IF the election results were reversed...

[mjr]

With all of the calls now to eliminate the Electoral College by many Democrats and non-Trump supporters, I have to ask the following question:

If the results were flipped (i.e. Trump won popular vote, but Clinton won EC), would there still be the outcry to eliminate the EC?

And if so, would it just be Republicans doing it?

I don't know that the outcry would be as loud, if there were one.

I've seen it called an antiquated system, among other things, and people saying it's unnecessary, only benefits Republicans, etc.

So let's discuss...

[s_stabeler]

probably not- which has been acknowledged by people who want the electoral college abolished.

My personal opinion is that there does need to be reform. The electoral college was originally supposed to be that you elected someone who would educate themselves on the candidates, and vote for who they thought was the best candidate based on that. We either need to abolish the EC- and make the Presidency directly elected- or we need to get rid of pledged electors, and have it that the EC votes for whoever they think is the best candidate, not just whoever they were pledged to vote for. IOW, either go to a true indirect election- with either the Electoral College w/o pledged electors, or the incoming Congress voting for president- or a direct election.

Having said that, I personally think there needs to be reform of Congress as well.
1. introduce term limits. Or rather, length of term limits. Specifically, you can spend no more than 10 years in any one post- 10 years (lifetime total, not necessarily consecutive) as a Representative, 10 years as a Senator, 10 years as Vice President, 10 years as President. That allows for a total of 40 years as a politician- which anyone would agree is a pretty good career. The advantage is that it somewhat reduces the usefulness of various forms of currently-legal de facto bribery- the chances would be high they would leave politics within 10 years, so there's less time to build up the kind of influence lobbyists can at present.
2. PACs must declare where their money comes from publicly- and I mean truly publicly, with a freely-accessible list that anybody can republish if they want to providing it's reasonably accurate at time of publication.
3. Ban the practice of offering Congressmen guaranteed post-politics jobs to influence the way they vote.

[mjr]

Having said that, I personally think there needs to be reform of Congress as well.
1. introduce term limits. Or rather, length of term limits. Specifically, you can spend no more than 10 years in any one post- 10 years (lifetime total, not necessarily consecutive) as a Representative, 10 years as a Senator, 10 years as Vice President, 10 years as President. That allows for a total of 40 years as a politician- which anyone would agree is a pretty good career. The advantage is that it somewhat reduces the usefulness of various forms of currently-legal de facto bribery- the chances would be high they would leave politics within 10 years, so there's less time to build up the kind of influence lobbyists can at present.
2. PACs must declare where their money comes from publicly- and I mean truly publicly, with a freely-accessible list that anybody can republish if they want to providing it's reasonably accurate at time of publication.
3. Ban the practice of offering Congressmen guaranteed post-politics jobs to influence the way they vote.

Some of these would have to be modified slightly, due to the length of terms (i.e. the Senate term is 6 years, with Senate elections staggered every two years). I'd make a couple of other modifications to the term limit thing, but other than that I like them!

I've written to my State-level rep about one issue. I'm writing to my federal level rep and senators about it, too.

[TheHuckster]

probably not- which has been acknowledged by people who want the electoral college abolished.

My personal opinion is that there does need to be reform. The electoral college was originally supposed to be that you elected someone who would educate themselves on the candidates, and vote for who they thought was the best candidate based on that. We either need to abolish the EC- and make the Presidency directly elected- or we need to get rid of pledged electors, and have it that the EC votes for whoever they think is the best candidate, not just whoever they were pledged to vote for. IOW, either go to a true indirect election- with either the Electoral College w/o pledged electors, or the incoming Congress voting for president- or a direct election.

Having congress choose the president is troublesome, as it would usually guarantee a double-victory for whichever party gets the most votes for congress. In other words, if you elect a republican congress, you'll have a republican president and visa versa. This could, in effect, violate the balance of power (checks and balances).

If we, instead, have the EC vote for whoever they think is the best candidate, the question becomes, who chooses the electors in this case? As it stands now, electors are chosen by the parties who they pledge to, and then we choose whose party's electors casts the final vote for president. Changing it so we have a more neutral system of electors requires us to rethink who chooses these electors and how. Plus a lot of consideration for how these electors conduct themselves needs to be done, e.g. how do we prevent collusion, bribery, fraud, and other forms of corruption?

[jackfaire]

Yes but it would be different people making noise if the situation were reversed.

The thing that's hammered into every school kid's head is "Majority Rule" that's the foundation of our democracy they say what most people want most people get. And that applies when we vote for most things. Votes for congress are always the popular vote, ballot measures are always the popular vote, etc.

Not so with the presidency. No matter if the roles are reversed there would still be a majority that was told to fuck off and suck it up because the minority got what they wanted.

The electoral college makes is to so that even if the majority want's to eat pizza the minority gets to decide what's for dinner.

There is no where else in American Life where letting the minority decide something feels fair. Both sides of the aisle bitch when a few rich people get to decide things for the rest of us.

Back when the Electoral College was first a thing each State was more like it's own country that happened to be joined to a bunch of other countries we named them states but they were countries. And while there was a central government each one still felt like it was it's own country.

These days we move so freely around the country that there are less people who feel the same patriotic loyalty to their state that once existed. Now people are less concerned with their state getting a say and more concerned with the majority getting a say.

Pointing out that people who won because of an old system that doesn't work won't complain isn't genius.

Most people won't tell their tired mom that she should get some rest when she's accidentally paying them their allowance twice.

That doesn't mean people don't think it needs to be fixed just means they won't try to fix it while it's benefiting them.

There is a difference between "Thinking the system is a good one" and "Not going to say anything about it because my side won"

Last Pinewood Derby race I was in I beat the other kid but the judge declared him a winner because he wasn't paying attention. People on my side spoke up the people on the other side stayed silent. It's human nature. You don't worry about what's fair or what matters when you're winning.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, again, this is essentially the exact scenario the EC was designed to prevent. So having failed in its primary purpose I don't see any point in its continued existence. And it didn't have much of a point in the modern age to begin with.

What galls me currently is the lengths at which the GOP is going to maintain that whole "It benefits my side so its okay" angle. There's some serious lack of shame and integrity going on that's a new low even for them.

Its bad when we're having to rely solely on Mccain and McConnell as the last bastions of integrity.

[mjr]

Well, again, this is essentially the exact scenario the EC was designed to prevent. So having failed in its primary purpose I don't see any point in its continued existence. And it didn't have much of a point in the modern age to begin with.
.

I don't think it's failed in another purpose.

It's also essentially designed to keep places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, New York City, and Miami from deciding the presidential election -- every time, with essentially most of the rest of the states/cities completely without say.

Federalist #68 provides more detail, and what you're talking about, in context.

But even if electors were apportioned by which candidate "won" a Congressional District (thus splitting the number of electoral votes among the candidates, sort of like delegates in a Primary), I don't know how much that would matter.

[TheHuckster]

I don't think it's failed in another purpose.

It's also essentially designed to keep places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, New York City, and Miami from deciding the presidential election -- every time, with essentially most of the rest of the states/cities completely without say.

I understand that purpose of the electoral college, but its side-effect is not much better. Now, you have candidates pandering to a few swing states, and the leader is effectively chosen by those few, while the others are typically a lock for one or the other. And thus their re-election is similarly all about those states, too. If Trump were to make a decision that would either benefit Florida at the disadvantage of California or benefit California at the disadvantage of Florida, which decision do you think he'd choose, assuming he wants to be reelected?

[mjr]

I understand that purpose of the electoral college, but its side-effect is not much better. Now, you have candidates pandering to a few swing states, and the leader is effectively chosen by those few, while the others are typically a lock for one or the other. And thus their re-election is similarly all about those states, too. If Trump were to make a decision that would either benefit Florida at the disadvantage of California or benefit California at the disadvantage of Florida, which decision do you think he'd choose, assuming he wants to be reelected?

That's valid, Huckster. Especially about the Swing, or "in play" states. There are usually a few of those every election. That said, most of the time we can look at an election map and pick out which candidates are going to win which states, within reason, and generally we can be fairly accurate, with the exception of the "in play" states. This time around, though, I think there were some states (the "blue wall") that surprised some people. States that were almost considered a "given" that didn't turn out as expected.

I think the general take-away is that there is no perfect system. We can't really go in a county-by-county system (i.e. County A is for one candidate, County B for the other), and we can't really do a Congressional District thing (i.e. instead of a state awarding all of it's Electoral Votes to one candidate, they're distributed by how many Congressional Districts the candidate wins, with the two additional Senate votes being a "bonus" to the candidate, or something.

We can't really do a "one state, one vote" thing, either. Because that's VERY disproportional as far as populations go. If you count D.C. in that, you could, in theory, say whoever gets to 26 states wins (50% + 1), but that can cause issues, too. Especially if territories are added to the US as states.

Additionally, to put certain things in place, we may have to pass entirely new legislation, and we know what fun that would be when it comes to this topic. Right now, most states can decide what types of ballots to use, when to open/close polls, etc, if I'm not mistaken.

If we wanted to control that from a Federal level, legislation would have to be passed to codify more things regarding elections and current election law.

[mjr]

The thing that's hammered into every school kid's head is "Majority Rule" that's the foundation of our democracy they say what most people want most people get.

Well, we're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. And we're definitely not a "direct democracy". I know direct democracy is touted as the "will of the people" and "rule of the people", but think about all the things that could happen in a direct democracy...

And "popular vote" aside, consider the following:

A "majority" of the several states voted a different way, via current election rules. So a "majority" of states wanted one particular candidate.

[Greenday]

Well, we're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. And we're definitely not a "direct democracy". I know direct democracy is touted as the "will of the people" and "rule of the people", but think about all the things that could happen in a direct democracy...

And "popular vote" aside, consider the following:

A "majority" of the several states voted a different way, via current election rules. So a "majority" of states wanted one particular candidate.

Right but the majority of people who live in this country didn't want that candidate.

[s_stabeler]

Well, we're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. And we're definitely not a "direct democracy". I know direct democracy is touted as the "will of the people" and "rule of the people", but think about all the things that could happen in a direct democracy...

And "popular vote" aside, consider the following:

A "majority" of the several states voted a different way, via current election rules. So a "majority" of states wanted one particular candidate.

The issue is that we still have a situation where an error in which states to campaign in- Clinton was campaigning in Arizona, Trump in the "Blue Wall"- can swing the election. De facto, Trump won because he targeted the right states- which is nothow it's supposed to work.

[mjr]

Right but the majority of people who live in this country didn't want that candidate.

That's not quite accurate. A little more than half of the 55% of people of voting age who voted cast a ballot for Hillary.

That's a majority of people who voted...but the Electoral College went the other way.

On a state-by-state basis, that's true, too. A majority of the states voted for him, in that the voting age population cast a majority of their votes for him.

[mjr]

The issue is that we still have a situation where an error in which states to campaign in- Clinton was campaigning in Arizona, Trump in the "Blue Wall"- can swing the election. De facto, Trump won because he targeted the right states- which is nothow it's supposed to work.

Again, would that be the sentiment if the results were flipped? If Trump had taken Hillary's approach, and she won the EC and he won the Popular Vote, I'm sure a lot of Democrats would be thanking their lucky stars for the EC, and saying "It worked like it was supposed to!"

That may not be how it's supposed to work, but it's also not supposed to be where highly populated areas decide the whole thing, too. As I said earlier, it's an imperfect system, but it's possibly better than other options. In my opinion, "popular vote" is not a "better" option. I don't know what is, but I don't believe it's "popular vote".

[Greenday]

That's not quite accurate. A little more than half of the 55% of people of voting age who voted cast a ballot for Hillary.

That's a majority of people who voted...but the Electoral College went the other way.

On a state-by-state basis, that's true, too. A majority of the states voted for him, in that the voting age population cast a majority of their votes for him.

Not all states are created equal. Rhode Island shouldn't have the same say as New York. # of voters should trump everything else.