Electoral College: Discuss!

  • Thread starter wfooshee
  • 101 comments
  • 2,912 views
8,188
Canada
Canada
The EC map is not redrawn for anything. The EC map is the US map, of states. The level of a state's EC representation matches their representation in Congress: two Senators and a number of Representatives apportioned by population. EC representation of the states matches Congressional representation of the states, and the only way to change how many EC votes a state gets is by the Census (every ten years) finding a population change among the states.

Local lines are redrawn all the time, like zones for city councils and school boards, and court districts within states that consist pf parts of several counties. No such lines exist at the federal level, all "zoning" at that level is by the states.

There is actually no Constitutional mandate that the states commit 100% of their EC vote to the winner of that state's popular vote. It is up to the states' legislatures to determine the EC voting policy of the state. All but two states are "winner-take-all." Maine and Nebraska divide their EC votes by Congressional district within the state, the those states can have split EC votes.

Further, there is no Congressional mandate that the Electors are locked into their state's decision. Indeed, in 2016 there were seven "rogue" Electors who cast their votes differently from their state's popular vote.

I don't think I would be averse to an EC reformed along the lines of splitting the states' EC ballots proportionately with the popular vote in that state. I doubt it would do more than make the states as close to 50/50 as is possible, with the swing in small states becoming oven stronger, though. Say Wisconsin is 52% Republican and 48% Democrat. That would probably split their EC at 5 to 5, basically a "no decision." If Montana was the same popular proportion, they would vote in the EC 2-1 Republican. And people already complain that the small states have too much voice in the EC! Changing the states' balloting in the EC is individual states' rights decision, though, and not something that can be mandated by Congress. However, the move by some states after 2016 to ignore their own state results and cast the EC ballots by the national popular vote count has no basis in actually representing that states' voting power.

Thank you for the info, it’s much appreciated. :cheers:

“Further, there is no Congressional mandate that the Electors are locked into their state's decision. Indeed, in 2016 there were seven "rogue" Electors who cast their votes differently from their state's popular vote“

This part feels odd though, not that it’s incorrect, but that it seems silly that the entire state can vote one way, only to have the guy who casts the vote, to vote against the state’s wishes. Why in the world would they allow that? What’s the point in voting if that guy can’t just say FU to the whole state and vote for the other party anyways?
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,315
United States
Mile High City
Thank you for the info, it’s much appreciated. :cheers:

“Further, there is no Congressional mandate that the Electors are locked into their state's decision. Indeed, in 2016 there were seven "rogue" Electors who cast their votes differently from their state's popular vote“

This part feels odd though, not that it’s incorrect, but that it seems silly that the entire state can vote one way, only to have the guy who casts the vote, to vote against the state’s wishes. Why in the world would they allow that? What’s the point in voting if that guy can’t just say FU to the whole state and vote for the other party anyways?

The supreme court says states can require electors to vote according to state law.

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/06/8851...s-state-faithless-elector-laws-constitutional
 

UKMikey

This is where the casuals hang out, right?
Premium
9,501
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
I'm triggered.

A perfectly insane defense of the electoral college courtesy of National Review.



Ok, that sounds great.



What?!

The notion that the electoral college exists as a bulwark against majoritarianism is ludicrous. It doesn't prevent majoritarianism as much as it promotes minority rule. How is that better? What reasonable argument can be made to support the idea that it is better for the minority of the population to govern? Sure, argue that minority rights should be respected. That's fine. But to enshrine a higher level of enfranchisement...just because? Also, how can the author possibly jump from the Post's position to claiming that the Post would support a majority of states having the ability to overturn the first amendment. There is a completely different and separate process for constitutional amendments - not to mention it being completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.



This is completely laughable. What the electoral college actually does is focus the entire presidential race on a handful of states that are not typically representative of the country as a whole. That fracking was such a huge part of the campaign speaks volumes to how broken our elective process is. We're in the middle a pandemic recession, we have incredible homelessness spreading throughout the country, we are not building enough housing. There is a massive amount of more pertinent issues to talk about than fracking.



So in practice, the fact that neither candidate spent any time in California or New York is somehow better? Again, please explain why. Maybe Donald Trump would have been a better ****ing President if he actually gave a **** about California or New York voters. The electoral college actively discourages a President from caring about California or New York, especially if that state doesn't vote favorably.



*waits for author to clarify why this is a rational process*



That sounds fantastic. Maybe without the electoral college, our entrenched 2-party system would have to compete for voters rather than just counting on massive, unwieldy, fat coalitions and lazy voters. Maybe the GOP wouldn't be the party of raging fringe ********.



Well then what the **** do we do every 4 years?



giphy.gif
One of Harsanyi's fans on Twitter tried (and failed) to defend this using the following article:

https://electoralvotemap.com/5-reawsons-to-keep-the-electoral-college/

Reason four, "Clear And Decisive Outcomes" cracked me up. Abolishing the EC would lead to fifty Floridas as each state argues about results? So we don't have five Floridas now as Trump drags their results through the courts?
 
Last edited:

MatskiMonk

Inebriated member
Premium
13,571
United Kingdom
Not so Great Britain
"Clear And Decisive Outcomes"

Hmmm... I'm not a fan of this argument when it comes to our own parliament either.

But anyway... other countries don't need electoral college's to get clear and decisive outcomes. For two successive elections, one a particular country got 99.96% support for the sitting president, followed by 100% the next time, for the same dude! That's decisive! Sadly, thanks to outside intervention, he's no longer president, and now, the country's elected government represents people who voted for no less than 30 different parties, with nothing anywhere like an absolute majority... pffft... bet they can't get anything done now...

Let's have a thumbs up for clear and decisive outcomes!

upload_2020-11-19_11-42-47.png
 

UKMikey

This is where the casuals hang out, right?
Premium
9,501
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
Another argument the National Review posse put forward was that country folk will stop providing food if the pres doesn't support them. I had to reply that I thought California makes most of the food.

 

wfooshee

Rather ride my FJR
Premium
4,710
California is source for a lot of our produce, but not much in the way of grain. Not sure about meats, haven't looked that up.

Produce doesn't come from Los Angeles, San Francisco, or San Diego, though... California's rural population is pretty much irrelevant, politically speaking.
 

Joey D

Swedespeed
Premium
44,163
United States
Holladay, UT
GTP_Joey
GTP Joey
Another argument the National Review posse put forward was that country folk will stop providing food if the pres doesn't support them. I had to reply that I thought California makes most of the food.


Ok, they want to stop producing food? Great, they no longer get government subsidies. Take away their free money and I can almost guarantee that they'll start producing food again to get it back. Plus, what else are they going to do in the country? It's not like there's a ton of opportunities in the middle of nowhere, especially since the population tends to be less educated without access to things that make a modern society function, like working internet or mobile coverage for example. Farming is kind of it.
 

UKMikey

This is where the casuals hang out, right?
Premium
9,501
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
California is source for a lot of our produce, but not much in the way of grain. Not sure about meats, haven't looked that up.

Produce doesn't come from Los Angeles, San Francisco, or San Diego, though... California's rural population is pretty much irrelevant, politically speaking.
But the electoral college votes as a state, not by cities. Unless you're saying that rural Californians would join this mythical food strike to make the coastal elites notice them as well.
 

UKMikey

This is where the casuals hang out, right?
Premium
9,501
United Kingdom
West Drayton
UKMikeyA
UKMikeyA
Excuse the double post.

State electoral colleges aren't enough for some Republicans... apparently there's no way your founding fathers could have predicted the growth of cities lmaoooo.

EnM6UtcVkAYUn0O.jpeg
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,315
United States
Mile High City
Excuse the double post.

State electoral colleges aren't enough for some Republicans... apparently there's no way your founding fathers could have predicted the growth of cities lmaoooo.

View attachment 972854

Such a self-own. Only further clarifies to everyone why the electoral college is an abomination.
 

wfooshee

Rather ride my FJR
Premium
4,710
I think what's being "proposed" in that state electoral college is to have county electors elect the governors, rather than the general population, and not county-by-county electors for the President.

Were something like that to actually be feasible, it would have to mirror the legislative districts, the same way that the Federal Electoral College mirrors the state representation in Congress. There's nothing constitutional about that, one way or the other, as states decide their own processes. Also, since every few years one party or the other makes huge efforts to redraw he districts...
 

Danoff

Who is John Galt?
Premium
30,315
United States
Mile High City
I think what's being "proposed" in that state electoral college is to have county electors elect the governors, rather than the general population, and not county-by-county electors for the President.

Were something like that to actually be feasible, it would have to mirror the legislative districts, the same way that the Federal Electoral College mirrors the state representation in Congress. There's nothing constitutional about that, one way or the other, as states decide their own processes. Also, since every few years one party or the other makes huge efforts to redraw he districts...

Yea, what I'm saying is that it's painfully obvious how dumb this plan is, and how it's specifically designed to disenfranchise democrats by deweighting cities. Much that's dumb about this plan applies to the electoral college.