter what kind of landslide their radical voting base gives the left. Hillary won California by around 4 million votes. She still just got the 55 EC votes and would've been no different than if she had won by only 100K votes.

If it were a direct democracy California would've have taken out pretty much almost every single other state and then their different interests would never be heard. You can't keep a country together like that.

 

[Fishking]

It's time for the EC to go.

And have the radical states of California and New York run the interests of the entire country? No thanks.

 

[Fishking]

Not sure I understand your commentary correctly, but I would say that the primary function of an elector, is prevent a demagogue from being President. If we mandate they pick a certain candidate, then we're essentially destroying the very fabric of an elector. You might as well go toward a point system.

See post #46. This is why it is more relevant than ever.

 

[BrotherFease]

That's only a part of it. And the reason why there is an imbalance is there is a minimum number of EC votes per state so state with a very small population still get that minimum. It's part of what made the U.S. possible. It would've been much harder to get people to join the Union if they mattered even less.

Exactly. Many people do not understand this point. It's important. It's how we got everybody to play ball. There's a minimum of electors for every state at 3. 2 Senators + at least one congressional district/congressman.

Now we're talking about REMOVING the safeguards put in place. I am still curious if people feel that electors are still necessary. I am getting the sense they still are.

 

[Lucky 1]

Without electors the big blue cities and states would determine the outcome of all national elections and voters in less populous states would be completely marginalized.

This is absolutely correct....if the electoral collage is done away with, a few very large population centers will determine the vote and the rest of the country is screwed.

Our founding fathers came up with a compromise system that I think works pretty reliably.