The Electoral College System

youngishbear

Wed, Nov 09 2016, 7:56 pm

As of this moment, Hillary is set to win the popular vote, with about 200,000 votes.

In the end, Americans chose her, but our "rigged" political system chose him. The irony of this in this particular election with these particular candidates would be amusing, if the Electoral College didn't just cost Democrats the White House for the second time in a generation. The horror of 2000 has still not entirely faded from memory, and now this!

But in the end, I can still understand this archaic convoluted system as an attempt to respect regional differences, and maintain our character as the United States. The feisty thirteen colonies may never have united under a strong federal government if they would have suspected they'd be be melted into a single entity.

Is it time to ditch this system? Revise it? What do you think? And for the sake of intellectual honesty, please state whether your response is connected to your feelings about these particular elections.

(Disclaimer: I am a Democrat. Never forgave Bush for stealing the elections in 00. Today, the news of Hillary winning the popular vote helped me out of my funk over her loss. Americans are not as eager to elect an unstable hatemonger as I feared. Boruch Hashem!)

youngishbear

Wed, Nov 09 2016, 8:08 pm

sequoia wrote:

My feelings about this election are "both are worse."

The electoral college system seems really unfair. However, what is the alternative? Candidates campaign in NY, CA, and TX, and ignore the rest of the country?

Exactly.

It's an imperfect system, designed to hold on to some of what makes America unique.

amother

Purple

Wed, Nov 09 2016, 8:59 pm

I would like to mention that the electoral college system influences the popular votes as well .... I have heard quite a few New Yorkers say that they didn't bother going out to cast a " wasted" vote for trump being that ny will go to Hillary in any case and they just stayed home ..others said they only voted for Hillary because they didn't want the vote to go to waste in a democratic state . ... So if not for this system many more people would have gone out and voted republican and he may have won the popular as well....just saying it's not so black and white we you think

youngishbear

Wed, Nov 09 2016, 9:04 pm

amother wrote:

True. I'm guessing this goes both ways, Democrats think that way in red states as well. It would be interesting to run the numbers to get a bottom line calculation.

Last edited by youngishbear on Wed, Nov 09 2016, 9:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

happybeingamom

Wed, Nov 09 2016, 9:30 pm

Minorities (I mean all minorities including Jews) generally have more of a voice due to the the Electoral College System. I am in favor of it because of that.

To explain, a state with a high minority population with many electoral votes means that the minority population will be listened to. In one man one vote the minority vote is not as needed due to the fact they are a small percentage of the vote. Therefore the candidates will not cater to them as they don't need their vote.

MitzadSheini

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 1:02 am

Don't worry so much. He's just Hashem's puppet.

I'm not American but I have done a university course in Electoral Systems and another in US politics (not that that really qualifies me to say anything but anyway) ..... Really whilst it is true that some systems favor small parties and others large, overall most elections would get basically the same result even if the voting system were changed (so long as both systems were legitimate and logical and of course not corrupt).

The mitzvah of the Bnei Noach is to set up legitimate justice systems (probably including electoral systems) and the Electoral College system is certainly legitimate. So the society has fulfilled it's obligations as Bnei Noach IMNSVHOKO. (the ok stands for "or knowledgeable").

So don't worry!

etky

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 1:24 am

Historically, it was a system instituted as a check on the popular (and thus possibly unenlightened) vote and a device to preserve and reinforce state rights.
While state rights is no longer the burning issue that it once was I think the electoral college is still a mechanism through which local/regional issues can focus the attention of a national candidate and solicit promises/allocation of funds from him/her.
I suppose that theoretically it can still function as a brake against unsuitable candidates.
Is it worth the overriding of the popular vote ?
I don't know. In this election I did not vote but I voted for Gore in 2000 and was also none too pleased when Bush rode to victory thanks to the electoral college.

balabusta

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 1:33 am

The Electoral College is required by the Constitution....period. The Founders instituted it brilliantly to prevent the populated states to dominate. Without it, all of Middle America could just turn out the lights on election day and stay home, since their votes wouldn't matter. They foresaw the disparity in volume of population hundreds of years ago. It's genius. That's why you had candidates making beelines for seemingly unimportant states the last few days; they became important due to Electoral College.

MagentaYenta

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 1:40 am

balabusta wrote:

And of course the constitution can be amended, as has been done numerous times.

amother

Burgundy

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 2:09 am

I live in a solidly democrat state. CA. I almost left the president field blank but didn't as a protest vote. (Not saying who I voted for. Maybe Superman. But he wasn't born on earth let alone USA. So then maybe Winnie the Pooh.)

many many republicans I know don't vote because our system here has zero chance of being anything close to conservative (Schwarzenegger doesn't count. He was elected on name recognition on a weird 100 plus candidate recall election and was not conservative enough...). All local offices are run by democrats and for senate we didn't even have a choice since we only get the top 2 candidates regardless of party. So no republican makes it in. (No write ins allowed for that office here).

There would be more protest votes if people actually thought someone looks at it. But democrats in office know they will stay unless dead, indicted, or term limited.

amother

Burgundy

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 2:11 am

youngishbear wrote:

True. I'm guessing this goes both ways, Democrats think that way in red states as well. It would be interesting to run the numbers to get a bottom line calculation.

But democrat states are more populous so it would mean many more republicans theoretically whose voice doesn't count.

youngishbear

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 2:13 am

balabusta wrote:

There already was a disparity in population concentration back then. It's the reason we have two legislative houses. I remember reading an explanation that the Electoral College was designed as a buffer against the ignorant masses choosing an unsuitable candidate. When we vote on Election Day, we don't actually choose the president, but their electors from our district. So essentially, we are a representative democracy - we vote for representatives to vote for our president on our behalf.

My question is whether it is important to hold onto this system just to preserve the voice of the Iowans, and North Dakotans, and all the other individual states, when at the same time the millions of New York Republicans don't get any attention. Many don't bother to vote, at all.

At the end of the day, we are trading the voices of some Americans for those of others.
So is this some kind of "let's give little states attention" day? Are states more important than people?

I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. It's part of our system, and it serves some traditional purpose. But on the other hand it has foiled the will of the people five times in 200 years. That's not great.

youngishbear

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 2:17 am

amother wrote:

But democrat states are more populous so it would mean many more republicans theoretically whose voice doesn't count.

Maybe. On the other hand, maybe people will care more about an electoral system they can explain in a single sentence, which would increase voter participation across the board.

I'm curious if anyone has attempted to calculate the odds.

happybeingamom

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 11:34 am

The United States of America is a republic made up currently of 50 state. The state that we live in is really our gov't. The Federal gov't is the body to do the work that the states are really unable to do (military, currency, foreign affairs etc).

In order for the Republic to happen to get all states (13) on board there were compromises made. One of the compromises was that the small populated states get the same amount of representation as the big state hence there are two senators and two electoral votes guaranteed per state. The House of representative and the rest of electoral votes are based on population with each state getting a minimum of one vote.

There will be consequences if this change would happen but it won't as a constitutional amendment must occur and the small states would never agree to ratify it because it takes away a good portion of their representation in voting for president.

Not going to happen

Those who live in states with large populations really don't understand this because it does not effect them.

Fox

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 12:08 pm

happybeingamom wrote:

Excellent point, and also a good reminder that the government actions that directly affect our lives the most usually come from the state level, not the federal level.

If we were honest with ourselves, the elections we would care about most would be the boring state elections.