How Big of a Divergence between EC winner and Popular Vote winner will we tolerate?

[kennetha]

Ask yourself this question. How much of a divergence between the electoral college and the popular vote are Americans willing to tolerate. Gore beat Bush by 500,000 votes and almost certainly would have won the EC if the Florida vote had not been stopped by the Supremes. But the people accepted the outcome. Clinton beat Trump by nearly three million votes, but lost the EC. And the people have more or less accepted the outcome. Theoretically, the EC winner can lose the popular vote by a 4-1 margin. Would the people accept such an outcome? One would think not. So what's the tipping point? IF 10-15 million more people vote for the EC loser than the EC winner, would we accept that? What would the people DO in such a case? Would it matter if it was a democrat or a republican on the "losing" end?

[dawg]

1. There isn't much that can be done about it.

Perhaps some day, when things are very different, *we* will win the Presidency while losing the popular vote. Perhaps by narrowly carrying Florida and Arizona while losing Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania by landslides.

Maybe then, we could do the selfless thing and convince the Republicans to go along with us in abolishing the Electoral College.

But that is what it would take.

[pnwmom]

26. There is, and it wouldn't require abolishing the Electoral College.

If the votes were assigned proportionately, rather than winner-take-all (which is not required in the Constitution), then we wouldn't have this problem.

[lagomorph777]

30. National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

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

[dawg]

70. And, if you look at which states have signed on ...

you can clearly see that there is no red-state support for this at all.

It will have to happen to *them* before there will be any possibility of reforming this defect in our system.

[lagomorph777]

72. It might happen to them next - who knows Putin's next move?

I wouldn't be surprised if he's tiring of Trump's antics.

[customerserviceguy]

76. It won't happen to "them"

The smallest states that have the most disproportionate impact in the EC are pretty much all red states. If a Democratic candidate were to win even a minority of them, the popular votes from the blue states would be overwhelming, just like when Lyndon Johnson did it in 1964.

[dawg]

78. Which is why we are probably *stuck* with the damned electoral college.

[customerserviceguy]

79. Yes, it's 100% in the Constitution

The way to win elections is to mount a fifty state campaign, both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama showed us that it was possible in modern times.

[sarah FAILIN]

2. It won't matter till it happens to a republican.

We all know it.

[kennetha]

3. And why exactly is that?

Because they are more determine and less principled than we?

[sarah FAILIN]

4. Probably so

We follow the rules. They pitch fits and refuse to do what they don't want to do.
We barely got anything passed that was "small" due to their refusal to cooperate. They won't get rid of the EC till it suits them.

[Irish_Dem]

6. Because they are corrupt con artists. And will whine endlessly when the rules work against them.

But they use the same rules as weapons against Dems and the American people.

[SharonAnn]

9. Reference the "Brooks Brothers Riot" in Miami about 2000 recount.

They were all Republican staffers and party people who were flown in to stage this riot.

That's what they do.

If they needed guns to do this, they would bring them.

[BzaDem]

15. Because changing the Constitution requires the agreement of Republicans?

You don't get 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states, without the agreement of Republicans. (Along with the agreement of the small states that benefit disproportionately from the current system.)

[kennetha]

19. Did throwing off British Rule require the agreement of the Crown?

Sometimes revolutionary resistance is called for.

Did throwing off Jim Crow require the agreement of the South?

Did throwing off Slavery require the agreement of the South?

Sometimes you just have to say no more.

On the flip side, you do realize that after the Civil War and the passage of the 13, 14, and 15 amendments to the Constitution -- which only passed because the South had no say in the matter -- that the South basically nullified those amendments in practice for about the next 100 years.

Politics in America has never been played by Marquis of Queensbury Rules. It's a blood sport. Much blood, sweat and tears, have been spent trying to perfect the Union. Getting us to a place where we respect the principle of one person-one vote more fully will require similar blood, sweat and tears, a long twilight struggle. But a struggle very much worth the effort.

[BzaDem]

20. Seriously? A violent revolution because you don't like the current electoral system?

Plenty of democratic countries do not have a popular-vote system for electing their chief executive, or anything close. You bring up Great Britain. Do you know anything about their electoral system? The more liberal parties routinely get far more votes than the conservative parties, while still losing the election.

There will be no violent revolution over the electoral college, and anyone proposing such an absurd idea would not be taken seriously. Your examples are instructive, but not for the reasons you may think:

* Since the very people who overthrew the crown were the people that set up our current system, I'm not sure much more needs to be said about your first example.

* The Civil War occurred because one segment of the country decided not to abide by the laws of our current system that elected Abraham Lincoln as president. The side that revolted was the side that lost.

* Ending Jim Crow did not require a constitutional amendment. It was done completely within the current system, with an assist from a unanimous Supreme Court. Do you think there will ever be a Supreme Court that rules the electoral college -- created entirely by the Constitution itself -- is somehow unconstitutional? If so, do you think anyone would take such a court seriously, or follow their ruling?

[kennetha]

24. Your history is completely rose-colored history.

and you apparently have no idea about the principle of one-person one vote.

[PAMod]

61. One quibble with your last point -

It's not too far-fetched to believe that the SCOTUS could someday rule on how an individual state or states choose(s) electors, based on 14th amendment protections, leaving the EC in place, while blunting its weird impact.

Specifically I'm thinking about the effect of 'winner-take-all' on the 'one-man, one vote' principal.

I don't expect to see it anytime soon, just bringing it up to point out that the EC is not invincible...

[BzaDem]

62. That wouldn't address the OP's concern.

Even if every state divvied up their electoral votes proportionately, Trump still would have won. And more generally, we would still have situations where the winner of the popular vote loses the election. This is unfortunate, but actually pretty unremarkable in modern democracies (the OP's repeated incantations of "one person one vote" notwithstanding).

[kennetha]

67. So you don't think the legitimacy of the voting system matters to a democracy?

Wow.

[Proud liberal 80]

5. I agree

[Mister Ed]

7. An unlimited divergence, until and unless the Constitution is amended.

It's the highest law of the land, and it lays out the rules for the Electoral College. The only alternatives to tolerating an EC divergence are constitutional amendment, or insurrection.

[kennetha]

8. Well, duh. At some point, the majority would refuse

to acknowledge the legitimacy of a president that was forced on them by a merely formal mechanism.

It is possible to win the EC while losing the popular vote 77 % - 23%.

I doubt that most people know that or that most would tolerate it.

The EC is an outmoded anachronism designed to protect the slave holding south from the weight of the free north.

It has no real place in a modern democracy.

[BzaDem]

21. No one will ever win the EC while losing the popular vote 77%-23%.

Just because something can mathematically happen does not mean it ever will. The maximum divergence will likely be in the low single digits, which is far less than the divergence between the popular vote and outcome in many other democratic countries.

[lagomorph777]

31. No one will ever hack the election from a foreign country.

oh wait...

[bearsfootball516]

38. You cant use the occurrence of one extreme situation to legitimacize the possibility of another

It’s a logical fallacy.

[lagomorph777]

39. The occurrence I cite will be the METHOD of the electoral hack.

precisely because Putin succeeded the first time, he is now completely unimpeded as his work continues. Next time will be bigger and more successful.

[kennetha]

66. The electoral college ENCOURAGES and REWARDS

strategic voter suppression and voter fraud.

In this system, a little voter suppression/fraud in the right places can swing an election against the will of the majority.

It is utterly INSANE.

[pnwmom]

27. It wouldn't have to be amended, if states with 270 electoral votes all agreed

to vote for the popular vote winner.

Or if all states assigned their votes proportionately, rather than winner-take-all.

[WPB_dem]

77. Really, do you want to be an elected official in NY, MA, or CA

... when they have to cast their electoral votes for the Republican?

This would bring about blood in the streets and rioting and would certainly hurt Democratic candidates.

[pnwmom]

80. They might change their minds after the first time our candidate

lost the EC despite a 10 or 20 million popular vote win.

When a mathematical analysis of this was done, it showed that with the wins of certain states, it would be possible to win with only 23% of the popular vote.

[TheFrenchRazor]

58. time to start pushing for an amendment then; if it never gets started, then obviously it

it will never happen. yes, it may take a while, but i think the time has come.

[Demsrule86]

10. As if we can do anything about it...

[kennetha]

11. The EC is not some inviolable god given fixity of our politics

What was made, can be unmade

[Demsrule86]

12. Not without an amendment to the constitution and that isn't going to happen.

[kennetha]

13. Don't bet on it

[Demsrule86]

41. Think about this logically. Do think small states will vote for ratification...assuming it made it

through congress which it won't. Why would they?

[BzaDem]

65. Because if they don't, some people are going to be upset and disappointed.

They might even claim that the republic is "illegitimate." Their outrage will cause the small states to vote give up their power.

[tymorial]

33. Don't bother

Kenneth's opinion is firmly entrenched and isn't interested in discussion. I've already observed insult as a response to posts he doesn't like.

[Demsrule86]

50. I have no idea how these folks expect Democrats to do the stuff they want...and I weary of their

impossible demands.

[BzaDem]

16. Actually, it kind of is.

The amendment process is even more heavily weighted than the electoral college. Changing the Constitution requires those who benefit disproportionately from the current system to nearly-unanimously give up their power. The country could be 2-1 in favor of such an amendment, and it would still be easily shut down without a consensus among both major parties.

It doesn't get much more inviolable than that.

Furthermore, it is naive in the extreme to assume that something can be unmade just because it is made. The borders of all countries have been "made" as well. Good luck trying to "unmake" them just because they were "made".

[kennetha]

18. this is an infantile defeatism

America was a nation born of Revolution. Unfortunately, too many Americans are blind to the real power of their own political agency. If the vast majority of Americans simply say no, the Constitution will change or the Republic will lose all legitimacy.

We are not sheep to submissively bow and scrape before the makers of the world as if they were gods.

[tymorial]

36. You fail to consider population, geographic, cultural and societal changes

You cite historical events without placing them into context of the time.

[Demsrule86]

42. That sound great but it won't work

It is not 1776 anymore. How are people going to show their lack of consent? If people would vote, it would not be an issue...close elections are the problem.

[BzaDem]

64. Yeah, let me know how that goes for you. n/t

[kennetha]

68. So you don't think the legitimacy of the voting system in a democracy

is a thing worth fighting for.

That kind of thinking leads to authoritarianism.

[JI7]

14. if the Results were switched around and Trump had won popular by Millions and Hillary had won EC

we would never stop hearing about it . the fucked up media would always be reporting about how the people did not vote for clinton and what she is going to try to do for the country that did not support her.

they would be kissing trump's disgusting fucking asshole claiming he represents the people.

[Ken Burch]

23. In the run-up to 2000, there seemed to be a real possiblility that Bush might win the popular vote

while Gore carried the EC(i.e., sort of the opposite of the actual result, in which Gore carried the popular vote but Bush carried the Supreme Court)...and I remember(though there probably aren't links to this online given the date) right-wing groups calling for mass protests to push electors to defy their states' wills and elect Bush.

So you're right-we would never have heard the last of it, and that might have created the conditions for an outright fascist takeover.

[kennetha]

28. Yes, I remember this too. The GOP planned to raise bloody hell if that happened.

Democrats are tame sheep. Republicans are ferocious predators.

[Ken Burch]

35. Absolutely.

As a party, we rarely fight with the same passion and unapologetic conviction in the validity of our principles as the RIGHT does.

We need to fight FOR, to fight to win the argument.

[NurseJackie]

63. That's total bullshit and you know it! Stop it! Stop smearing the Democratic party.

As a party, we rarely fight with the same passion and unapologetic conviction in the validity of our principles as the RIGHT does.

That's total bullshit and you know it! Stop it! Stop smearing the Democratic party.

We need to fight FOR, to fight to win the argument.

We already do that! Please stop with the smears against the Democratic party and against Democratic candidates and our elected Democratic officials.

It serves absolutely no good purpose to continually repeat these anti-Democratic party talking points. None of it is true.

[Demsrule86]

45. No, they would have whined and cried... and screwed Gore everyway they could as they do

all Democratic presidents. And there would be no war or United...the so called left (Greens) fucked that one up badly.

[Ken Burch]

47. Don't equate "the left" and "the Greens"

The Greens are just one manifestation of the left.

The Sanders phenomenon had nothing to do with the Greens, and represented a much larger bloc of voters than the Greens.

I don't defend Ralph's decision to keep campaigning in marginal states in '00, or really the idea of his running at all. But it's not as simple as saying "the Greens were wrong". There also needs to be some acknowledgment that this party treated progressives and progressive ideas as the enemy in the Nineties and left those people totally out in the cold. You'd have to hold the Dem approach to progressives at least partially responsible for causing Nader's races. The takeaway is that we have an obligation never to go that far to the right again, and I think MOST Dems accept that as the proper conclusion.

Not sure what you're disagreeing with in the post you responded to, btw-what I was saying they'd do is essentially what you're saying they'd do-and they would have started with mass "protests" where they'd have essentially had huge right-wing lynch mobs showing up at state capitols pressuring electors pledged to Gore to elect Bush instead.

What I was saying was in agreement with what you were saying, not disagreement.

[Demsrule86]

52. I do equate them...the left left (JPR types) and greens teamed up in 16 and helped

defeat Hillary Clinton. I am tired of the whining and incessant impossible demands. I have no idea what party they belong to or if they belong to a party...but they helped elect Trump. And they seem to be continuing to cause trouble. I don't mean progressive such as you and me. But there are others who don't seem to understand the difference between a GOP and a Dem. And they are always holding someone's feet to the fire, never GOP someones of course. And thy cause losses and damage the progressive movement regardless of their intent...and I have to wonder if that is their intent.

[Ken Burch]

53. You know perfectly well I don't defend JPR or the Greens.

Kindly don't ever confuse me with those two entities, ok?

I'm speaking of the much larger group whose votes we COULD win(or who we could turn into voters) in large measure by doing some different things with the way we communicate.

These are people who were drawn to politics by Bernie, and who we need to connect with.

[Demsrule86]

56. I have not said you were like them...JPR started because of Bernie...as you may remember. They are

part of the group you want us to cater to in a year we need to win red states... I say know...we need to win or there won't be a progressive movement.

[Ken Burch]

60. JPR is a tiny handful of people from what I hear(I never go there and refused to join when asked)

They've alienated a lot of folks who used to listen to them. Frankly, it's hard for me to believe they have much of an impact.

And with what they did in '16, I'd guess the Greens dug their own grave.

I wasn't saying try to reach the hardline anti-Dem types-more the people who haven't found a political home and are looking for a space where their ideas will be treated with respect, where they will be able to work for what they want in a positive way.

And to try to connect with the poor in most states-a group neither party has made any effort to bring to the polls.

As to red states, why assume that nominating centrists is the way to go? We've BEEN nominating centrists in most of those states for decades and they've generally gone down in flames. Doug Jones was kind of moderate, but he's also a civil rights hero for prosecuting the Birmingham church bombers and has been outspokenly pro-choice. He won in part BECAUSE voters thought he stood for something better.

We need to win-the way to win is to connect with voter discontent AND to provide a real alternative to things that cause that discontent. And campaigning for progressive policies is a way to look strong and tough and to convey a sense of leadership.

As Naomi Klein puts it "No Is Not Enough".

[struggle4progress]

17. On average, the existing 27 amendments to the constitution were passed at a rate

of one every seven-and-a-half years

It's been 26 years since the last amendment, so there's nothing obviously impossible about passing a few more in the near future

[mythology]

43. The first 10 shouldn't really count in that list

They were more or less required to get the constitution ratified. The decision to include the Bill of Rights wasn't made until after the constitution was finalized and the constitutional convention ended and it was easier to add the amendments (which were effectively the bill of rights from the Virginian constitution).

[Ken Burch]

22. In every state where the initiative process exists

We can push for measures requiring electoral votes to be distributed proportionally. Proportional distribution would have made a big difference in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania...as well as in the South(although the initiative process doesn't exist in most of those states).

It's one way to at least reduce the possibility of "wrong winner" outcomes.

[kennetha]

25. Plus there is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

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

Agreed to by 11 states so far. Becomes active when states totaling 270 EV's commit.

[MoonchildCA]

32. This would backfire if not implemented in every state.

For instance, if California implemented it, and Texas did not, we might not win another presidential election in years to come.
I, for one, as a Californian, would never vote for that initiative, as much as I like it in theory.

[kennetha]

34. This makes no sense. If states totaling 270 EV adopt it.

Then the popular vote winner will be the winner. Period. There would be nothing the hold out states could do about it. They could trying going to the Supreme Court. But the Constitution gives States plenary power to select electors as they choose. They don't even have to hold a plebiscite at all.

What sort of scenario are you imagining in which it backfires?

[Ken Burch]

37. Probably that it would only be adopted in "blue" states.

Which is why I suggested the first efforts be made in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania(also, now that I think of it, Iowa, and Florida as well if that state HAS the initiative process).

[MoonchildCA]

40. If its voted for by individual states in the initiative process...

...as suggest in this post, and it passes in California, but not enough republican leaning states totaling a similar electoral count, California is splitting their 55 electoral votes, how do we make that up?
Even if the state goes 60/40 Democrat, we end up losing 22 electoral votes. If Texas does not vote to split, and they go 55/45 Republican, they keep all their electoral votes.
We can’t risk splitting our 55 electoral votes, which are solidly ours, when we have no control over how the rest of the states award theirs.
Republicans would love California to split their vote, in fact they’ve brought up this initiative before.

[Demsrule86]

46. I am absolutely against that. The GOP won't do it and we will lose votes...we won't gain Georgia's

votes but we will lose votes from Connecticut and New York.

[Ken Burch]

51. It's why I suggested doing it in the marginal states.

It would have made a huge difference in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania if the electoral votes there were distributed proportionately.

[Demsrule86]

57. don't do it at all. Everywhere or nowhere.

[Atman]

29. Democrats never fight back because we're afraid we'll look like them.

Sad truth. If the tables were turned, Republicans would fight like hell and eliminate the Electoral College. Democrats sigh and say "Well, those are the rules." Republicans don't care about the rules, they never have. Unless it's a rule that benefits them personally. Republicans are all about "ME." Democrats are about the greater good, and get roundly ridiculed for it. As such, we seem to be afraid to stand up and fight, because Democrats don't fight. We have picnics and try to find the good in people. Meanwhile, Republicans laugh at use and kick sand into our picnic baskets as the march off to the halls of power.

[Demsrule86]

48. It is not possible to get rid of the electoral college.Certainly not by one party.

What you are asking for is impossible...and typical for those who attack the party...ask for the impossible and then opine that Democrats are worthless when they can't do it ...so self defeating. Sit down and look at what we can get right now. Oh gosh that would be nothing as we don't have a majority or the presidency.

[Atman]

54. You clearly know nothing about me.

I won awards for my work to elect Obama. Most recently I worked for Ralph Northam's victory in Virginia. You apparently are misinterpreting my post. That's okay. I know passions get stoked during these times. I am the exact opposite of self-defeating.

[Demsrule86]

55. I don't quite understand your response. I was saying one party can't do it all...

And that smaller states will never go along with it. Good job by the way in Virginia and of course with Obama.

[Atman]

59. Well...

What you are asking for is impossible...and typical for those who attack the party...ask for the impossible and then opine that Democrats are worthless when they can't do it ...so self defeating. Sit down and look at what we can get right now. Oh gosh that would be nothing as we don't have a majority or the presidency.


You appear to say that I'm attacking the party, asking for the impossible, and saying Democrats are worthless. I never said any such thing. I want us to fight like hell. I know we're not worthless, and I know we have some great candidates out there -- outside the old Hillary/Bernie/Joe universe. But the best candidate in the world won't do us much good if we don't stand up and fight for what we believe in. The Republicans don't care about anything but winning so they can give themselves more tax cuts, and therefore they will do anything to win. It's our Achilles heel. We play nice and by the rules, always thinking that our good example will lead them to be good, too. Of course, it never happens. They play nasty and are willing to roll in the gutters as long as they make a buck off of it.

[kennetha]

71. It's not a matter of party

the principle of one person-one vote transcends party. This would not be a PARTISAN struggle. It would be a struggle to renew our Democracy. You are thinking too small, framing the issue too narrowly. This is a FOUNDATIONAL issue about the nature of our Republic.

[Cosmocat]

44. a 1 point EV win over someone who had a 50 million vote PV win is perfectly fine

as along as the prior was an R.

If a D were to win the EV by 100 vote and lose the PV by one, it would be a travesty to democracy.

See, states with less than 1,000,000 people getting two senators being just peachy cause they are true americans.

[Demsrule86]

49. I have no doubt the Repugs would cry and whine...but there would be nothing they can do.

Small states are not going to give up the power of the EC.

[kennetha]

69. They will if we make them.

The majority doesn't have to just meekly accept the tyranny of the rural minority, as if we were mere sheep.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

73. You seem to completely gloss over the different purpose of the senate and the house

They have different methods of determining how many each state gets for a reason. A similar reason to the different terms. The senate is supposed to be a balance to the highly volatile house. It's a good thing.

[Cosmocat]

74. You seem to misrepresent my point

I didn't post that their should be to equally proportionate distribution of senators.


Point stands, when the the Founders set the shop up, there wasn't as mach as an 80 to 1 population difference in states.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

75. They had at least 10:1

And Virginia didn't bitch about Delaware having 2 senators.

If you aren't saying there should be proportionate distribution of senators, then what did you mean by:

See, states with less than 1,000,000 people getting two senators being just peachy cause they are true americans.

[ck4829]

81. K&R. Good question. Sad to see many people OK with oppression though.