The Electoral College and the Future of this nation

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
1,118
1,442
118
Country
United States
I wanted to get this out of the way before any outcome.


Whether I'm pleased with the results or I'm disappointed, I think the time for the electoral college left with the advent of the Information Age. We've had a number of forum members here state that their vote doesn't matter because they know the color of their state.

More over, the electoral college, in my opinion, is the backbone of a two party system. It doesn't allow for all American Voices to be heard, just a few to be pandered to. Because it's a more economical use of time. What would it mean for America if a Democrat had to go into the Midwest and make their case, instead of having it be so red that it just isn't worth their time? What if Republicans needed a few votes from New York so he or she made concessions?

I think it would be a blow for contentious elections like this one. Where neither side has any real need to do anything but thump their party's bible and already plead to the converted.

Again, whether I 'win' today or I 'lose'... I think the Electoral College just makes ancillary winners of us all at the time. If Biden wins, terrific. But I know he didn't have to reach over to Republicans and try to meet them half way. If Trump wins... well, we know how he was 'restrained' for his first term. I doubt he'll be more kind in his second.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Jul 16, 2013
3,031
357
88
I wanted to get this out of the way before any outcome.


Whether I'm pleased with the results or I'm disappointed, I think the time for the electoral college left with the advent of the Information Age. We've had a number of forum members here state that their vote doesn't matter because they know the color of their state.

More over, the electoral college, in my opinion, is the backbone of a two party system. It doesn't allow for all American Voices to be heard, just a few to be pandered to. Because it's a more economical use of time. What would it mean for America if a Democrat had to go into the Midwest and make their case, instead of having it be so red that it just isn't worth their time? What if Republicans needed a few votes from New York so he or she made concessions?

I think it would be a blow for contentious elections like this one. Where neither side has any real need to do anything but thump their party's bible and already plead to the converted.

Again, whether I 'win' today or I 'lose'... I think the Electoral College just makes ancillary winners of us all at the time. If Biden wins, terrific. But I know he didn't have to reach over to Republicans and try to meet them half way. If Trump wins... well, we know how he was 'restrained' for his first term. I doubt he'll be more kind in his second.
What happens in a multi party system is that so many concessions are made for a parliamentary majority that it really doesn't matter who you vote for. The country is always governed by The Party and any dissenting political party with a majority popular vote is simply excluded from government. This might be less divisive than the Republican system but it also begets stagnation and is equally unrepresentative. It just manifests in a different way.
 

dreng3

Elite Member
Aug 23, 2011
679
326
68
Country
Denmark
What happens in a multi party system is that so many concessions are made for a parliamentary majority that it really doesn't matter who you vote for. The country is always governed by The Party and any dissenting political party with a majority popular vote is simply excluded from government. This might be less divisive than the Republican system but it also begets stagnation and is equally unrepresentative. It just manifests in a different way.
Take a look at voting records for the parliaments in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The various parties are quite capable of working together. Of course there are traditional alliances based on the core values of the parties, but you can certainly find issues where left wing parties cooperate with right wing parties. It also makes it far easier for the population to actually elect the politicians that share their points of view, since there is far less stigma attached to voting for a different party when there are many parties.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,336
270
88
Country
USA
We all know we can't get rid of the Electoral College, because that gives certain states with larger populations a disproportionate say in who becomes president, what we need to do is fix the Electoral College system itself.

There's two problems with the Electoral College: It is an all or nothing game and the "We the People" don't actually vote. Only the Electors actually vote, and while in most cases the Elector's votes follow the Popular Vote for that state, they don't actually have to in several states. Even if every last person in the whole of one of those states voted Democrat, if the Electors vote Republican the Republican candidate gets the Electoral votes. In fact, the Electors are nominated by political parties themselves, which is a blatant conflict of interest.

Then there's the fact that if a state goes one way with it's electors, all electoral votes go directly to that side. If 25% of people vote Republican in say Texas, and 75% vote Democrat, 25% of their Electoral votes do not go to the Republican candidate and 75% to the Democratic candidate, the electoral votes all go to the Democratic candidate.

All that needs to be done is to ensure that:

A. All Electoral votes are directly in line with the Popular Vote of every state. There shouldn't even be a need to even have the Electors in the first place.

B. Ensure that the Electoral votes of every state are divided by the Popular Vote of every state, so that votes that don't fall in line with the rest of the state can still effect the election, and perhaps more importantly give third party candidates that make a big enough splash an actual chance of making a difference in an election and through that eventually make a third party that is actually viable. There would no doubt need to be a rounding system in place to prevent parties just barely don't meet or barely exceed a certain percentage to still get Electoral votes. In the event of a deadlock, the Popular Vote for the entire country will be the tiebreaker. The most important thing here is to ensure that the Popular Vote actually matters in the election.

That would solve nearly everything wrong with the Electoral college.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,976
346
88
Country
US
We've had a number of forum members here state that their vote doesn't matter because they know the color of their state.
Replacing it with more or less everything outside a few major urban areas not really mattering, because one single city would then matter more to a candidate than 38 of the states (and DC) taken individually or up to 9 states in combination. This is literally the thing that the structure of Congress and thus the Electoral College exists specifically to prevent (originally because none of the smaller colonies would have joined just to be functionally controlled by New York and Virginia meaning we'd likely have a bunch of tiny nations instead of the US and a fuckton more wars), the main difference being that it's California most negatively effected by it instead of Virginia.

The winner take all nature of electoral votes isn't actually a fundamental part of the electoral college itself, and there are ways to make that more proportional - for example Maine and Nebraska award 2 electors to whoever wins the state popular vote, and then 1 elector to whoever win the electoral vote in each Congressional district. You could also do it straight proportionally to the popular vote, meaning a lot of states would split their electors roughly equally.

Of course, anything other than using straight national popular vote to determine the election would still have led to Trump winning in 2016, which is why it's specifically that that's being promoted these days.

More over, the electoral college, in my opinion, is the backbone of a two party system.
First past the post voting is more a cause of this. Moving to ranked choice, instant runoff, or anything that approximates the Condorcet winner would do more to disrupt the two party system than abolishing the electoral college.

The biggest way that the electoral college enforces the two party system is the requirement to have a majority of electoral votes to win. A voting method that promotes more third parties for President gong to increase the odds of the President being chosen by the House from among the top 3 (and the VP by the Senate likewise).
 

Iron

BOI
Sep 6, 2013
1,741
259
88
Country
Occupied Palestine
Take a look at voting records for the parliaments in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. The various parties are quite capable of working together. Of course there are traditional alliances based on the core values of the parties, but you can certainly find issues where left wing parties cooperate with right wing parties. It also makes it far easier for the population to actually elect the politicians that share their points of view, since there is far less stigma attached to voting for a different party when there are many parties.
You know Sweden's coalition exists only to stop the SD from governing. Don't pretend it's anything but inorganic and dysfunctional.
 

dreng3

Elite Member
Aug 23, 2011
679
326
68
Country
Denmark
You know Sweden's coalition exists only to stop the SD from governing. Don't pretend it's anything but inorganic and dysfunctional.
It prevents them from governing because the majority of the people don't actually agree with their viewpoints and hence they don't actually get enough representatives to force issues. That isn't a bad thing, that just shows that SD has views that most people despise enough to shut them out.
Politics is the art of the possible. If your views don't allow you to form a coalition or gather voters then you must change your approach or change your views.

Of course I don't quite like the ideal of political blocks that Sweden has moved towards, it reeks of U.S.A., but it is still far better that those blocks be composed of several parties instead of there just being two singular parties.
 

dreng3

Elite Member
Aug 23, 2011
679
326
68
Country
Denmark
We all know we can't get rid of the Electoral College, because that gives certain states with larger populations a disproportionate say in who becomes president, what we need to do is fix the Electoral College system itself.
Or does it give them a say that is proportional to the percentage of the voters they represent?
The electoral college is a way to steal the right to participate equally in the democratic process.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,944
3,099
118
Country
USA
Man, our constitution really does suck balls.
 

dreng3

Elite Member
Aug 23, 2011
679
326
68
Country
Denmark
Man, our constitution really does suck balls.
Only because a lot of americans treat it as scripture not as a document of law.
If you were willing to make some more amendments or phase out old stuff directly instead of taking roundabout paths to limit the things included it would work much better. I mean, how are there even factions when it comes to interpreting a law document? Originalists, textualists, living document, constructionism etc. It seems insane especially when the main question should always be "does the law serve and protect the people and nation, and is it written and enforced in good faith?

But no, it has to be a divisive issue. I blame the two party system one party always has to oppose the other on major issues.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,581
2,290
118
Country
Ireland
What happens in a multi party system is that so many concessions are made for a parliamentary majority that it really doesn't matter who you vote for. The country is always governed by The Party and any dissenting political party with a majority popular vote is simply excluded from government. This might be less divisive than the Republican system but it also begets stagnation and is equally unrepresentative. It just manifests in a different way.
Happened in Ireland. And we have parliament alongside a transferable vote system. What we ended up with is the second and third most popular parties group up and flat out refuse to negotiate with the most popular party. Now the greens are part of a rightwing government that voted to seal the records of the mother and baby homes and is going to vote against a motion of no confidence in Leo Varadkar because of the government whip.

Any system can be played. Electoral college and gerrymandering means you need to be tactical about where you win. Parliamentary politics means two parties that have been two cheeks of the same arse for years can split the vote and then just take it in turns supporting each other. We need more direct democracy. Not necessarily for everything but most of our mechanisms involve the government holding itself accountable.

Impeachment? Need a majority government vote.

No confidence? Need a majority government vote.

Early election? Government's choice.

Even something like individual constituencies being able to petition for an election would be a step in the right direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Secondhand Revenant

Recycle, Reduce, Redead
Legacy
Oct 29, 2014
2,564
139
68
Baator
Country
The Nine Hells
Gender
Male
Or does it give them a say that is proportional to the percentage of the voters they represent?
The electoral college is a way to steal the right to participate equally in the democratic process.
Tbh on that note, the Senate is so lol. All that empty land needs its votes
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,976
346
88
Country
US
If we can get a few swing states to agree to it, we are good for the foreseeable future.
Not likely to happen, because it doesn't take effect unless half the electoral votes worth of states agree to it, and you can't get that number of electoral votes without having to get states to agree for whom it would functionally just be handing over any influence they have over the Presidency in exchange for nothing.

Same reason they aren't trying to pursue this as a Constitutional Amendment - 3/4 of states will never agree, in no small part because more than 3/4 of states would have less influence of the Presidential election than a single city as a consequence.

...and assuming it ever goes into effect, there will immediately be a lawsuit arguing it's an interstate compact that was not approved by Congress and is thus unconstitutional. Probably won't stick, but it will be tried.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156