The Electoral College is ripe for reform

The Electoral College was a great compromise between the balance of power between large and small states. It was negotiated at the ratification convention in 1787 and is now in the constitution. So, without an amendment, we have to live with it. What the framers were unable to foresee, was the emergence of two political spectrums, how they would congregate in rural versus urban and the eventual tendency for the electoral college, with greater frequency, allow the minority vote to win the presidency. I assure you, having a minority rule was never the intent of the framers (more on this below), They believed that the vote and the EC would coincide, and in fact it did, for many years to follow and even then, only once in the 19th century was there a disparity. Given this fact, clearly majority on both sides (EC and actual vote count) was the intent. But, in the last 2 decades, it's occurred twice. Writ large, the electoral system is ripe for reform.

Wikipedia on Federalist 10:

Madison's nationalist position shifted the debate increasingly away from a position of pure state sovereignty, and toward the compromise.[8] In a debate on June 26, he said that government ought to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and that unchecked, democratic communities were subject to "the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions".[9]

"Protect against' does not equal 'minority control'. Because, if that were true, then flip argument is just as valid, 'the government ought to protect the majority of the opulent against the minority'. IF one is true, then why not the other? "Why not the other' is far more relevant and applicable today when we are talking about voting blocks of some 65 million or so, as they exist today, but did not exist in the late 18th century.

In essence, the EC was a compromise between the idea of absolute state sovereignty and overreaching federal power. Please note that there is nothing sacred nor reverent about any compromise, as they are, in a sense, necessary and inescapable undesirables where both sides widely disagree on a policy. What "Publius" feared the most were unruly factions with narrow agendas in the electorate taking control. This is the 'mob rule' Republicans famously fear. The right seems to argue that 'mob rule' equals the majority, but that idea does not actually exist anywhere in the Federalist papers. There is NO INTENT nor mention by the framers that the minority, the smaller vote, is supposed to be victorious. The opposite is actually true.

Thing is, today, given the size of the electorate, many many millions more than existed when the Constitution was ratified, each party's vote tally in the neighborhood of some 65 million or so, each, so, if one is honest and looks at the current situation as it really is, both sides, dems and repubs, are a consortium of factions, or 'mobs', if you will. In short, mobs are all we have today, they cannot be avoided, EC or otherwise, so any argument for the EC which says 'the EC solves mob rule problem' is a moot argument.

That can't be valid argument for 3 reasons: 1. The framers never claimed 'mob rule' was minority rule. 2. EC was a way to bolster the voice of smaller states. "Bolster' doesn't equal 'dominance', it just means, made stronger against the bigger states, to diminish the larger states tendency to dominate. 3. Today 'making the voice of small states stronger' is a moot point given that the larger states are 20 times the size of smaller states, who, even after 'making their voices stronger' has little effect given the disparity of size differences compared to the size differences, which were much less, at the time the constitution was ratified. Moot. Capiche? As it it no longer works the way it was intended due to the tremendous size differences and the emergence of right v left politics and the shifting demographics between large and small states comparing now to yesteryear

I think the confusion on the right stems from their misinterpreting what the framers meant by their fear of the 'tyranny of the majority'. What they never did, was seek minority rule, but what they actually did was TEMPER what they believed were the excesses of majority rule. They did this by establishing, in the constitution, a bicameral legislature--a senate and a house of representatives, the electoral college and requiring that the states model their governments similarly. Tempering, which is to say, smoothing out the excesses of majority rule does NOT equal 'favoring minority rule'. Especially when the minority and the majority are now in excess of 65 million people, which means that all we have now are factions, each side is a consortium of factions. Factions are now inescapable.

Another thing, when I make this argument, which is clear, makes sense, I'll present it to Republicans and many on the right who will, or appear to, totally ignore what I just wrote, and continue to spew their nonsense about 'mob rule'. completely misrepresenting what 'Publius' actually wrote, and they will totally ignore the point I just made, won't even comment on it. This happens every time I bring this argument up. They refuse to see what is in front of them. And if you are on the right and are about to make the same blunder, may a suggest that you either engage with me and debate the argument actually made herein, or ignore this post.

Republicans (a number of them, at least) cling to the false idea that the framers were okay with a minority winning, that the only figure that is important is the elector count, ignoring the fact that the popular vote has been tracked in every vote in history. so, if what they were saying is true, that the actual vote count (aka 'popular vote') didn't matter, why in hell has it been tracked in every election since the first election? Why in hell would Hamilton, say this in Federalist 22?

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail

Yes, of course it is a fact that only the electoral count elects the president, but that doesn't equal 'the popular vote doesn't matter'. It most certainly does not.

And when did Republicans and those on the right start making this argument, that the framers created the EC to prevent 'mob rule' as an argument to justify losing the popular vote? Interestingly enough, I started noticing it not long after a decade of them losing the popular vote for the president. Suddenly, they no longer care about the popular vote. So, they concocted this cocamamy argument so that they could feel better about losing the popular vote. But this is a specious argument, because the minority vote does not equal 'the will of the people',, and that it is a fundamental principle of a republican form of government (i.e., a representative democracy) that the sense of the majority should prevail. IF that is wrong, why in hell did Hamilton say it?

The fact that the electoral vote count occurring as a disparity of the actual vote count resulting in a situation where the elected president does not have will of the people, is occurring too often, where, historically speaking, it only occurred once in a century. It has occurred twice in a couple of decades. Clearly, the framers could not foresee the demographic shift of the nation which has occurred twe centuries later, that this has resulted in this tendency of EC v popular vote disparity, and thus the electoral college is ripe for reform, the sole point of this thread.

This takes me to discuss the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

1. What is the NPVIC?
   • The NPVIC is an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections.
   • It aims to address the disparities between the number of electors won by a candidate and the actual nationwide vote count.
2. How Does It Work?
   • Once enough states join the compact (representing a total of 270 electoral votes, which is the majority needed to win the presidency), it will take effect.
   • Under the NPVIC, participating states pledge to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of the individual state’s outcome.
3. Current Status (As of March 2024):
   • The NPVIC has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia.
   • These states collectively have 205 electoral votes, which constitutes 38.1% of the Electoral College.
   • While it’s not yet fully in effect, the compact is gaining momentum and could significantly impact future presidential elections123.
4. Debate and Challenges:
   • The NPVIC has sparked debates over its effects, constitutionality, and potential legal challenges.
   • Some argue that it ensures a more direct representation of voters’ preferences, while others raise concerns about its impact on smaller states and the Electoral College’s protective function1.

In summary, the NPVIC aims to make the presidential election process more reflective of the national popular vote, but its full implementation depends on additional states joining the compact. Stay tuned for further developments!

For more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-vote-plan-replace-electoral-college-n1247159
https://www.michiganpublic.org/poli...opular-vote-pact-sent-to-michigan-house-floor

Yes, Repubs, I know you hate this compact, but, rather than try and win by gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and resting on the laurels on the designs of an antiquated system, i.e., rely on the unavoidable lack of foresight of the framers, where the only way you can win elections is by systemic advantage, may I suggest that you guys try winning by selling something that most people actually want, and win by winning the hearts and minds of the people? Sound like a reasonable idea? I do. You should, too.

In a sense, this compact will force Repubs and 'conservatives' to do just that, and we'll all be the winners, dems and repubs vying equally for the hearts and minds of the electorate, and not being propped up by artifice out of weakness, and thus the compact will result in our eventual becoming more unified.

Isn't that what we all want?

 

Why do you say the founders didn't foresee some things when they actually certainly did. They never expected (and it never happens) that a minority of states would select the president. They deliberately chose and for good reason for the states to select presidents, not individual citizens.

When you say reform it sounds like you mean get rid of.

 

Ahh, another election year, another set of fantasies about NY and CALI deciding for the whole country. This is getting old.

 

Call it a hunch, but the mainstream left has zero respect for rural America and sees them as a pesky hurdle rather than human beings with the right for their voice to be heard.

 

There is no good reason for the states to select presidents. And Republicans would agree with this. Only problem is that they don't think they will ever obtain the majority of votes. And they may be right about that. Unless they change and start governing for the people and not for billionaires, for corporations and for themselves. They would actually need to start caring about the people. And even though the base of the Republican Party might one day realize that they ARE the ones who would benefit. But the top echelons of the party will have none of that.

 

Forget an amendment, that will never pass nor be ratified. But what states can do is reform how they award their electoral votes without any amendment. We have two states, Nebraska and Maine that use the congressional district method of awarding their electoral vote. Other states could adopt this on their own. But what I’d like to see is a modification of the winner take all states. The change I’d make is for a candidate to receive all of a state’s electoral votes, that candidate must win a majority of the vote in that state. 50% plus one vote. In states where no candidate receives a majority, then go by the congressional district method with the plurality winner of the state gaining the two electoral votes given to the state for its senators.


In 2020 there were but four states where a candidate failed to achieve a majority, but all their electoral votes were awarded to the plurality winner. Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin. But in 2016 none of these states did either Trump or Clinton receive a majority of their votes, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin. But the winner via a plurality received all these states electoral votes.

 

Two words: constitutional convention.

Want it changed? Pass an amendment to change it.

 

It was established this way for a good reason which is even more valid today. However, it makes little difference, it will not change because to change it requires cooperation from those little states which you do not want to have any influence.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that electors can't go against the will of the people of their state.

 

the EC is the best guard against Blue states flooding their polls with illegals. and even if those illegals don't vote, they will increase the representation in congress which is why democrats want illegals in the USA. the EC is sort of stopgap against that nonsense because it will take ten years for say a million extra illegals in california to change their EC votes. a million more illegals this year in california won't give california any more power in the 2024 elections but if we picked the presidents by popular vote-I am sure the blue states would be trying to enfranchise the illegals and they will count on their offspring 18 years from now to vote Democrat

 

These 6 states "out of 50", Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are the states needed to win the POTUS. So does some con wish to explain to me why you guys keep going on about New York and California?

 

you are assuming they will always be socialist leaning? and the left wants popular vote

 

The Electoral College helps maintain stability and prevent there from being disputed elections.

Each state is in charge of deciding who they will send to vote in the Electoral College.
Imagine what disputed elections would look like if the Electoral College didn't exist! There would be chaos and the country would come close to a Civil War in many elections.

The Electoral College is all about decentralizing political control over elections.

Ironically, even though those on the Left have been the ones calling to take down the Electoral College, their recent policies against Trump (especially in the state of Maine) have demonstrated the inherent problematic nature of what happens when you try to get rid of the winner-take-all system in each state. Maine is one of the unusual states in that it is not a winner-take-all state, and the candidate with fewer votes can still walk away with an Electoral College vote, but due to corruption and political intrigue, the majority (who dislike Trump in that state) are making sure he can't get that one Electoral College vote.

Maine obviously had good intentions when they set up their system, about fairness, but it was ultimately politically unrealistic.

By having a winner-take-all system in each state, it very much helps to reduce allegations of corruption and suppressing votes, eliminating disputes. Those 40% of voters who voted for the losing candidate in their state will not be complaining that the state illegally did not count their votes.

 

I think the real issue to discuss is how to work within the framework of the Electoral College system to eliminate the "winner-take-all" system.

That will require some creative thought and ideas.

Maybe create run-off elections, or allow each elector sent to the Electoral College to vote for two candidates instead of one in an initial round of voting, and then have a final round of voting.

Obviously, something like the President is more of an inherent "winner-take-all" system because there can only be one winner. In several other countries, multiple political parties negotiate together to decide who the President will be, but that eliminates "direct democracy" of deciding the President.

 

I disagree with you. I think the Electoral College was about more than compromise. Most people are not aware of the reasons the system was set up the way it was. When you go trying to mess with things without understanding the reasons why it work and was put together, there will be unintended consequences.

It is about stability, realism, and political functionality. If you Eliminate the Electoral College, who is going to run the elections?
Of course the Left has trouble seeing the problem with centralized control.

 

The irony is there's probably a larger percent of Republican voters in NY and CA than there are Democrat voters in Republican-voting states.
But the state authorities would probably try using corrupt tactics to suppress those votes within their state.

Under the current system, the minority votes are not counted and so there is no dispute (or the disputes are much less important and less frequent than they would actually be).

The argument about disproportionality applies much more to Senators than to the President, since for selection of the President, each state gets a number of votes in the Electoral College proportional to its state population.

 

That's horseshit. The EC does and cannot do anything to stop fraudulent voting. The EC only comes into play AFTER the election is over. You should know that counselor.

It's true that during a National Census all respondents are counted. BUT! There is absolutely NO proof that "Democrats want Illegals in the USA". Any thinking American looking at our history and the future sees that immigrants MADE AMERICA GREAT, they built it. Our "native" population growth, right now, is negative. Not as bad as some countries, China being the prime example, and they are facing economic disaster because of a shrinking work force.

U.S. has a SOLUTION knocking at our doors, again, and we're viewing it as a problem. We need to find ways to make that problem a workable solution.

IF your side supported immigration and helped them the could be YOUR votes and the whole nation would be better off for it.

There are far more Ag acres in red States than blue. IF it's really true that tRumpublicans are worried about voters they should give these farm workers good jobs and take care of them and they could grow their "base" by millions ... WITH a workforce they need anyway.

Not if you make them tRumpublicans first.

 

The problem with that is what happens when there are allegations of corruption and states cannot agree on who the winner of the "national popular vote" actually is and should be?

Another option that a just a couple of states have tried is awarding their Electoral College votes based on proportionality of the votes within their state, so not just one candidate gets all the Electoral College votes from that state. Currently the only two states with that system are Maine and Nebraska, which in most years balances out, with the Democrat getting one vote from Nebraska and the Republican getting one vote from Maine. Except this year with the state of Maine playing political intrigue and trying to prevent voters from being able to vote for the Republican candidate.

 

Since the POTUS is supposed to represent the will of the people, only the popular conveys this.

 

Maine and Nebraska already do it this way. All it takes is for a state legislature to pass a law duplicating Maine and Nebraska’s. Pennsylvania’s legislature a decade ago considered changing their winner take all to congressional district, but decided against it.

 

The president's job is represent all The People, to "faithfully execute the office of The President of The United States" and "preserve and protect and defend The Constitution of The United States". The "will of the people" has nothing to do with it.

It's the legislative Branch that represents the will of The People.

 

That seems the easiest solution, each state using the congressional districts. It's easier too since amendments are hard and this amendment would have a hard time getting through all of the states in the middle of the country who would disenfranchise themselves.

Plus it's likely that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) isn't constitutional.

 

That's fine in states with 2, or 3 congressional districts.

 

Losers always have to try and blame the system

 

He wants to get rid of it for the expressed purpose of minority rule.

With the primary reason that was created in the first place.