A more appropriate way to think of our "electorial college" voting system

[randr]

It is just like voting on a "curve". As long as the smaller populated states think they need a "special" system to help them keep up.
I would venture that these states are most likely to allow schools to grade on a "curve" so they can still qualify for Federal educational funds.

[KittyWampus]

1. Excellent analogy, IMO. Haven't heard it before.

Also, pointing out that many states that have more land than people.

[randr]

4. It is an apt analogy that the conservatives will hate

They spend so much energy bitching over "special" privileges when they are not the recipients.
This casts them in the light of receiving favor for no particular reason at all.

[Wounded Bear]

2. It's gerrymandering on a national scale....nt

[Lanius]

3. It's crap, but the Republicans have no reason to ever want it to change

The Electoral College benefits the GOP, of course, with the votes from the small states and rural areas counting more than those from the cities and larger states. "One person, one vote" doesn't exist when it comes to the presidential election.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

10. Why Would They Ever WANT To Change It?

They've won 2 Presidential elections that they should have lost just in this century because of it. Without the electoral college, the Republicans would have been shut out of the White House for the last 25 years.

That's why, when we re-take Congress in 2018 and re-take the White House in 2020, we need to push this stuff through. That was always what bothered me about Obama's first year in office. He had the opportunity to push through whatever he wanted, but he tried too hard to be a "uniter" and reach across the aisle. The Republicans have no interest in that. They just hammer through whatever they want and F you if you don't like it. It's what they did in 2001 and are doing again now. When WE re-take control, we need to do the same thing. Oh, the Republicans will cry and moan about the "heavy-handedness," but they won't be able to dispute the results, when the evidence will overwhelmingly show that the policies yielded positive results. The public usually knows when things are working, even when their Party is crying the blues and feeding them propaganda. It's why the majority of people still support Obamacare despite the fact that their Party leaders have been force-feeding them propaganda about how bad it is.

[JaneQPublic]

5. It's winning on a technicality.

It's based on an outdated constitutional mandate, but a procedural technicality nonetheless.

[AngryAmish]

12. Then we are best rid of it.

[AngryAmish]

6. I have long opposed the Constitution. It is awful.

[randr]

8. I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not

One major difference between Democrats and Republicans is their differing opinions on the Constitution.
In a nut shell Republicans are more likely to accept literal interpretation of passages while Democrats see the document as a work in progress and are willing to make changes.
We always have the chance to improve it "in order to make a more perfect nation" so to speak.
Given that, without a Constitution to guide us we would be living in a complete state of chaos.

[malchickiwick]

9. The whole thing??

Granted it's got its faults, but as a whole it is one helluva basis for a system of government, IMHO

[randr]

15. We are closer than you think to losing it

The Republics will soon be able to call for a Constitutional Congress. At that point you can kiss your Constitution goodbye.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

7. It's Patently Unfair, But I See The Logic In It

As Howard Dean said back in 2004, without the Electoral College, no presidential candidate would ever bother to visit the small States. So in that way, I can see the logic behind the idea. It keeps people from sparsely populated States from essentially being ignored. However, the fact that it's even possible for a candidate with FEWER total votes to win makes it patently unfair. There needs to be a better system.

It's funny, because back in 2000 and 2004, when Republicans were afraid that their candidate would win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote, they were all on-board with the "abolish the Electoral College" idea. Even Drumpf himself said it was an unfair system.

Maybe we could tweak the system somehow to ensure that the winner of the popular vote has a distinct advantage. For example, give the winner of the popular vote a number of additional electoral votes. We could still have the 538 electoral votes doled out by the States, but then the popular vote winner would get, say, 50 additional electoral votes. I don't know, just spitballing here.

I do think the system needs to be overhauled, and I think a great way to start would be to wipe the slate clean and reallocate how many electoral votes each State actually SHOULD have based on population. I believe that a lot of red States have way too many electoral votes based on their population, and a lot of the more heavily populated States don't have enough electoral votes allotted to them. Get a new census done and then reallocate the votes so that each State's electoral totals more closely match their population.

[randr]

11. Campaigns no longer need to be run from the back of a train

A candidate can connect to all the electorate directly and instantly. The small state argument barely holds water when thinking of how much money states take in from campaign funds. One more reason to end the current system as I see it.
Smaller populated states are given a foot up in the Senate where they have equal representation is what is obviously the more powerful side of the Congressional House.
A President is selected to represent all Americans and not just one region or segment of population.
More people choose to live in metropolitan areas for many reasons. They should not be dismissed due to those choices.

[dsc]

14. So instead we ignore 3 of the largest 4 states

We literally never campaign in CA, NY, or TX. We also don't campaign in IL (6th) GA (8th).

[TexasBushwhacker]

13. When the EC was created the most and least populous states

differed by a factor of 20. Now it's almost 60. The least populous states already have their extra representation in the Senate and to a lesser degree in the House. Why does that have to carry over to the presidential election too?

I think that the "winner take all" aspect bothers me even more than the disproportionate representation. Why should my Democratic vote for President in Texas be meaningless, or a Republican's vote in California for that matter? That discourages people from voting in the non-swing states, and we should not do ANYTHING that discourages voting.