Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Perhaps both the Democrats and Republicans tasting the bitter results of an Electoral College failure in such a short timeframe will lead to its abolishment.

[Mephansteras]

Perhaps both the Democrats and Republicans tasting the bitter results of an Electoral College failure in such a short timeframe will lead to its abolishment.

I think you overestimate the memories of politicians. They have a hard time remembering stuff a month ago if it doesn't suit how things are right now, let alone a decade ago. I sincerely doubt the Democrats would go for it even if the Republicans proposed it. It's stupid, and sad, but it's how it is.

[RedKing]

Perhaps both the Democrats and Republicans tasting the bitter results of an Electoral College failure in such a short timeframe will lead to its abolishment.

Unlikely. One, because the Democrats are going to be in no mood to kill the golden goose if they benefit from it. And because governors and politicians of low population states don't want their electoral power diluted. Abolish the Electoral College, and Presidential campaigns would be waged almost entirely in California, New York, Florida and Texas. Ironically, Florida is the only one of those that gets anything more than token attention nowadays because Cali and NY are safe blue and Texas is safe red.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I think you overestimate the effect of population density on such a scenario. The US isn't all stuffed into four states by a long shot.

[RedKing]

It's not, but those four do constitute roughly 1/3 of the US population. There would be campaign staff in all 50 states just as there are now, but the bulk of appearances and targeted ads would be in the high population states (maybe the top 6 or 7 instead of just four). It's all about bang for your buck. NOBODY is going to waste time and money fighting for a share of Wyoming (0.17% of the US population).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Their fault for living in Wyoming, I say.

[Shinotsa]

Since state boundaries have already been broken down between states due to ease of travel and the internet, is it really even relevant anymore that Wyoming needs to have a large say? Are the needs of someone in Wyoming really so different from someone in California when it comes to national interest? States would still maintain their say in the Senate regardless of population which, in this changing world, may really be all they need to represent their unique interests.

Note the use of questions and passive language, as this is just thinking out loud.

[RedKing]

Mining subsidies. BIG difference in opinion and spillover effect for someone in California vs. Wyoming. Just as an example.

Yes, that's probably an issue for the Senate but since Presidential power seems to have steadily crept into areas like proposing budgets and deciding interstate commerce....

[Mephansteras]

The amount of campaigning that would happen in California alone if they made that change is staggering.

For example, back in 2008 Obama got ~8 million votes and McCain got ~5 million. Both of those numbers are higher than a lot of state's total populations, let alone voting populations.

Only 12 states have 8 million or more, and only 22 have 5 million or more. If you then cut that down to people eligible to vote, the impact California alone would have on the election process would be incredible.

Add the other 3 largest states to the mix and you'd see a very different distribution of time and money by campaigns.

[Shinotsa]

The amount of campaigning that would happen in California alone if they made that change is staggering.

For example, back in 2008 Obama got ~8 million votes and McCain got ~5 million. Both of those numbers are higher than a lot of state's total populations, let alone voting populations.

Only 12 states have 8 million or more, and only 22 have 5 million or more. If you then cut that down to people eligible to vote, the impact California alone would have on the election process would be incredible.

Add the other 3 largest states to the mix and you'd see a very different distribution of time and money by campaigns.

Is that really any worse than campaigns focusing most of their effort on Ohio and Florida? It seems like things would remain roughly similar on the campaign front, with the main difference being the states that are visited rather than the variety of the visits. Of course Rhode Island might see a bit less in the way of campaigns, but who is to say that the greater number of people shouldn't be the focused on?

[Mephansteras]

I don't think it's actually be any better or worse for the country overall. Personally, I'd be in favor of it. I hate the fact that my vote in California is essentially wasted because ALL of the electoral votes are going to go Democratic no matter what. Even if I approve of how the vote ultimately goes, I still dislike the system.

[RedKing]

The amount of campaigning that would happen in California alone if they made that change is staggering.

For example, back in 2008 Obama got ~8 million votes and McCain got ~5 million. Both of those numbers are higher than a lot of state's total populations, let alone voting populations.

Only 12 states have 8 million or more, and only 22 have 5 million or more. If you then cut that down to people eligible to vote, the impact California alone would have on the election process would be incredible.

Add the other 3 largest states to the mix and you'd see a very different distribution of time and money by campaigns.

Exactly. Like I said, those four states constitute about 32-33% of the US population. California alone is a bit over 12%. To put it another way, a 1-point shift in *just* California equals about 60% of the entire population of Wyoming. You're gonna spend your money where it does the most for you.

@Shinotsa: The difference is that "battleground states" are, by their very nature, places where there is not a prevailing single ideology. They're "purple" states. If you base it on population, you shift the electoral power to primarily urban-dominated states, which are going to have a different ideological bent and different issues. Quite frankly, you blue-shift the entire contest, Texas notwithstanding. Which I'd be all for at the moment, but in the abstract it's a bad thing for the country.

That city-country divide was actually one of the big reasons for the Electoral College in the first place: so that you didn't have the urban colonies like Massachusetts and New York and Virginia completely dominating the more rural colonies. Which in turn led to the 3/5ths Compromise, when it was realized that if you counted slaves as population for purposes of Congressional representation, the Southern states suddenly gained a huge advantage.

[Shinotsa]

I'm not arguing that it would have severe effects and pull power away from places where issues are prevalent, but I just can't see the reason why moving to another state should make my vote count ten times what it does now. On top of that, the current system can make a mountain out of a molehill so to speak, as it emphasizes issues important to certain battlegrounds while potentially ignoring things that other people care about. If a battleground state develops a large tea party presence for example, suddenly the ideology of that group expands to not only affect the state in which it developed, but now can potentially influence the policies of the president who is supposed to represent the people. If you have a radical group in a handful of states then it should affect that state's government as well as the legislators that that state elects, it should never overshadow the representation of all citizens just because it has a vocal, politically active base.

Essentially let the president worry about his electorate equally and let Congress worry about their electorate equally. Of course I'm oversimplifying everything as is usually the case with arguments of this scope, but one (wo)man, one vote has always seemed rational to me.

[PTTG??]

I'm a Californian who would support that because currently, my vote is pretty meaningless as it is. Democrats know they don't have to campaign, or indeed, take any action at all, to win a Californian vote. So they don't.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are running around promising to build a giant altar where illegal immigrants can be sacrificed to Jesus so he'll create american jerbs despite the actions of President Osama Bin Mecha-Satan.

I want to be able to say that I am unsatisfied with the Democrat party line, but even though I vote for Jill Stein, it's not going to disturb the election at all.

Furthermore, I don't like the concept that someone's vote is worth much, much more than mine. Some rural Ohioan, for instance, has probably ten or maybe a hundred times larger a share of electoral responsibility in presidential elections, apparently because farmers are just worth more than people who live in cities.

...If you base it on population, you shift the electoral power to primarily urban-dominated states, which are going to have a different ideological bent and different issues. Quite frankly, you blue-shift the entire contest, Texas notwithstanding. Which I'd be all for at the moment, but in the abstract it's a bad thing for the country...

Better-representing the desires of the majority of Americans is bad now?

[RedKing]

I'm a Californian who would support that because currently, my vote is pretty meaningless as it is. Democrats know they don't have to campaign, or indeed, take any action at all, to win a Californian vote. So they don't.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are running around promising to build a giant altar where illegal immigrants can be sacrificed to Jesus so he'll create american jerbs despite the actions of President Osama Bin Mecha-Satan.

I want to be able to say that I am unsatisfied with the Democrat party line, but even though I vote for Jill Stein, it's not going to disturb the election at all.

Furthermore, I don't like the concept that someone's vote is worth much, much more than mine. Some rural Ohioan, for instance, has probably ten or maybe a hundred times larger a share of electoral responsibility in presidential elections, apparently because farmers are just worth more than people who live in cities.

...If you base it on population, you shift the electoral power to primarily urban-dominated states, which are going to have a different ideological bent and different issues. Quite frankly, you blue-shift the entire contest, Texas notwithstanding. Which I'd be all for at the moment, but in the abstract it's a bad thing for the country...

Better-representing the desires of the majority of Americans is bad now?

Numerical majority, but geographical minority. America is not restricted to its two coasts, despite the fact that a majority of the population lives there. Democracy should never be a flat "tyranny of the majority", even if the minority is predominantly rural religious conservatives who are diametrically opposed to most of my beliefs.