End the Electoral College?

[NJlonghorn]

Not a single Op-Ed board of a major publication called for this ..... until Hillary lost

What a shocking development. A major, nation-altering event caused opinions to change.

 

[Joe Fan]

What a shocking development. A major, nation-altering event caused opinions to change.

Principles really should not change, by definition.
If they are changing, then they were never principles to begin with.

 

[Joe Fan]

This stuff is still funny -- life comes at you fast

 

[Seattle Husker]

Not a single Op-Ed board of a major publication called for this ..... until Hillary lost

From memory, it was discussed in 2000 after Al Gore won the popular vote yet lost the EC. It wasn't ended then and it shouldn't be ended now. Yes, those voters in "swing" states get more power in their vote than the solid blue/red states but that's analogous to protecting minorities.

 

[Joe Fan]

From memory, it was discussed in 2000 after Al Gore won the popular vote yet lost the EC. It wasn't ended then and it shouldn't be ended now. .....

Not sure you are fully aware of what it would take to change it?

 

[Horn6721]

They can whine all they want but since it takes an amendment to do away with the electoral system] and the average working American has been energized it will never happen.

I wonder though if it had been a popular vote and Trump spent more time in just NY Calif and maybe one other how the totals would have looked?
Trump lost Calif by nearly 3 million. seeing how he was able to connect with the average voter how many more average voters in those states Trump could have reached?

 

[mchammer]

From memory, it was discussed in 2000 after Al Gore won the popular vote yet lost the EC. It wasn't ended then and it shouldn't be ended now. Yes, those voters in "swing" states get more power in their vote than the solid blue/red states but that's analogous to protecting minorities.

People in middle America who do the hard labor of farming, drilling, manufacturing are the new minority.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

They can whine all they want but since it takes an amendment to do away with the electoral system] and the average working American has been energized it will never happen.

You have to remember that millennials were raised in the age of "i have a phone and a pen". I'm not sure anyone is actually taught civics or government or what the constitution actually says anymore, but my guess is most of the people saying "get rid of the electoral college" think we can just do it.

As it happens, the very reason they hate the EC is the reason it will likely never be removed.

 

[Joe Fan]

You have to remember that millennials were raised in the age of "i have a phone and a pen". I'm not sure anyone is actually taught civics or government or what the constitution actually says anymore, but my guess is most of the people saying "get rid of the electoral college" think we can just do it....

That is probably correct, and it needs to change

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yes, those voters in "swing" states get more power in their vote than the solid blue/red states but that's analogous to protecting minorities.

Let's be precise. Swing states don't have more power. They just get more focus by the campaigns because they aren't as predictable as the other states. If you say that smaller states have more power in the EC (regardless of swing state status) that would definitely be true.

 

[Horn6721]

To JoeFan's point
"Principles really should not change, by definition.
If they are changing, then they were never principles to begin with."


Slate Nov 2012 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
Article lists 5 reasons to KEEP the electoral system

Slate Nov 2016
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...instrument_of_white_supremacy_and_sexism.html
NOW the EC is an instrument of white supremacy ( ? but was not just 4 yrs ago?) and sexism.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Yes, I know what it would take to change the EC and haven't advocated for changing it. My initial post on this thread simply pointed to an effort of changing each individuals state elector allocation rules to ultimately have the effect of pushing the EC towards following the popular vote without a constitutional amendment. I doubt it will ever get the final 100 plus electors it needs but was surprised to find out that the measure passed the Oklahoma Senate in 2012 and the Arizona House 2 years ago.

I'll say it now, those farmers, miners and oil drillers are no more or less important or hard working than the engineer at Apple or Google. FYI- This Christmas day I'll be on a farm in rural Nebraska that I spent my youth summers working as a farmhand.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Let's be precise. Swing states don't have more power. They just get more focus by the campaigns because they aren't as predictable as the other states. If you say that smaller states have more power in the EC (regardless of swing state status) that would definitely be true.

I disagree. The swing states get their local issues put on the front burner of the national discussion. Why else would manufacturing be a major discussion topic when 70% of it's decline since 1970 was due to automation, not offshoring?

 

[NJlonghorn]

Principles really should not change, by definition.
If they are changing, then they were never principles to begin with.

On what ground is the electoral college a "principle"? It is a compromise methodology for electing a president. Those (including me) who think it worked as designed this year have every reason to want to keep it. Those who think it didn't work this year have every reason to question whether it is right for the country. And regardless, it won't ever change so the debate is moot.

Slate Nov 2012 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html
Article lists 5 reasons to KEEP the electoral system

Slate Nov 2016
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...instrument_of_white_supremacy_and_sexism.html
NOW the EC is an instrument of white supremacy ( ? but was not just 4 yrs ago?) and sexism.

The 2012 article is by guest columnist Richard Posner, a conservative. The 2016 article is by a Slate staffer, presumably a liberal but I don't know that for certain. If anything, this is evidence of Slate's willingness to publish opposing viewpoints.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I'll say it now, those farmers, miners and oil drillers are no more or less important or hard working than the engineer at Apple or Google. FYI- This Christmas day I'll be on a farm in rural Nebraska that I spent my youth summers working as a farmhand.

I don't want to get into a pissing match on this, but that is ridiculous.

Farmers and ranchers work 24/7. They have to be up at 3:17 in the morning on a freezing night in February to watch the herd during calving. The "office" can kill a coal miner. And oil drillers, especially offshore drillers, spend weeks sometimes months away from their family in an incredibly dangerous worksite - sometimes in the middle of an angry ocean. They do all of this so that self-absorbed and self-important google and apple engineer can have food on her table and electricity to power her iPhone.

Befor you know it, Husker will be saying SJW's are just as courageous as veterans.

 

[Seattle Husker]

People in middle America who do the hard labor of farming, drilling, manufacturing are the new minority.

Given the demonstrative flight to the cities in the last century, rural occupations are becoming a minority.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I don't want to get into a pissing match on this, but that is ridiculous.

Farmers and ranchers work 24/7. They have to be up at 3:17 in the morning on a freezing night in February to watch the herd during calving. The "office" can kill a coal miner. And oil drillers, especially offshore drillers, spend weeks sometimes months away from their family in an incredibly dangerous worksite - sometimes in the middle of an angry ocean. They do all of this so that self-absorbed and self-important google and apple engineer can have food on her table and electricity to power her iPhone.

Befor you know it, Husker will be saying SJW's are just as courageous as veterans.

I took mchammer's post too far, at least his reference to those occupations. I've been up in the morning at 4am to set irrigation tubes then gone back out at 8pm to reset those same tubes. I've also sat next to the test team at for Windows @ Microsoft during an upcoming release and witnessed the stress of those workers working round the clock. I've also directly seen my best friend, an Electrical Engineer designing GPS units for tractors (nearly drive them by themselves!) that now allows my uncle to farm 1,500 acres rather than 400 acres, plant 16 -20 rows at a time rather than the 6-8 of my grandfather was forced to plant/harvest.

Here is where the technology being created on the coast is helping the farmer, miner and/or driller. This is where we find common ground rather than division. To be sure, technology is also eliminating the volume of jobs in those occupations. To that end, they need to find new occupations or acknowledge that at any point your job can and will be eliminated. Our economic system is driven by finding efficiency. If your job stands in the way of efficiency expect it to be eliminated.

 

[NJlonghorn]

They do all of this so that self-absorbed and self-important google and apple engineer can have food on her table and electricity to power her iPhone.

Miners and ranchers "do all this" so that they can earn a paycheck to put food on their own tables and power their own iPhones. Most don't give a rat's *** about the google and apple engineers, except to the extent that the google and apple engineers are needed to pay for the energy and food that the miners and ranchers produce.

The google and apple engineers don't have to "do all this" because they have marketable skills. That doesn't make them self-absorbed or self-important (although some certainly are).

 

[bystander]

Here's my take (posted on my FB page a couple of weeks back) on the electoral college. It took some research and thought that's for sure.

I've been trying to get my head around the whole electoral college thing and I know there were many factors involved long ago (including slavery) that impacted the resulting language in the Constitution. As we know the Bill of Rights and the fact that we are a Republic is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority and I believe that is a driving force.

I kind of liken the popular vote (a pure Democracy) as the tyranny of the people versus the minority which in this case would be the states. It's kind of ironic to consider a state with it's own government as a minority that can be abused by the people if the people are clustered as they are in only a handful of states. But if each state is given some weight with their votes necessarily being relevant and important and not buried under the total then the electoral college must survive. What I don't fully understand is how they determine the number of representatives (which is the amount used for the Electoral College votes) for each state (Senate and House) after a census. I think they use something called a geometric mean and I wonder how many in the media could easily explain it to us. So I decided to research the matter.

As we all know the number of electoral college votes per state mirror the apportioned amounts for the number of representatives (Senate and House) per state. Because of this, it would be valuable to review the apportionment calculation for our state representatives and some of the reasoning behind this method of electing our President. It is important for me personally to understand because I’m not the type of person to attack the Constitution just because my candidate may have won or lost. I try to remain rational and seek out the underlying reasons.

From what I believe to be true, the founders considered it vitally important to mitigate the power of any majority. A majority of like-minded thinkers can destroy the rights of the minority. We have seen this to be true in the history of the world. They can either oppress them or marginalize them as if they do not exist. The Bill of Rights was included to protect individuals from the power of the government. Filibusters are intended to give the minority in Congress a basis of power for dissent. The President can veto a bill. Affirmative action is in place not only to right the wrongs of the past but also to help minorities compete on a level playing field. It is clear to me that there are many safeguards in place so that one philosophy cannot prevail solely on the basis of numbers. We saw how gay marriage was banned in California (more irony) by referendum, meaning by popular vote but it was over-turned by the California Supreme court as a violation of its Constitution. I seem to recall Conservatives being up in arms about how the will of the people was subverted by the courts. But now they have a different point of view when it comes to the Electoral College. I, for one, try my best to remain consistent and test to see if my opinions hold up in different scenarios. The California referendum and the election results for President give me clarity on how I feel about these things.

Given these examples, why would we allow the President be elected on a straight majority basis and marginalize the states themselves? Every state is intended to have enough power to make its voice heard and to create the incentive for the President to consider their wishes instead of only a few highly populated areas. As I said it is ironic given the fact that we are worried about the states being oppressed by the people but by allowing majority rule, the less populous states who do not vote for the same presidential candidate as the more populous states are completely disenfranchised. It’s as if nobody even lives there. So what matters is that the state’s voters matter: to the candidates. And this is done, not by a system where a handful of states can dictate the power but instead by one that forces each candidate to take each state seriously.

The current method of assigning each state their allocated number of representatives is based upon population, a minimum number of representatives assigned (at least one for each state in addition to the two each of them have in the senate) and a formula known as the reciprocal of the geometric mean. Yeah… that’s where it gets complicated. But in my view the formula to calculate the apportionment is not causing the trouble (in some people’s minds) because the formula favors the most populous states. Where the trouble exists is in the requirement that every state receive a minimum of votes that must be won fair and square within that states borders regardless of the total popular vote of the nation. Because of this, each state has a minimum value no matter its total population.

The total number of seats combined in the Senate and the House is 535 comprised of two for each state in the Senate and the remainder (435) in the house. Added to that are three votes provided under the 23rd Amendment for the District of Columbia. The brings us to a total of 538 votes. This is the amount used for the Electoral College in the nation as a whole. Each state is then given three Electoral College votes (for both Senate seats and a minimum of one for each state). The total of 153 votes assigned equally to the states and the District of Columbia represent 28% of the total Electoral College votes. This is not an insignificant percentage and is the reason someone can lose the popular vote and still win the election. After this initial allocation the remaining 385 votes are then allocated by a geometric mean by the calculation of a prime value. The 385 votes are ranked by multiplying a calculated “prime value” times the population of the state. The formula is as follows (I will describe it instead of providing the actual mathematical formula). It is the square root of the sum of the number seat number x the seat number minus one. Ok. Simple right? Ha…

Here is the way to visualize it: you create a table 2 – 385. The lowest number (2) is the highest prime value and represents the second seat allocated after the first one of each vote in the House of Representative have been allocated to all the states. It goes to the most populous state. So the formula would go like this:

2 x (2-1) = 2. The square root is 1.414214 and the reciprocal (dividing 1 by 1.414) is 0.707107
3 x (3-1) = 6. The square root is 2.44949 and the reciprocal is 0.408248
4 x (4-1) = 12. The square root is 3.464102 and the reciprocal is 0.288675

You continue in this fashion until you have a table developed for all 385 remaining seats for each state meaning you have a table with 50 columns and 384 rows. The next step is to create a table by multiplying the reciprocal values times the population of each state. This creates a new table of values to be utilized in the apportionment. The first row would be the reciprocal of 0.707107 times the population of each state. As you can probably guess, this would give California the first apportioned vote. As you move down the table to the next seat if the product of the reciprocal value times the population for a state in the row for seat two is higher than the reciprocal value for seats three (and higher) then that state would get a vote. So as California (just using it as an example) moves down its own table, it’s population is being multiplied by lower and lower reciprocal numbers because the additional seats do not have the same “prime value” as seat number two in other states. Seat number 40 in California (per the formula) is not more valuable (prime value) than the second seat allocated to another state. All seats are not created equal under this method. This is how the power is distributed in Congress and it is how it is distributed in the Electoral College. In the end, it appears to me to be an equitable mathematical method to allocate the seats.

I personally felt it was important enough to read up on this stuff and attempt to explain the math behind the apportionment because I want to understand what's going on. A quick word about the reciprocal of the geometric mean. The reciprocal is used in order to create a table of declining values which is the point of valuing seat number two in a given state over seat number 50 in California. Had they created the table using the square root values then the prime number table would have been lowest to highest but they wanted it in the opposite order. This forces a vote to the less populous state. They could have used straight averages but the geometric mean just works. That’s what I decided. I’m not sure that I can tell you what 2 x (2-1) really means when it comes to data but when applied in this instance it creates values in a fair and orderly manner. Additionally, I read about an example of a geometric mean: Say a company is rated on a scale of 1 – 5 for their environmental impact and 1 – 100 for their financial sustainability. You can either take an average of these two numbers (say 2 for environmental and 80 for financial) and come up with an average of 41. But this doesn’t give you any feeling of the environmental impact (ok ok, so why didn’t they use the same scale as the financial; don’t ask me). But the geometric mean is 9.02 (the square root of 82) and it now properly weights the environmental impact with the financial sustainability. A percentage change in either measures has an impact on the mean average.

Anyway, all this talk about square roots are coming awfully close to being a real nerd (but a proud one!) and maybe some of you math whiz kids can add light to the math, but in conclusion, I feel the Electoral College IS NECESSARY to prevent the concentration of power in dense population zones. I do not believe the population centers are necessarily so because of political beliefs only. California is famous for its Liberalism but it is also one of the most beautiful places on the planet and is strategically situated on the Pacific Ocean. Just like New York. So we must be rational and attempt to understand the best way to ensure that every state has value. I believe the Electoral College accomplishes that very well. I will paraphrase one of the founders: “It’s not perfect but it’s very good.”

 

[Htown77]

#AllLivesMatter ?

 

[Htown77]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/810912112168042496

I think we should keep it just to watch people show up and go loco when the electoral college votes.

http://totalfratmove.com/watch-this...mp-votes/?utm_medium=short&utm_source=Twitter

"THIS IS MY AMERICA! THIS IS MY AMERICA! MY AMERICA!" - is it though?

 

[Joe Fan]

On what ground is the electoral college a "principle"?

The Constitution and to some extent the DOI are an enshrinement of American principles

 

[Joe Fan]

Since Hillary lost, and their themes of recount, Russians and the Electoral College have faded, what do you suppose CNN will pivot to next?



If you put money on a story from Mar 2014, you just got paid

 

[Mr. Deez]

I disagree. The swing states get their local issues put on the front burner of the national discussion. Why else would manufacturing
be a major discussion topic when 70% of it's decline since 1970 was due to automation, not offshoring?

The problem I have with saying that the EC gives the swing states more power is that it suggests some sort of structural advantage that doesn't exist. (It does exist for smaller states, whether swing or not.) California isn't less powerful for not being a swing state. After all, its voters' minds don't have to be so closed that nobody seriously contests the state anymore. They choose to be that way. But it doesn't lack power. It has as much power as its 55 electoral votes provide, which is a lot.

Keep in mind that swing states command the attention of candidates and therefore have the ability to define campaign issues, because their voters actually listen to the candidates and don't just blindly vote D or R. The candidates aren't wasting their time by appealing to them, and frankly, I don't think that would change a whole lot if the EC got scrapped. States like California and Texas would get more campaign visits, but it would be to amp up base turnout. They'd be treated like black voters. They'd get a lot of rhetoric, but since their minds are closed, they wouldn't get seriously catered to by the candidates. Furthermore, I think states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, and Michigan would still get a lot of attention, because there are still a lot of voters there and a lot of voters who are truly up for grabs.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Miners and ranchers "do all this" so that they can earn a paycheck to put food on their own tables and power their own iPhones. Most don't give a rat's *** about the google and apple engineers, except to the extent that the google and apple engineers are needed to pay for the energy and food that the miners and ranchers produce.

The google and apple engineers don't have to "do all this" because they have marketable skills. That doesn't make them self-absorbed or self-important (although some certainly are).

Do you or do you not think that Apple and google engineers work as hard as ranchers and farmers?

And yes, ranchers and farmers work to put food on your table. If a paycheck was their motivation, they could do other things with their lives and their assets. Very much like Marines don't deploy because of a paycheck.

The statement that ranchers and farmers do what they do for a f'in paycheck is hilarious.

That doesn't make them self-absorbed or self-important (although some certainly are).

Vitriolic Bay Area locals would strongly - passionately disagree with you. In fact, Husker's stupid post/mindset Apple and Google engineers work just as hard as farmers is EXACTLY the reason why.

 

[Seattle Husker]

In fact, Husker's stupid post/mindset Apple and Google engineers work just as hard as farmers is EXACTLY the reason why.

I get it. You consider hard work as manual labor. There are engineers putting as many hours of work in at Google right now as the hardest working farmer. Simply because they are sitting in front of a computer while doing it doesn't make it any less stressful or hard. I come from a family of farmers and have experience working farming corn, beans, and sugar beets. Notice that only one of us has tried to disparage an occupation or called anyone stupid.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I get it. You consider hard work as manual labor. There are engineers putting as many hours of work in at Google right now as the hardest working farmer. Simply because they are sitting in front of a computer while doing it doesn't make it any less stressful or hard. I come from a family of farmers and have experience working farming corn, beans, and sugar beets.

Nope...you don't get it. It's like you didn't even read my post.

I come from a family of engineers, and I worked 100+ hours a week as an investment banker (even if I worked 167 hours a week, it still wouldn't be as much as a rancher). So what?

Notice that only one of us has tried to disparage an occupation or called anyone stupid.

Haha. YOU equated how hard a Google engineers works to a farmer/coal miner/roughneck. And you didn't mean it figuratively like, "this is war," you meant that literally. That is a very insulting thing to say about farmers/coal miners/roughnecks.

Apologies if the internet is too tough for you. When someone posts that an engineer at Apple (have you ever met an engineer at Apple?) works as hard as a Rancher/Farmer/Coal Miner/Roughneck, I'm just calling a spade a spade. That is stupidity in the very formal sense of the word, and you are trying to normalize stupid ways of thinking. You have to challenge stupidity.

And I was marginalizing a generic Apple engineer to make a point about real hard work in comparison to your coal miner and roughneck who can die just punching his card. Sorry if that hurt your feelings.

No worries Husker. Electoral College is here to stay.

 

[Statalyzer]

I think that is what Joe Fan is saying, and if so I agree. The electoral college was designed to prevent the small number of urban states from dominating at the expense of the larger number of rural states, and to prevent the large number of rural states from dominating at the expense of the smaller number of urban states. It works quite well.

It also functions as a "bonus" to candidates with more widespread support rather than concentrated support (which doesn't have to be a rural/urban divide).

To simplify it and go a little extreme, let's say six states each have 1.9 million voters. With the electoral college, it's better to have 1 million votes in each state than it is to have 1.8 million votes in three of them and 0.2 million votes in the other three. And it should be better. It means it's most important to grow your support in areas that aren't already your heavy support base - that's a good thing.

I do think the effect is over-magnified though. The "winner of this state with 50.1% takes all electoral votes" is fine, but the electors should be apportioned according to population, just like the house is. "Electors = house reps" would make more sense than "Electors = house reps + 2".

 

[Joe Fan]

From memory, it was discussed in 2000 after Al Gore won the popular vote yet lost the EC. It wasn't ended then and it shouldn't be ended now. .....

Yes, like lefties of today, Al Gore "refused to accept the results" of that election.
He filed multiple lawsuits over it.
But none of them involved an attack on the EC
So, faulty analysis, as your point unintentionally supports mine

 

[NJlonghorn]

The Constitution and to some extent the DOI are an enshrinement of American principles

Is every attempt to amend the Constitution unprincipled? Do those attempts become principled if and when they are ratified and become part of the Constitution?

Indeed, if the Constitution is an enshrinement of principles, and if principles are unyielding, why did they put in a mechanism to allow amendments at all?

What the hell -- I'll push the argument to the absurd. If the Constitution is a set of principles, and if one of those principles is the amendment process, then wasn't the NY Times's proposal to amend the Constitution the very embodiment of American principle???