On-Topic Clinton Will Win Popular Vote - Time to Scrap Electoral College

[palemale]

Hillary Clinton, as of this writing, is winning the popular vote by more than 160,000 votes. Since most of the outstanding votes are in California, Washington and Oregon, all states Clinton won by large margins, this lead will grow.

Trump was right about the rigged system, it's rigged in favor of Republicans, as this will be the second time in 16 years a Republican will ascend to the presidency even though more people voted for the Democrat. This is an intolerable situation that must be changed. The electoral college must be abolished. Until it is, everyone should urge their state legislators to enact the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is legislation that will elect electoral college electors by the winner of the popular vote rather than the winner of the vote in the state.

 

[SaskGuy]

I still think the US has a bizarre system. Why can't each constituency (or, the US equivalent) count individually, instead of having the entire state go "red" or "blue"?

 

[Benvolio]

I still think the US has a bizarre system. Why can't each constituency (or, the US equivalent) count individually, instead of having the entire state go "red" or "blue"?

Part of the purpose of the electoral college is to prevent the most populous states from being too dominant. In any event, and amendment requires 75% of the state legislatures. The less populous states are not going to vote to be dominated by the more populous states. Get over it.

 

[gsdx]

^ SaskGuy is talking about something similar to our system of federal elections. The House of Commons is divided into 'seats', and each seat represents an MP (Member of Parliament), and each MP represents a 'riding'. Ridings are divisions in each province and territory roughly proportional to population. Of course, population varies greatly from province to province, but there are provisions in the constitution to even out the representation as evenly as possible.

The number of seats in Parliament vary from election to election. Currently, there are 338 seats and the Liberals, under Justin Trudeau, hold 182 of them. With 95 seats, the Conservatives are the Official Opposition. The NDP (New Democratic Party) hold 44 seats, the Bloc Québécois hold 10, and the Green Party and Independent hold 1 each. They, too, are Opposition. However, all of the Opposition combined hold only 151 seats, which is less than the Liberal Party. The Liberals have a majority government.

One province can have any combination of representation. Generally, no province is entirely Liberal or Conservative or any other party. That is what SaskGuy was talking about.

Still, even a majority government doesn't give assurance that the Liberals can do what they want. New legislation must be passed first in the House of Commons before going to the Senate for final approval.

It's not a perfect system but it works for the most part, and the electoral system is being reassessed to make it better than the 'first-past-the-post' system we currently have.

By the way, the house has various galleries as well, including one for the press and one for the public. I went there on a school trip back in the 60s. It was quite an experience.

 

[TickTockMan]

The Electoral College should be tweaked, but not scraped. The population centers shouldn't get to speak for everyone.

 

[Alnitak]

Part of the purpose of the electoral college is to prevent the most populous states from being too dominant. In any event, and amendment requires 75% of the state legislatures. The less populous states are not going to vote to be dominated by the more populous states. Get over it.

The Electoral College should be tweaked, but not scraped. The population centers shouldn't get to speak for everyone.

And yet we vote for every other office by plain vote on a state level. Population centers determine the vote because that's where people are. It's that simple. You don't get extra representation just because you live somewhere small and rural. In conservative parlance that's called reverse discrimination.

 

[Benvolio]

And yet we vote for every other office by plain vote on a state level. Population centers determine the vote because that's where people are. It's that simple. You don't get extra representation just because you live somewhere small and rural. In conservative parlance that's called reverse discrimination.

The smaller states will never agree to change the Constitution. Period. Get used to it.

 

[Alnitak]

The smaller states will never agree to change the Constitution.

I'm not a big fan of the word never.

Period. Get used to it.

Nope. I will never give up a cause which I know is right.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Part of the purpose of the electoral college is to prevent the most populous states from being too dominant. In any event, and amendment requires 75% of the state legislatures. The less populous states are not going to vote to be dominated by the more populous states. Get over it.

Direct popular vote as well the electoral college they way it is currently set up, allow the big states to control the election. They way to fix is for each state to award its electoral votes in proportion to the popular vote in that state. You would still have to get 270 to win but no candidate could win an entire state. Each candidate would earn the electoral vote of each state according to how the people of that state voted. The 270 total then must come from the people across the country, not just a few states. It would truly be fair and every individuals vote would count toward your states electoral vote total unless you voted for a nobody. If this concept were in place in 2000 the Florida fiasco would not have happened because only 1 electoral vote would have been contested instead of the whole state.

I want to be clear here. This concept is on a state-by-state basis not a national basis. In Missouri Trump would have won 7 electoral votes and Clinton 3.

Also, this is to discuss what might be a possible way to improve the electoral system. I am fully aware this is not going to happen so do not disparage the idea by telling me it won't happen. I know it won't happen. The point is, I think it would be a good way to correct the imperfections in the electoral college system and make for a fair election that represents the people of the country. But no one wants that, do they?

 

[Kabluey]

The smaller states will never agree to change the Constitution. Period. Get used to it.

But isn't that in itself anti democratic?
'Get used to it' sounds a little harsh when you're saying some votes should count more than others.

 

[Benvolio]

I'm not a big fan of the word never.



Nope. I will never give up a cause which I know is right.

The electoral college is part of the compromise which made the creation of the country possible. Equal representation in the Senate is another part of that compromise. Unraveling the compromises would contribute to the possible unraveling of the union, the secessionist
movement.

 

[kev]

The Electoral College system was one of the compromises necessary to pass the Constitution. Without it (and several other compromises) it would not have been ratified.

If you don't like it, there is actually a process written into the document to amend the Constitution and "scrap" the Electoral College.

You should read it sometime.

 

[Kabluey]

The electoral college is part of the compromise which made the creation of the country possible. Equal representation in the Senate is another part of that compromise. Unraveling the compromises would contribute to the possible unraveling of the union, the secessionist
movement.

Except the major population centres would maintain their power base. Hard for the low population areas in between to split when the populated areas have common interests.

 

[TickTockMan]

And yet we vote for every other office by plain vote on a state level. Population centers determine the vote because that's where people are. It's that simple. You don't get extra representation just because you live somewhere small and rural. In conservative parlance that's called reverse discrimination.

I don't know. Maybe you are right. It just seems to me tweaking the EC would be better than getting rid of it altogether.

 

[Alnitak]

The electoral college is part of the compromise which made the creation of the country possible. Equal representation in the Senate is another part of that compromise. Unraveling the compromises would contribute to the possible unraveling of the union, the secessionist
movement.

In those days there was a reluctance of Rhode Island to join the union, but given several small Democratic states like Rhode Island have been run roughshod over by losing the electoral vote they are likely to reconsider.

 

[Benvolio]

I don't know. Maybe you are right. It just seems to me tweaking the EC would be better than getting rid of it altogether.

The states are at liberty to apportion their electoral college votes by the popular vote. Nebraska and Maine do that now. But the democrats control the most populous states and they want the democrat majority to control all the state's EC votes.

 

[cityboy-stl]

^ Wow, the democrats control Texas and Florida? You could have fooled me.

If the electoral college were changed to make every state apportion their electoral vote by popular, not congressional district, true popular vote, it would make the election fair and truly represent the will of the people. But neither party wants that so it won't happen. So it is academic discussion about would work if it were implemented. Not what realistically can happen.

 

[evanrick]

The Electoral College system was one of the compromises necessary to pass the Constitution. Without it (and several other compromises) it would not have been ratified.

If you don't like it, there is actually a process written into the document to amend the Constitution and "scrap" the Electoral College.

You should read it sometime.

There doesnt need to be a constitutional amendment to scrap the electoral college.

Each state gets to decide how to choose its electors, and there is already a law passed in 60% of the states with electoral votes needed to end the electoral college, its called the national popular vote interstate compact that applies to roughly 165 electoral votes.

After a few more states pass the NPVIC it will have legal force. Its possible a court would try and strike down the NPVIC but its been crafted to avoid the scope of the supreme court, since the constitution is explicit that deciding electors is the right of the states. It works by allocating each of the states in the compact all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Right now democrats need to focus on passing the law in states where it would have the biggest impact and most likely to pass, pennsylvania, michigan, nevada, colorado, etc.

 

[heir-to-the-wind]

Re: Protest. Protest, America!

Clinton won the popular vote. That is democracy, not the antiquated electoral college.

 

[HoodedRat]

Re: Protest. Protest, America!

Clinton won the popular vote. That is democracy, not the antiquated electoral college.

What if it had been the other way round and the odious Trump had won the popular vote but the corrupt Clinton got the presidency? Would you complain/protest about that?