• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the winner take all system is broken

Alot of people who defend the electoral college say that it encourages presidential candidates to campaign all over the US rather than a few states, that npv is "tyranny of the majority", or that a national popular vote would be "direct democracy". Allow me to show you why those arguments are BS.

Very well argued. But I don't think that the problem is that we have an electoral college, it's the way our EC is implemented.

There are two main benefits for having an EC (EC in general, not necessarily the EC we have now).

  1. States run elections. It's easier to vote in some states, harder in others. Because the electoral votes are distributed on a state by state basis it mitigates the the incentive for partisan state legislatures to intentionally boost or suppress the vote in that state.
  2. A nationwide recount would be absolutely disastrous. Sometimes its' better to have a wrong winner than no winner at all.


IMO we'd be much better off with a fairer version of the EC. ie, proportional ballot allocation at the state level in every state ( allocated by the the popular vote, not by gerrymandered districts), Then subtract two electoral votes from each state, and triple the number of EC votes. Allocate them such that each state has an odd number of votes.

This way winning a state counts for something, so does mitigating losses in states that you're not competitive in. It allows Republicans to campaign in California and Democrats in the South.
 
That is because how gerrymandered the districts are in most of the states. Geographic comparisons are ridiculous because they are comparing rural areas with a handful of people per square mile to urban areas that have several thousand people per square mile.

Area is not the point. The point is that HRC would have lost even if EC votes were apportioned by Congressional district.
 
Area is not the point. The point is that HRC would have lost even if EC votes were apportioned by Congressional district.

But that is because the congressional districts are so gerrymandered.
 
But that is because the congressional districts are so gerrymandered.

Well, for starters they're no more gerrymandered than they were 100 years ago, or 50, etc. Dems' catastrophic weakness at the state level has created this disadvantage. But that's all really beside the point. If Dems prefer state-by-state winner-take-all then so be it.
 
Area is not the point. The point is that HRC would have lost even if EC votes were apportioned by Congressional district.

Because congressional districts are seriously gerrymandered by partisan state legislatures. Until that problem is tackled and defeated, the idea of dividing a states EC votes by district is just as bad as the EC itself.
 
Because congressional districts are seriously gerrymandered by partisan state legislatures. Until that problem is tackled and defeated, the idea of dividing a states EC votes by district is just as bad as the EC itself.

State control of Congressional districts is not a problem to be "tackled and defeated." It is a feature of our system, and it's the same for everyone. Want to win? Do a better job. Don't expect the people to subsidize political incompetence.
 
State control of Congressional districts is not a problem to be "tackled and defeated." It is a feature of our system, and it's the same for everyone. Want to win? Do a better job. Don't expect the people to subsidize political incompetence.

It is NOT a problem if you are willing to accept blatant partisan gerrymandering.

Perhaps you can explain to me the fairness of Michigan having nine Republican Representatives in the House and five Democrats in the House when statewide in the 2014 election about 50,000 more citizens voters voted for the Democrat running than voted for the Republican who was running?
 
Alot of people who defend the electoral college say that it encourages presidential candidates to campaign all over the US rather than a few states, that npv is "tyranny of the majority", or that a national popular vote would be "direct democracy". Allow me to show you why those arguments are BS.

First we must understand why the ec was created. It was created primarily because the founders feared that direct presidential elections would lead to candidates winning the election by just making promises. Where have I seen that before? Also, our senatorial and gubernatorial elections don't have an ec, it's just a simple popular vote; no one seems to be complaining. The second reason it was created was to protect small states. This was proposed particularly to give the slave states an advantage by counting 3/5 of the slaves for congressional redistribution. The last reason was because a few hundred votes was simply easier to count than several million back then. You see, information traveled a lot slower back then and it took days if not weeks to reach DC. Nowadays, information reaches someone from the other side of the planet within a second. Now without further adue, let's get into why the EC is a bad system.

1. the EC keeps the election from being consolidated down to a few states.


The below map utterly debunks that argument:


By now, it is no secret that almost the entire election takes place in just 10 states which collectively add up to just 28% of America's population. Sure an unexpecting state or two might flip rarely but Florida and Ohio will always be swing states and California, Texas, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, Alabama, Louisiana, and Washington are all safe states with zero chance of flipping. You see, the main problem with the current system isn't that it's possible for a candidate to win with less votes than another candidate, it's that all the campaigning is concentrated in a few states. Ironically, not only does our system not prevent it from being just a few states, it causes it.

2. it protects small states

:lamo

Ok I'm sorry but do you know how many campaign events were held in all of the states with a smaller population than New Hampshire? ZERO


3. popular vote is tyranny of the majority

If that's so, then why do we use this system to elect governors and senators?

In fact, our current system might be "tyranny of the majority". Allow me to explain. 4 million voters in California turned out for Donald trump; this is roughly equal to the amount of eligible voters in Colorado, the latter is worth 9 electoral votes. Those 4 million votes amounted to nothing because the democrats in CA drowned them out and the winner take all system treats it as if every voter in CA turned out for Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016

This map of Illinois shows the state actually being quite conservative but Chicago keeps that from happening:

View attachment 67210861

New York would be swing state if it weren't for New York City

View attachment 67210862

In Illinois and New York, we see the voters of most of the state nullified by the voters in the big city, but in Texas, Tennessee, and Indiana, it's the other way around with Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, Memphis, Nashville, and Indianapolis all voting in majority for Clinton. Yet, their votes do not matter as the men of the countryside have cast their votes for Trump.

4. pop vote would condense the election down to the big cities.

While it is true that most of the population lives in a select few counties, we actually have a pop vote, there's just 56 of them (including DC and the districts of Maine and Nebraska). When campaigning in Ohio, do candidates campaign everywhere in the state or just Cleveland and Columbus? If the answer is the former then why do you think that would change if it was only 1 popular vote instead of 56? If it's the latter then how is our current system any better than popular vote?

5. it's "direct democracy"

changing how the president is elected does not change the fact that the US is a representative republic


All of which ignores the fact that the EC is designed to support the idea of Separation of Powers. The People elect Congress, the States elect the President and together the two select the SCOTUS. It keeps too much power from being concentrated in any one part of our society. You can argue all the statistics and numbers you want, but the cold hard truth is the EC is part of the Checks and Balances that keep this nation safe from the tyranny of the 1%, having the States take over the nation, or having one branch of the gov't take over the whole of the gov't.
 
It is NOT a problem if you are willing to accept blatant partisan gerrymandering.

The process to create Congressional districts has not changed. It's only called gerrymandering by the side that has lost.
 
The process to create Congressional districts has not changed. It's only called gerrymandering by the side that has lost.

Perhaps you can explain to me the fairness of Michigan having nine Republican Representatives in the House and five Democrats in the House when statewide in the 2014 election about 50,000 more citizens voters voted for the Democrat running for a seat in the US House than voted for the Republican who was running?
 
Perhaps you can explain to me the fairness of Michigan having nine Republican Representatives in the House and five Democrats in the House when statewide in the 2014 election about 50,000 more citizens voters voted for the Democrat running for a seat in the US House than voted for the Republican who was running?

The system is completely "fair" in that it was created on the basis of the outcome of free and fair elections. Those elections created a state government free to apportion Congressional districts as it saw fit. The total number of voters selecting candidates for one party or another in the state, across Congressional boundaries, is entirely meaningless.
 
The system is completely "fair" in that it was created on the basis of the outcome of free and fair elections. Those elections created a state government free to apportion Congressional districts as it saw fit. The total number of voters selecting candidates for one party or another in the state, across Congressional boundaries, is entirely meaningless.

How could elections intentionally stacked in favor of one party or the other be free and fair?
 
How could elections intentionally stacked in favor of one party or the other be free and fair?

The elections of which I was speaking were those for state legislature and governor. That's where Congressional districts get apportioned.
 
the electoral college as it pertains to the presidential vote in the US is as outdated as anything imaginable

the presidential vote should be one vote counts for one vote period, just as any other election in the US

stop the electoral college BS ruse & then we can get on to more important BS in the US; things like how does my hair look, anyone have a mirror, stuff like that ..............
 
the electoral college as it pertains to the presidential vote in the US is as outdated as anything imaginable

the presidential vote should be one vote counts for one vote period, just as any other election in the US

stop the electoral college BS ruse & then we can get on to more important BS in the US; things like how does my hair look, anyone have a mirror, stuff like that ..............

Can't be that outdated, the votes were just tabulated by the EC about a month ago.

How do you propose to stop it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
All of which ignores the fact that the EC is designed to support the idea of Separation of Powers. The People elect Congress, the States elect the President and together the two select the SCOTUS. It keeps too much power from being concentrated in any one part of our society. You can argue all the statistics and numbers you want, but the cold hard truth is the EC is part of the Checks and Balances that keep this nation safe from the tyranny of the 1%, having the States take over the nation, or having one branch of the gov't take over the whole of the gov't.

Changing how our president is elected will not upset checks and balances. This is how we elect our senators and governors. Why would a popular vote be bad for presidential elections but not bad for senators and governors?
 
Changing how our president is elected will not upset checks and balances. This is how we elect our senators and governors. Why would a popular vote be bad for presidential elections but not bad for senators and governors?

Because it removes the check on the tyranny of the 1%. EVERY part of our system should have a check on it and that INCLUDES The People.
 
Because it removes the check on the tyranny of the 1%. EVERY part of our system should have a check on it and that INCLUDES The People.

How is it the tyranny of the 1%? When I think of the tyranny of the 1%, I think of the wealth disparity.
 
How is it the tyranny of the 1%? When I think of the tyranny of the 1%, I think of the wealth disparity.

The "tyranny of the 1%" is the idea that with a simple majority, the rights of one person (or 1%) less than the majority can be lost to that 1 person or (1%) majority.
 
The "tyranny of the 1%" is the idea that with a simple majority, the rights of one person (or 1%) less than the majority can be lost to that 1 person or (1%) majority.

Under winner take all, the same exists in safe states
 
The only reason we need to change how our president was elected is because it did not favor the democrats. Trump out smarted Hillary and used the system to beat her. changing the system would not have put Hillary in the White House. Trump most likely would have changed his strategy and used the changed system to beat her. The fact she could not even handle classified document responsibly was her undoing. Millions of people work with classified information every day and could not elect someone to the highest office in the country who couldn't even handle such a simple task responsibly.
 
I am against our current election system, but when you mentioned Maine and Nebraska, my ears perked up. I am for a PR system. We're the oldest democracy currently. And all the new ones use PR. Why are we holding on to the oldest system? We had to change the language of the original documents as we evolved into a modern diverse nation. I think there is ample evidence to suggest that we can now use computers to register votes in real time. I think we have just seen how easily media can sway opinions both real and fake. I think it is a good time to reevaluate if we really want to hold on to the oldest election system. Elections are state's rights issues. Although Bush v Gore was the first ever case to take an election federal, they stated that this case wasn't setting a precedent. That was a precedent. Marbury v Madison was the first case and it said every case sets precedent. I think a refresh would be a good idea.
 
I think the EC works, but would work better if we rid of winner take all states, in the primaries and the actual election.
 
Back
Top Bottom