Electoral college versus the Popular vote?

[CathyA]

What are your opinions on why we should keep or get rid of the Electoral college versus going with the popular vote?

[LDAHL]

I can see it's purpose. If one region of the country could dominate the rest by virtue of a large population, I could see any number of points in our turbulent history where the areas feeling shut off from power might have felt breaking away, perhaps violently, might be the best option.

On the other hand, I could easily see how it might feel unfair to supporters of a candidate with a majority of the popular who lost in the Electoral College.

I can't see any perfect solution to the problem.

[catherine]

I agree with LDAHL. When I looked at the map the other night and the patterns of red vs blue, the blue looked like parentheses around the vast middle of America. I was trying to console my liberal progressive son after the election and I pointed that out--saying, well, look, it's nice that for once middle America has had the chance to speak out. We progressive liberals on the West Coast and Northeast do tend to call a lot of shots. He thought I was being overly generous.

But given the cultural divide we see across our 50 states, I think it's reasonable to try to account for that. It's rare that we get a Bush/Gore Trump/Clinton situation, thankfully, because it's not a great thing--it does foment frustration among the "losers who won", but as LDAHL said, I'm not sure there's a good solution.

[bae]

Look carefully at the county-level election results.

It's not red-state/blue-state. Though that's a useful narrative for those who would divide us :-)

Read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers on the topic of the electoral college - it does serve some useful purposes (like, getting the states to agree to join the Union in the first place.)

If for whatever reason you want the popular vote to be in accordance with the electoral college vote more often, you might want to look at the fact that states are constitutionally allowed to pick their electors *however they choose*, and many have gone with "winner takes all", which creates a high likelihood of a popular vote/electorial vote discrepancies. It's just math.

I'm curious why people are so all-fired eager to rush to direct democracy for the office of President, when most of the rest of our national-level system is designed to be representative, not direct. Heck, at least we get to vote for Senators these days...

Complaining about an election outcome of an contest conducted under "Ruleset #1" because under "Ruleset #2" the results would have been different isn't particularly sound reasoning - an election conducted under "Ruleset #2" might well have produced the same result, as the game players would presumably have changed their strategies, and different vote counts would well have resulted.

Probably though the way to reform the system isn't to march loudly in the streets burning candidates in effigy while breaking shop windows. Or to get behind online petitions begging the electors to throw the election the other direction. Or to agitate for secession.

[Teacher Terry]

If the electorates just blindly vote the way their state did then there is a lack of purpose. I actually signed a petition to do away with the electoral college.

[catherine]

Look carefully at the county-level election results.

It's not red-state/blue-state. Though that's a useful narrative for those who would divide us :-)

Read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers on the topic of the electoral college - it does serve some useful purposes (like, getting the states to agree to join the Union in the first place.)


My point was that it helps to level the playing field for smaller states and/or regions of the country, which I believe is the case. But I will look into that further, or at least ask my American history teacher son to explain it to me.

[LDAHL]

Look carefully at the county-level election results.

It's not red-state/blue-state. Though that's a useful narrative for those who would divide us :-)



I think it less likely that Oswego County could attempt armed rebellion than the Northwest or the Southeast, but I see your point.

[bae]

I think it less likely that Oswego County could attempt armed rebellion than the Northwest or the Southeast, but I see your point.

I wasn't thinking so much of "likelihood of armed rebellion", but rather that the disparate populations aren't conveniently divided by state lines. Which worked out so well in the Balkans...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Stolice_wiki2.jpg/1280px-Stolice_wiki2.jpg