For those calling for the abolishment of the electoral college, here is one simple question.

[Exilednight]

IF Hillary had won the electoral college, but Trump had won the popular vote, would you be just as mad and calling for the abolishment of the EC?


This is a simple yes or no question. If you answer "no" then please save your diatribes, I'm not really interested in people rationalizing hypocrisy.

[JHan]

1. Yes I would be concerned.

My simple answer to an easy question^^

[boston bean]

2. No. Because TRUMP.

But after Hillary's term, I might be obliged to revisit it.

At this point it has happened x2 to democrats. we have reason to be concerned about it.

[JonLP24]

100. 4 times to Democrats

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876

[etherealtruth]

3. If Clinton had won the electoral college but not the popular vote I would have the same conerns

The issue only comes up when one candidate wins the popular vote and the other wins the EC.

This has occurred only 5 times in our history and only twice in modern history ... it is our system but is deeply flawed when a candidate wins the popular vote but not the presidency.

Electors in the electoral college should represent the same number of people. There is a huge disparity in the number of people represented in populous states vs rural states giving a disproportionate power to some citizens.


So yes ... I beleive in 1 person 1 vote ... the EC doesn't represent this.

[Exilednight]

4. I agree with one person equals one vote... BUT

There are millions of people who do not vote, and it is also their right to exercise not participating.

One could make the argument that people not voting, but are eligible, are speaking their mind by not showing up to the polls. If either candidate is not appealing to a given voter, and they stay home, their vote is still counted by the people who did turnout and essentially cast a ballot for them. In more layman terms, if 100 million people vote, out of 200 million eligible, then each vote is actually worth two votes - the vote a person casts, and the vote of someone staying home.

[etherealtruth]

11. It is actually more complex than that ... it is not simply people choosing not to vote

... it is further diluted by children (those under 18 not eligible to vote), the disenfranchised (for whatever reason ... they are still citizens), legal residents of the US, and others unable to vote for whatever reason. These factors change the weight (in different but profound ways) of each voter.

Under the current system a vote in the Dakotas carries significantly more weight that a vote in California or NY. This is by design.

The electoral college does not necessarily represent the citizens of the US, nor was it originally intended to. When electoral college wins and popular vote wins are the same all the issues remain true, but there is no impact.

I fully understand that our form of government is not a democracy (at best a representative democracy), but the POTUS' selection is likely going to be less and less based on the will (popular vote) of all of the voting citizens of the US which will lead to greater and greater discord.

As populations shift and grow/decline the electoral college (as votes are now cast) has the potential to to increasingly vote against the will of American citizens as a whole.

[BlueMTexpat]

73. 1! eom

[athena]

5. Yes. Every vote should have the same weight.

Your vote should not be meaningless just because you happen to live in California or Washington State or Hawaii or New Jersey or Texas. And your vote should not be worth more just because you happen to live in Michigan or Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.

[Exilednight]

6. So, if Hillary had won the EC but lost the popular vote ... you would still be crying foul?

[athena]

8. Yes, I would.

I am against the Electoral College, period. We need a constitutional amendment to get rid of it so that we can be a true democracy. Anyone with any intellectual integrity who is against the Electoral College must be against it regardless of the outcome. And it's pretty low to suggest that someone you have not even met lacks intellectual integrity.

The whole point of the EC is for a group of educated elites to reverse the popular vote in case a person who is unfit to serve as president is elected by the people. This is exactly what we have right now, and yet the EC is not going to vote for Hillary Clinton. Given that we now have enough faith in democracy and in this country's institutions that the EC is no longer able to do its job, the EC is no longer needed. All it does is render the votes of certain people irrelevant based on where they live. If it weren't for the EC, candidates would have to campaign everywhere, not just in a few "important" states. Think about that. Wouldn't you want to live in a country where everyone's vote had equal weight?

[Exilednight]

10. There's a few factual inaccuracies.

The biggest being that a candidate wouldn't have campaign in a few important states. In theory, one would only have to campaign in about 15 states, considering that those 15 make up nearly 2/3rds of our population.

That means a candidate could skip 35 states and focus on the issues of those 15 and still win the popular vote by a large margin.

[athena]

13. That's misleading.

No state is going to vote 100% for the same candidate. So the fact that 15 states have two-thirds of the population would not matter.

[Exilednight]

15. It does matter.

True, no state will go 100%, but focusing on those states, and those states alone, could give candidates much larger win percentages.

A candidate would only have to win those states by about 60 to 65% and they would win the popular vote. Three of the four biggest states, Texas, Florida and California are much more aligned demographically and economically than most other states. Take those three states by large margins and you're more than halfway there.

[athena]

24. You confusing the way one wins the EC with the way one would win the popular vote.

California may be a very populated state, but that is the point: it is populated. To try to get a bigger margin in California, you would need to campaign that much more in California. In other words, for more votes in California, you would have to campaign more in California. But those votes wouldn't have to come from California. You could get those votes anywhere; they could come from Texas or from New Jersey or from Oregon. As a result, candidates would be campaigning everywhere.

Compare that to the current system: if you get 50.1% of Californians' votes, you get all of California. Same for Texas. Same for Michigan. No candidate has any incentive to get more than 50.1% of the vote in any state. So, naturally, since the popular vote doesn't matter, they don't campaign in states where 50.1% will definitely be surpassed, nor in states where 50.1% is unreachable; they campaign in those states where 50.1% is reachable but not guaranteed. The only votes that matter are the ones in those swing states.

This is all kind of obvious, but I think you need to think about it more to convince yourself that selecting the president based on the popular vote would mean that everyone's vote would be equally valuable regardless of where they lived. No one's vote could be taken for granted.

[Exilednight]

37. Those votes from California can't "come from anywhere".

You'd have to waste precious time and resources to make up the population of California. IF a candidate just focused on a handful of states, their populations are big enough to give a candidate a populace landslide.

A candidate would literally need to campaign in 10 plus states equal to Louisiana's population (I picked Louisiana because their the middle of the pac) instead of focusing on a handful of states. It makes no sense to waste time in so many states when a candidate can focus on only a handful to win.

It's much easier to focus on the issues of one state and amass their votes versus traveling to ten and try and reach consensus.

[etherealtruth]

20. Your logic is flawed

If we had a direct democracy, in the current atmosphere in the US, with margins of victory in the popular vote similar to what they are now ... it would likely lead to campaigning in more states in order to pick up a "couple hundred thousand" votes here and there which could (would) be the difference in the popular vote.

Under the current system candidates largely focus on ~ 10 swing states ... with voters in the remaining states a after thought.

[Exilednight]

70. A straight up popular vote is not going to change the problems we currently face with the EC.

Those couple hundred thousand don't change elections.

Why would a candidate campaign in Louisiana, Alabama, and 8 other similarly sized states knowing that they can campaign in one state like California and get a better return on their investment?

Would you travel to ten stores to get 20 things to save $100 on a total of $1000 worth of purchases and spend $50 in gas doing so when you can get the same items at one store for $800 and only spend $5 in gas?

[etherealtruth]

98. Again, your reasoning is flawed

Last edited Thu Nov 24, 2016, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

If one could pick up an extra 100,000 to 200,000 (a tiny fraction of available votes) votes by visiting 5-6 extra states, you may gain 1,000,000 votes; if you can pick up 200,000 -500,000 extra votes in populous states that generally (as a whole) vote the opposite of your party you can gain a one million to several million vote advantage.

Candidates of all parties would likely be more present in all of the populous states because the potential of net overall gains would be great.

Your example is too simplistic and over estimates cost (which there would be a potential net loss) and underestimates net gains.

A more apt example would be one in which you need 20-gallons of gas, but are allowed to buy gas in 5-gallon increments. You could buy 5-gallons of gas at the corner and use an unappreciable amount of gas in the journey and achieve a net gain of 5-gallons of gas over the course of 4 days and sustain no net losses ... or... you could buy 5-gallons of gas at five different stations in one day but lose one gallon of gas driving to each new station. If one is facing time constraints (such as in an election) the relative inefficiency of losing one gallon of gas per every five brings you to your goal. You have encountered a loss, but your net gain significantly out weighs your loss.

If one is opposed to electing the president through a direct democratic process and prefers something other than equally weighted votes your arguments make sense. I prefer the concept of equally weighted votes.

We could increase the total number of electors to be more representative of the population. 1 elector per 100,000 residents could be fairly representative and result in ~3,500 electors and we could choose the number of electoral votes to be 2,700. The system would become obsolete with population growth and changes and eventually would become totally unrepresentative, as it is now. On edit to add: any change in the number of electoral votes requires a constitutional amendment

Again your arguments are based on the preference that a POTUS NOT be democratically elected (the system we have now).

I would much prefer a system where the president is elected through a direct democratic process

[Statistical]

66. How many states do you think candidates campaign in now?

[Exilednight]

67. Approximately the same amount. That's the point. It would probably change nothing, but it could

also be far worse.

If only 15 states matter, then the rest of the countries issues get unresolved.

As it is now, Democrats write off most of the western states like Wyoming, Montana, Utah and North and South Dakota, Oklahoma, not to mention much of the South.


People wonder why they don't vote for us? If you don't ask for their vote, or campaign in their state, they're not going to vote for you.

[Statistical]

68. Well I would point out that is the point of the Senate AND House.

Nobody is saying elect the entire government from the national popular vote just the President.

[Exilednight]

72. Assuming you're correct, here's my next question: How do you change it?

It's an impossible task considering it takes a constitutional amendment to do so. It's not going to happen.

[Statistical]

74. It can be bypassed with an interstate compact. In fact 11 states totalling 165 votes already have

It doesn't go into effect until states totaling 270 votes do.

http://www.fairvote.org/national_popular_vote

[Exilednight]

78. Article 10 Section 1 would negate it.

Republicans will never allow this happen. With a right leaning SC it will never pass Article 10 Section 1.

[Statistical]

83. There is no Article 10?

States are free to assign electors however they see fit. A coin flip would be constitutional.

[Exilednight]

85. I meant Article 1 Section 10. My mistake.

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power."

[Statistical]

89. Agreed it *may* need Congressional approval however that is still far easier (simple majority) ...

than passing a Constitutional Amendment.

Also it may not require Congressional approval.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_compact

SCOTUS has ruled only compacts which increase the power of the states over the federal government require congressional approval. Still worst case scenario that is still far easier than a constitutional amendment.

[Exilednight]

92. It takes 60 votes in the Senate.

This will not happen. It's a laudable goal, but not attainable. Not to mention the amount of money that is going to be spent by people like the Koch brothers.

[TheKentuckian]

117. There is no way to hold or remedy a faithless state, the constitution

overrides any compact.

[sl8]

105. If the Great Compromise is a good idea for our legislative representation, why not for our executive

Last edited Fri Nov 25, 2016, 01:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Our legislative representation reflects a compromise between equal representation per state and equal representation per voter - why should the selection of the executive be different?

I understand why the folks that think we should do away with Senate want to switch to a Presidential popular vote - their selection method for representation is consistent for both branches. I'm not sure I understand why somone that's content with the Conneticut Compromise for our leglislature wouldn't be content with the equivalent for our executive branch.

[Stargleamer]

114. Get Real

How could it get worse??

vhttp://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016

Also, and worse for who??

Currently, No visits to NY, OR, WA, KY, etc. And just one apiece (maybe a fundraising one at that) for California, which comprises 12% of the population.

Sorry, the EC sucks big-time.

[onecaliberal]

7. Yes, the person who received the most votes should win. One man one vote. Otherwise why bother:

[athena]

9. One person, one vote.

I can't believe I have to post this. "One man, one vote"? Seriously?

[TCJ70]

12. I don't think it should be abolished...just updated...

...the problem with the Electoral College is that it's no longer an accurate representation of how many people are in this country. The original calculation for electors was:

# of Senate Reps (SR) + # of House Reps (HR) = EC Members

The SR variable is capped at 2 per state, of course. The HR variable is the current problem. The number of HR for a state hasn't changed since 1911 when it was capped due to concerns over space. This is why no one (unless you're over 105 years old) has ever seen an EC goal of anything other than 270.

So we're still using numbers based on state populations that are over 100 years old. One of two things needs to happen: we need to switch to a national popular vote for President...or the HR variable needs to be freed from being tied to the house membership and changed to (State pop/30,000) <- this is the original calculation for HR. Taking the latter path would put the EC back in line with current state populations and make it more representative.

[Exilednight]

14. This is the best response thus far. I agree.

We probably will not change the number of House seats, but the EC can be reformed for a more accurate reflection.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. If the EC is going to stay

I would prefer that all states allocate their ECs the way Maine and Nebraska do it. Not perfect, but much more representative of the actual vote than currently.

[Exilednight]

17. I would actually reform it to equal voter turnout.

I would make it that for every x amount of people who vote, you get one electoral vote.

This incentivize states and parties to push for voter turnout vs suppressing voter turnout.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. Excellent idea! n/t

[Persondem]

33. In theory yes, but gerrymandering means that congressional districts

do NOT accurately reflect the population distribution and so not the will of of the people. Also, the R's would clean up in such an EC.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. Agree

Gerrymandering, at least as it's practiced now, would have to be eliminated first.

[customerserviceguy]

43. If that were the case

we would probably never see a Democratic president again. There are large portions of blue states that would almost always vote GOP, I think that we'd lose more from that than we'd gain from picking off the bluest parts of the red states.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. Popular vote would be better, no doubt

But I don't see that happening anytime soon, if ever. The next best thing is to make the EC more representative.

As pointed out by another poster, gerrymandering would have to be ended so that Congressional districts are fairly drawn.

But after that, the decision shouldn't be based on whether or not one party is favored over another, it should be based on whether or not it is more representative than the current EC allocation scheme.

[customerserviceguy]

46. As I see it

the problem is not just the EC, but the capping of Congress at 435 Representatives. At the time the EC was created, it was also intended that there be one Representative for every 30K people.

I suppose that it made sense to cap the size of Congress when you only had so much space to house legislators, but in the 21st Century, getting everybody together in one building to do things isn't really necessary.

[Grey Lemercier]

118. No, the House size needs to be increased to increase the EC

Otherwise you are back to nedding a constitutional amendment, as the EC size formula is spelt out in the Constitution.

The National Popular Vote Compact is unconstitutional as well.

The EC will never be done away with, see below

I have said so often on this board,

There is a solution

Abolition will never occur, as even if the constitutional amendment were passed in the Congress, all it takes is 13 states (the smaller ones, of course) to block it. They have way more than 13 who oppose it.

BUT there is a fix, and it just doesn't fix the electoral college. If fixes the House too.

Expand the House to 1001. That would also Expand the EC to 1106 (100 for senators, 1001 for House, plus 5 for DC). It doesnt take a Constitutional Amendment either, just an Act of Congress (overturning a 1929 Act).

Its been stuck at 435 (with 2 temp added for AK and HI for a couple years, removed in 1962) SINCE 1913!


The population then was 97 million. Now is 325 million. The average rep has almost 750,000 people in his/her district.

Because the EC is based (in the constitution) off number of congress people, increasing the House also increases the EC.

THEN you can more fairly split up those 1106 EV's and those 1001 House seats. Right now, a Wyoming electoral vote is worth 3.7 times MORE than a California vote.


Expanding the House also, of course allow for a more representational distribution for the states as well, at HOUSE government levels. California, NY and the other large states, get FUCKED right now in very way.

The main barrier to this will be getting House members to dilute their power, PLUS Rethugs to go along, as they KNOW they have all the benefits to the current system


Read this for more info. http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

The 1001 is just my own number, you could do it so many different ways (such as the much less impactful (but still better than nothing) Wyoming Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule , or double it, plus one (has to be odd number to avoid ties)

[AgadorSparticus]

19. This!!!!

[etherealtruth]

28. As I posted below National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

... seems to be one of the simplest and direct ways to ensure the winner of the popular vote is the winner of the presidency.

[marybourg]

18. If the people who are harmed by a unfair situation

are not allowed to protest that situation for fear of being called a hypocrite, then no unfair situation would ever be remedied.

I don't believe anyone made such a demand against black people during the civil rights era.

[anamnua]

21. Very good question in the opening post.

My answer is that it would be fair karma after Gore/Bush 2000.
One point needs making:
If the election were about the popular vote Trump would have gone hell-for-leather to maximise his vote in places like California and New York and may still have won. We will never know.
Leaving all that aside the EC is an anachronism. The election should be about the whole country and not just a few marginal states.

[etherealtruth]

22. The best solution in my mind is National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

It ensures that winner of the popular vote is always the person that becomes the president.

It doesn't require abolishing the electoral college and it allows for each vote cast to be weighted equally. it has the same effect as voting for a president under a direct democracy... the winner of the popular vote is the winner.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. I don't have a problem with that either

Although I'm not sure it could withstand a court challenge. Definitely worth a try, though.

[etherealtruth]

27. I am sure there would be challenges but I am not so sure they would prevail

This seems to be the simplest and most easily implemented solution to a system where the most votes does not equal a win.

[customerserviceguy]

44. If it ever got used

it would only happen once. I predict mass outrage in a state that cast its electoral votes for a candidate that was anathema to the majority of its voters. You'd see the NPVIC evaporate by the next election.

Imagine that this had been in place twelve years ago, and NY and CA's votes would have gone to Dubya. Can you imagine what the people of those states would have wanted to do about that?

[etherealtruth]

47. i do imagine it ... I think the Republicans will have to lose the presidency despite ...

... winning the popular vote before they seriously look at it.

Maryland (I beleive) already does this.

If not addressed we will continue to see the presidency filled by people that lost the popular vote by larger and larger margins. that will draw more and more outrage (equivalent to the example you cite)

The odds of a constitutional amendment abolishing the college are small ... this option does not require any changes to the US constitution and does not require agreement of all 50 states (as does changing the numbers of votes etc)

[etherealtruth]

102. I don't see it that way ... I think a majority of Americans would embrace a direct democratic vote

Sadly, I think a good number of Americans believe we elect our POTUS through a direct democratic process.

In the case of a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ... the electoral college becomes purely symbolic. It would be an anachronism in modern US elections. It would be filled with pomp and circumstance but without any actual meaning as the POTUS would have been elected solely based on the popular vote.

[etherealtruth]

113. California and New York were among the first states to enact the National Popular Vote Compact

Sorry I didn't want to just edit my reply to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg

[customerserviceguy]

121. And that's why I picked them as examples

Always-GOP states don't go for such notions. All it would take is for a Republican to win the Presidency with the electoral votes of CA and NY tipping the balance, and this idea will go into the dustbin of history.

Having the majority of a state's voters ignored because of adherence to an ideal of "what's best for everybody" is a sure recipe for change.

[etherealtruth]

122. Having the majority (plurality in both examples) of a country voters ignored because

... "we've always done it this way" is a sure recipe for disaster.

No voter's vote in any state is ignored under a compact ... it simply becomes one person one equally weighted vote choosing the POTUS across the nation. Most voters believe (erroneously) that they are voting for POTUS now. When casting national ballots very few voters believe they are voting on behalf of their state.

I understand the resistance to change if one does not believe that all votes should have equal weight

[customerserviceguy]

125. This compact

will dissolve as soon as Electoral College votes are cast for a candidate that was not the favorite of the people of that state. We may well be able to test that assertion within my lifetime, but I don't see too many other states joining the compact.

The Constitution and its processes were deliberately made difficult to change. I feel that for the rest of the life of the United States, the EC is a permanent fixture. Candidates need to work with that, and Drumpf did, Hillary didn't.

She should have spent a bit more time in the places she took for granted were safe, especially Wisconsin. Snot Walker won three elections there in four years, when you count his two gubernatorial races and his surviving the recall, Wisconsin should not have been considered "in the bag" by any Democratic presidential nominee.

[louis c]

26. I have always been agains the EC

The popular vote will always support Liberals, and therefore, Democrats. New York, California, New England, the Pacific Northwest will give huge popular vote margins to Democrats.

The Southern States are turning into small nets for both sides, including Texas. The "Rust Belt', including Pennsylvania, will always be close. As the country's Liberal base becomes more Urban and the Conservative base, more Rural, a Popular Vote favors us well into the foreseeable future.

[DavidDvorkin]

29. Yes.

[DanTex]

30. I've always thought the EC should be abolished, way before this campaign even started.

It's absurd. One person, one vote. Our president shouldn't be decided by a handful of "swing states". People in California should count just as much as people in Ohio or Florida.

[Akacia]

31. yes

it should be abolished period.

[Lint Head]

32. What's the point of asking? You have already defined no.

[doc03]

34. No but if we didn't have the EC it wouldn't happen. When was the last time a Democrat won the EC

and lost the vote? I don't remember any in my lifetime but the Republicans have done it twice in 16 years. If we didn't have the EC we wouldn't have had W.

[Skinner]

36. He electoral college is an anti-democratic anachronism that should be abolished (but won't)

If the roles were reversed, I would still believe that to be the case.

But in case there is any question of where I stand: We are a nation of laws, and based on the way the system is set up Trump clearly won. If the roles were reversed, Hillary would have won.

[Exilednight]

50. The reason I pose this question is to get people to look past their own bias.

It's easy to say "but Hillary won the popular vote and should be president", but I don't believe many would say that about Trump if the roles were reversed.

Most people will say that the first step to solving a problem is to admit there is problem and then to identify the problem, but I believe that the first step to solving a problem of this type is to remove your bias first and then admit and identify the problem.

I agree that the Electoral College will not be abolished, but it can be reformed without an amendment.

[Skinner]

55. Yes she won the popular vote, but no she shouldn't be president.

The outcome of the election is undemocratic. That is a reason to reform the system. But it doesn't mean she should be president.

[Exilednight]

63. I agree that we should reform the system. The next step is: How?

I've seen a few good suggestions floated on the board.

I applaud your honesty, and ability to see past your bias and to also help point out that we ARE a nation of laws.

I think the next step for this board is to determine the next step as to how we want to reform the law and to determine a plan of action to implement it.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

Thanks for replying. It's great to see you taking an active role in the board.

[libtodeath]

38. No because it did the job it was intended to do.

[baldguy]

39. Should we not have fought WWII against Nazism just because Hitler was legally appointed Chancellor?

We - the good, the right, the honorable & most importantly SANE - are standing on the edge of an abyss, facing an intractable evil. If the Electoral College goes against the will of the majority & hands power over to that evil, and chooses to stand in the way of the good, the right, the honorable & sane, then they are part of the problem. Putting Trump in power over Clinton will be the death of democracy.

The old saw is that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. You're insisting that resisting suicide is "rationalizing hypocrisy".

[Exilednight]

53. Yes we should have fought Nazism, but Hitler was attempting to exterminate an entire race.

As much as I can't stand Trump, I don't see US soldiers starting to round up and kill someone because of their ethnicity.

[baldguy]

54. Just wait. They already have the legal framework planned out.

You want to give Trump & his minions the benefit of doubt. They've offered no reason why we should - and several why we shouldn't.

[HipHipHillary]

40. Not buying it

Everyone that says that if Trump won the popular vote and Hillary won the EC and you would still show concern, are full of it.

If Hilary had won in any way, everyone would be yelling rules are rules and the EC is correct.

[lapucelle]

60. Hillary won the popular vote,

so I'm not sure what you mean by "in any way".

[Crunchy Frog]

130. You're projecting. That is the way most Republicans think.

Dems tend to believe in general or universal principles, while Republicans tend to believe in whatever is expedient to their immediate interests.

I'm assuming you're a Reep, as your posting privilages have been revoked.

[TheLibIn615]

41. Your premise doesn't work with me.

The playing field is heavily tilted in favor of the Republicans.

One electoral voter in highly populated states is representative of more people than in sparsely populated ones. Excluding Texas, this seriously puts us behind the 8-ball.

So, if the tables were turned, and Trump won the popular but lost the EC, I obviously wouldn't be bummed. I would be concerned that his some of his troglodytes would make good on their threats of violence, which is another matter entirely. My go-to argument to his supporters would probably center on the voter suppression laws which probably purge several hundred thousand Democratic votes.

But a scenario in which such a thing were to happen would require uncharacteristically muted supported for Democrats in solidly blue states, likely in concert with even darker red red states.

[realmirage]

42. I love this question, because we all know the answer is no. We want to win rather than change

The left needs to study why it lost, not figure out how to ignore whole states filled with people who are trying to get our attention

[JCanete]

48. these are the questions I try to ask myself, and sometimes I admit I'm inconsistent.

States Rights versus federal control for instance. These days I lean pro federal but looking back to Jefferson and Adams, I have an affinity for the State's Rights push. The reality is that some of these things are arbitrary...less to do with principle and more to do with who wins under which system.

Since that's the case though, petitioning to change the system to benefit us under these circumstances clearly does not benefit them, so how in the hell do people think that this would ever gain the traction needed to succeed? How likely do people think it is that Washington DC will ever have representation?

Does any fellow California voter actually think we should lead the way with say, doing away with winner takes all? For my part, hell fucking no. If Texas and Florida does it, maybe I'd be up for it, but until then, that's political suicide.

[Vinca]

49. The electoral college isn't fair no matter who wins or loses.

If we are going to use it, the votes should be apportioned by population. As it stands now, a state like California gets a fraction of what they should be getting when you consider what a state like Montana gets.

[Chemisse]

51. I would not be mad, but I would concede that it was unfair.

If we really believe in democracy, what's fair is fair, whether it benefits or hurts us.

[Motley13]

52. NO

The dems have been screwed by gerrymandering by the repugs. The EC screwed Gore & Clinton.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. No and yes, respectively.

No, I would not be as mad - emotionally, I would not care as much.

Yes, I would still be in favour of the abolition of the electoral college - intellectually, I would still think that the abolition of the electoral college in future would be a good thing.

[Madam45for2923]

57. If Hitler v.2 had lost the electoral vote. I would say buhbye to Hitler v.2

I would fight the electoral fight another time!

[Charlotte Little]

58. What is the point of this?

1. False equivalency yet again (my God, Hillary can't catch a break even after the hell she's been through)
2. Fascists shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt
3. Russian interference
4. FBI interference

So, my answer to your question is NO. And I don't care if you don't want a diatribe. You put up a thread like this for what reason, exactly?

[kcr]

59. What is your opinion?

Last edited Thu Nov 24, 2016, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)

If you're such a big fan of the EC, do you like it no matter which side wins? And do you think you're so special that you're the only one who isn't a hypocrite? Unlike the great unwashed masses here, with their diatribes?

[Exilednight]

64. I believe the EC has a purpose, but I also believe it needs to be reformed.

Hillary should have known how the EC works. The rules were set well in advance of the election. Loving or hating the EC has nothing to do with how the winner is picked.

The EC should not be abolished, but it should be severely reformed. My suggestion is to tie the number of electoral votes a state gets to the number of people who vote - not by population.

For every X amount of votes a state gets, it gets one electoral vote.

[kcr]

76. You don't think Hillary already knows how it works?

Or for that matter anyone here at DU, with their diatribes? This is what really bugged about your OP. I'm glad you took the time to really think about it. But have you considered whether others have? Or are you just basing your opinion solely on how people are reacting to the results of this election on a political message board because no one else would bother to analyze things the way you have. Because I can assure you plenty of people have. I'm sorry if you have somehow missed that a lot of people care about the EC and always have. In fact, some of the things I've learned over the years I learned right here at DU. Yes, things are pretty heated here right now, but there are a lot of smart people here who deeply care enough to have educated and consistent opinions on the matter.

[Exilednight]

80. I'm not going to presume to know what Hillary does or does not know.

[kcr]

86. No. You're just going to hint she doesn't know something. That's better, I guess. n/t

[treestar]

61. Yes that would taint

That would taint the win for me.

And the right and the media would go on and on about that. Bet they aren't undermining the orange disinter for it though

[mtnsnake]

62. If we won this time? No, of course not. But I'd call for the abolishment of it after that, though.

Seriously, when the electoral college was set up more than 200 hundred years ago, it was set up with good intentions by the founding fathers. It's an antiquated system that needs to be scrapped. Presidents should be elected by popular vote, period, otherwise your vote doesn't really count unless you live in a handful of states.

[rurallib]

65. yep

[musicblind]

69. I have been against the electoral college since the 90's.

I've even made posts against it on DU back in 2008/2009.

Here is a screen capture of me arguing against the Electoral College in 2008 right here on DU.

[img][/img]

Here is a link to an entire thread I was fighting over the issue in 2008: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7797336

Getting rid of the Electoral College has been a passion of mine long before this election.

But it looks like you're just looking to assume everyone against the EC is a hypocrite.

[Exilednight]

75. I don't think everyone is a hypocrite. You're only a hypocrite if you answer no and then go on some

diatribe about how it's different for Hillary.

If you're against the EC, then you're against the EC.

I'm against the EC in its current form, but I also understand that this is our system and Trump won. Complaining about the popular vote doesn't do anything to help us with winning the next election. The EC isn't going away.

[musicblind]

79. We need to make it go away.

I updated my post above with a screencap of an argument I made against the Electoral College in 2008 and a 2008 thread against it.

I feel very strong about this issue, and I don't think we should rest on it.

We can't change anything about this election, just like we couldn't change anything about 2000, but we can make sure future generations don't have this happen to them.

I support: nationalpopularvote.com

I wrote letters to my state level congress critters about it many years ago.

To be honest, given how strong I have felt about this issue in the past, I would be screaming from the rooftops even if Hillary had won the EC and Trump the popular vote. Would I want the election overturned?... part of me probably wouldn't, but I KNOW I would still want the EC done away with. I don't think you can fix it. You can't fix something that is fundamentally against the idea of one person one vote.

Sorry to assume you were looking to call all of us hypocrites. I just feel like I've been called a hypocrite on this issue by so many of my relatives. It reminds me of people who say "Would you still be against the death penalty if someone killed your wife?" Thinking they caught you in something.

But I'm sorry, I shouldn't have assumed.

[Exilednight]

82. Republicans control both chambers, the presidency and soon the SC not to mention most governorships

and state houses. How do you think we are going to get a constitutional amend through?

[musicblind]

87. We aren't, that's why I support the state level nationalpopularvote.com movement.

I think we need to go to state legislatures and specifically explain to them the benefits of getting rid of the electoral college.

I feel the benefits are for more than just California and New York.

Right now, people in Utah, for example, don't feel like their votes matter. CNN did an interview regarding McMullin and people in Utah were so excited because they felt, for once, that their vote mattered.

But in a popular vote scenario, every vote would matter. Those blue votes in the reddest states, those red votes in the bluest states. Even the reddest votes in the reddest states.

Yes, most campaigning would take place in metropolises, but it would NOT just be a New York/LA campaign. Given the population of cities like Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, and even Salt Lake City, Boise, or Billings... I think campaign stops would take place in more states than they do now.

I think explaining this at the state level is the best thing to do and convince them to join the national popular vote pledge that bypasses congress. We currently have 165. We need just another 105.

Look at Texas. They aren't in the pact yet, but they would benefit greatly from that pact.

And look at how it's going in state legislatures... better than you might think:

Most recently, the bill was passed by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, and 37–21 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House. It has passed on house in 12 states with 96 electoral votes

Ps. I wanted to point out my apology to you above, I didn't know if you saw it because I edited it in after making the original post. I didn't know you wanted a substantive discussion of this. I'm always glad to discuss this topic with anyone who isn't going to jump down my throat on it.

[Exilednight]

90. You're talking about the interstate compact.

Here's the problem with the compact, it will not past constitutional muster.

Article 1 Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power."

It has to, also, pass on the national level, which will never happen with big money involved.

[musicblind]

93. They aren't making a pact with other states.

They are making a pact with themselves that they will simply give their votes to whoever wins the popular vote. That is why it is legal and legal scholars have said it is legal. Some of those scholars include Yale Law graduates Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar, while they personally think it would be wise to have Congress involved it isn't necessarily required, as well as Stanford consulting professor John R. Koza.

Article 2 of the constitution says that a state may award their electors in any way that state sees fit.

There is certainly NO consensus that this would require congress' consent. The arguments from both sides are laid out here:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/nov/17/electoral-college-vs-popular-vote-could-states-a/

And it is reasonable given that only 29% of the country supports keeping the Electoral College.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159881/americans-call-term-limits-end-electoral-college.aspx

[Exilednight]

99. A lawyer could argue, and a right leaning SC would probably agree, that this is an illegal compact

that was not confirmed by Congress.

It has nothing to do with actual legality, it has everything to do with politics.

Based on the campaign to pass such legislation, it wouldn't be hard to convince a right-leaning judge that this agreement violates Article 1 Section 10.

I applaud the idea, but it's not doable once the lawsuits begin.

There are other ways, but this isn't going to work.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

71. I don't think they should abolish the electoral college, but they need to update it

If one candidate is getting that many more votes than the other candidate and didn't win then the allocation of the electors needs to be adjusted to better represent the actual population. Rather than allocate electors based on states it should be based on districts and population. That way no American feels like their vote doesn't count.

[BlueMTexpat]

77. Nice try.

But your premise is a false one.

There is no way on earth that Hillary would have won the EC and lost the popular vote. Most of the most populous states voted for Hillary and CA - the biggest prize of all - is still counting is and is all Hillary. There is no way the more educated and liberal states would have gone for Trump.

If that had been the case, however, I would very much distrust the EC result.

[JHan]

81. Yep. Good point.

[unblock]

84. there's zero hypocrisy in wanting to abolish the electoral college *going forward*

personally i have mixed feelings about the effects of going to a straight popular vote, because of fraud issues.

one small merit of the electoral college system is that it makes fraud in strongly partisan states irrelevant. fraud in battleground states matters greatly, but at least there, in theory, the people are roughly evenly split and in a somewhat better position to police fraud.

but in a straight popular vote scheme, the fraud will move to highly partisan areas. wyoming will claim twice as many people voted for the republican than actually live in the state, etc. much harder to police that where big majorities are all on one side.


but back to the point, there's plenty of room for hypocrisy if we're talking about reversing the 2016 decision, but none if we're only talking about changing the rules going forward.

[Exilednight]

88. I agree, there is nothing wrong with being against the EC, but there is much hypocricy on this board

when we all know that if the role was reversed many would be tripping over themselves to support the EC.

Claiming, "she won the popular vote" doesn't fix any problems. It's like a dog chasing its tail. Plenty of work, but no productivity.

[unblock]

91. well, it's not going to reverse trump's election, but it's not futile either

first, it does reduce his mandate, pointing out that hillary received more votes. not that a mandate matters as much when republicans control all three branches of government (and effectively the media as well), but it's something.

second, to the extent that it does help abolish the electoral college, that would be an improvement going forward (under the assumption that my reservations about fraud are addressed).

[FBaggins]

94. Politics brings out the hypocrisy in many of us.

Lots of people (both right and left) swing like pendulums on the issue of the filibuster - depending not on deeply-held principals, but on whose ox is being gored.

Few people probably remember, but there is a direct answer to your question to be found in the 2000 election. Believe it or not, the pre-election polling showed that there was a strong possibility that Bush would win the popular vote, but lose the electoral college. I don't remember what Republicans were saying at the time (though I suspect that many thought the popular vote should be the standard), but Democrats certainly changed sides on the issue by the millions after election day.

If you're looking for more relevant evidence here, just look for people who still insist that Bush stole the 2004 election. That race turned on Ohio's vote which came down to the wire. Had barely half a percent of Ohio's votes been cast the other way... Bush would have lost the election... even though he won the popular vote by more than three million.

[Maru Kitteh]

95. Ha ha. JPR slime are suddenly in love with the EC after a year of bitching endlessly about superD's

Have you noticed?

I'm not really interested in how they rationalize their hypocrisy. Time has proven so many of them were exactly what numbers of us suspected, a bunch of fucked-up Trump-trolls and other misogynist, white-nationalist enabler types.

[betsuni]

96. This is correct. (nt)

[Exilednight]

104. Who said anything about bering for the EC.

I pose this question to remove people's blinders.

I can hold two independent thoughts. I am against the EC in its current form, but it is also the way we pick our presidents.

Complaining about the popular vote will not change the results, or the way we hold elections anytime in the next decade.

[azmom]

109. Ha ha. No you're a puppet. No you're the puppet.

[JonLP24]

97. I opposed the EC since 2000

And I wasn't even political then, I was 14, it just didn't make sense on the face of it.

[emulatorloo]

101. For those trying to frame DU'ers as hypocrites, one simple question.

Don't you have anything better to do?

Polling I've seen indicates the majority of 2016 voters want to get rid of the electoral college.

[Squinch]

103. Well, gosh. If YOU'RE not interested, why did the rest of us even dare to think that we

could talk about it?

If you're not interested in talking about this subject, then don't talk about it. If you don't like other people's "diatribes," by which I assume you mean people's observations that it is crazy that someone who wins the popular vote by large margins could lose election, then by all means don't engage in those conversations.

[Exilednight]

106. Go back and please read what I posted.

If you're against the EC, then please explain why. BUT if you can find a way to justify why it would be okay if it roles were reversed, but are against it now because it went against us, then that's hypocrisy.

I ask this question because some people want it both ways. These people need to remove their bias blinders.

I'm against the EC in its current form, but I'm not going to make the case like some have that Hillary should be president because she won the popular vote. We all knew the rules going in, and Hillary made a grave mistake.

People are also just as ignorant when they keep claiming "how could the polls be so wrong?" The polls weren't wrong, the people reading them (Nate Silver types) just didn't read them correctly.

[Squinch]

107. I read it just fine, thanks.

[Exilednight]

108. Then we will agree to disagree about how you understand my question. Happy Thanksgiving.

and have a good night.

[moriah]

110. I really don't think anyone who created the EC envisioned the system we have currently.

I've wanted Instant Runoff Voting for awhile. Even if it might have still resulted in Trump in 2016 and GHWB or Perot in 1992, Gore would have won Florida in 2000.

But the system we have is broken. Democrats can't fully ally with smaller, more Progressive parties and devise solutions together because when election time comes, we're stuck with a system where a vote for the more progressive candidate is a vote for the asshole you hate not being cancelled out.

Republicans have been split for a long time and under Instant Runoff, we might see the Libertarian branch (less emphasis on policing what people can't and can't do and trying their damndest to pay no taxes for anything) become dominant. If the Democratic Party changes under IRV, it will be to move over to the left both fiscally and socially. If we could fight less about morals policing and more about how to balance a budget, it would be a welcome change. They are far more fragmented than we are.

I am a proud Democrat, but I have no issues with the Green Party building on the local level. I think we could make a good coalition if it weren't for the competitive nature of voting in this country, where people have to strategically vote instead of vote their conscience, we could.

It's still possible we might have lost if everyone who voted for Stein had been able to have their vote shifted to Clinton, or even if the Johnson voters pushed Trump over the edge in the popular vote. And yes, I'd be okay with the outcomes. Maine is piloting instant runoff. We'll see how it goes.

If we wanted to try something creative but in the spirit of the Founding Father's idea of balancing population and individual states in representation, make the electors representing each state Senator go to the main winner of the state, and for states with only one district to also have their one vote representing their Rep go to the overall winner, but have the electors officially vote for a distribution based on percentage in each state.

I'd like to calculate how that would have affected multiple elections, but if something would make votes count no matter where you lived, I think we'd see higher turnout. And if people could vote their conscience instead of their fears, we could see a change in our political tone. Fear is a terrible reason to vote, and the "us vs them" mentality in our dialogue may be necessary given our current President-Elect, but we should work to reform the system so a handful of states don't decide our elections.

[Exilednight]

115. Well, to be fair, when they the created the EC there were only a handful of states.

Issues were mostly cut across northern and southern lines. Not to mention that each representative only represented a fraction of the population compared to today where each Representative represents about 700,000 people.

[MichMan]

111. Recounting the entire country would be chaotic

If the EC was abolished, just imagine the chaos of trying to recount a close election. Hillary won the popular vote by 2 million votes, but that is only around 1.5 % as I recall.

[potone]

112. Yes.

It is a profoundly undemocratic institution.

[oberliner]

116. Also would've carried more weight if the calls came before the election results

If this was a rallying cry for the past few months, it would seem less self-serving.

[TheFrenchRazor]

119. i absolutely support abolishing the EC, no matter which loser benefits from it. nt

[annabanana]

120. It is a "be careful what you wish for" proposition...

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

~ A Man for All Seasons

[kebob]

123. "Abolition"

And damn right I support it. Three weeks ago, the EC failed in its very raison d'être, which had been to act as a guard against demagogues coming to power.

[Ken Burch]

124. I would still call for the EC to be abolished.

Much as I would prefer HRC to Trump as president, I would see the same question of legitimacy that exists in this result.

That, and if HRC did get one term in that way, it would all but guarantee a right-wing landslide in 2020.

[putitinD]

126. the EC has to go. It unfairly makes 1 Wyoming vote equal to 1000 California votes.

[still_one]

127. First of all the EC isn't going to be abolished, but it should be. The popular vote, one person,

one vote should determine the winner.

[LisaM]

128. It is absolutely NOT a simple yes or no question.

It's supposed to protect the smaller states, not allow for tyranny of the minority. It has failed us in two of the last five elections and the administrations who were enabled to take office because of it have abused it. If Bush or Trump acted the least bit humble and moderate it would be different but they haven't. So it is failing us.

[Crunchy Frog]

129. I'm in favor of abolishing the electoral college.

And I would be even if it lopsidedly favored Democrats rather than Republicans.