The electoral college is in trouble

[dajoki]

The electoral college is in trouble
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-electoral-college-is-in-trouble/2019/08/28/ba2b3a8c-c98f-11e9-be05-f76ac4ec618c_story.html?commentId=26ed2c27-7748-4adf-8d56-4f27a0f7739e


The assumptions underlying a controversy are often more important than the controversy itself.

Take the case of our blithe acceptance of the electoral college. There is nothing normal or democratic about choosing our president through a system that makes it ever more likely that the candidate who garners fewer votes will nonetheless assume power. For a country that has long claimed to model democracy to the world, this is both wrong and weird.

And there is also nothing neutral or random about how our system works. The electoral college tilts outcomes toward white voters, conservative voters and certain regions of the country. People outside these groups and places are supposed to sit back and accept their relative disenfranchisement. There is no reason they should, and at some point, they won’t. This will lead to a meltdown.

<<snip>>

This means that the country could render a negative verdict on Trump’s time in office by swinging away from him in a big way — and he would still be president for four more years.

Defenders of such a departure from one-person, one-vote say that if Democrats run up big leads in a few states and regions — especially California but also, say, New York, Illinois and New England — that shouldn’t count. Their strained claim is that a president is somehow more “representative” of the country if he wins by eking out tiny margins in several Midwestern states. This transforms our democracy into a casino. If you narrowly hit the right numbers in some places, you take the pot.

What they are really defending, without explicitly saying so, is the idea that states with a higher percentage of white, non-Hispanic voters should have a disproportionate influence on who becomes president.

As a short-term strategic matter, Cohn is right to stress the importance to the 2020 result of states that were closely divided in 2016. But while I have great affection for the Midwest, I see no just reason for an individual voter in California having far less power than an individual voter in, say, Wisconsin or Michigan.

And the system’s bias toward white voters only encourages Trump’s habit of dividing the country along racial lines. So in addition to being undemocratic, the electoral college encourages a particularly odious politician with no interest in uniting the country to do all he can to promote minority rule.

At some point, the majority will rise up. If Cohn’s worst-case-for-democracy scenario materializes, 2020 could be that year. Our founders admitted that the electoral college system they created in the original Constitution was defective by altering it with the 12th Amendment in 1804 . It’s time we followed their lead in showing the same willingness to scrap a system that is sending us headlong into a national crisis.

[awesomerwb1]

1. Ding ding ding ding

"What they are really defending, without explicitly saying so, is the idea that states with a higher percentage of white, non-Hispanic voters should have a disproportionate influence on who becomes president. "

[Dennis Donovan]

2. Once Trump is out of office, steps will NEED to be taken to assured none of this ever happens again!

The elimination of the EC is a start (since it's inherently anti-democratic).

But, both the 25th amendment AND criteria for impeachment will have to be revisited and changed in ways that won't allow for abuse, but allows for the removal of a POTUS who is completely unfit as Trump has proven to be.

[Joe941]

30. The constitution has a large amount of racism baked in.

I just don't see how we can ever change it.

[customerserviceguy]

52. Trump has nothing to do

with the Electoral College being in place. Officially, a President has absolutely no role in passing a Constitutional amendment. It's supermajorities in the House, the Senate, and a super-super majority in the states that make or break a proposed amendment.

All that needs to happen to keep the EC in place is for thirteen states to say, "Naw, we like things the way they've been for over 225 years now." And we have at least thirteen states with five or fewer EC votes who would feel that way.

[wryter2000]

3. The Senate is even worse

Together, California and New York have the same number of votes as the Dakotas. (Not talking about an apartment building here.)

[DENVERPOPS]

4. You nailed it on the head

North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, etc etc etc The "one person, one vote" is total bullshit in the Senate.
A vote in any one of these puny states equals like 1800 votes in California, New York, etc etc............

[aggiesal]

25. Growing up, in my government class ...

We were taught that the House gave the power to the big states, because they got more representatives,
while the Senate gave more power to the little states, because every state onlys get 2 representatives, regardless of its size.
This was by design.

I never really saw it as an issue until about the last 20 years, when we've become too polarized.
Where in the past, parties would compromise to get things passed and move forward, now the (R)'s
will only compromise when the (D)'s agree with their terms.

[maddiemom]

38. Getting rid of Mitch McConnell and the Speaker's "one man veto" would also be a big help.

Several times recently, I've heard or read the same opinion: the Constitution does not provide for majority and minority leaders in Congress. It CERTAINLY does not give ONE MAN in the Senate total veto power of any bill passed by the House. This was not the way it is supposed to work!

[jmowreader]

40. Exactly

The large states wanted proportional representation, which the House has. The small states wanted equal representation, which the Senate has.

[Spider Jerusalem]

60. Which today results in Senators fromm states representing 16% of the population...

being able to block the will of the other 84% and vote to confirm judicial nominees whose views don't represent a majority of Americans. Whatever the justification was in 1788, it's clearly horrendously broken at this point. Honestly the best thing that could happen to the Senate would be for it to be either abolished or neutered (as happened to the also-undemocratic British House of Lords).

[jmowreader]

64. I can't agree on the desire to get rid of the Senate

Can you imagine the atrocities the Tea Party House, or the one we had the first two years of Trump, would have passed into law if we had no Senate to stop them?

I think we need to add one senator to each state’s delegation for every 5 million people, get rid of legislation limiting the size of Congress, and make the body nonpartisan. As to the House, use the Wyoming Multiple method of apportionment: divide your state’s population by Wyoming’s, throw away everything after the decimal, and that’s how many congressmen you get.

Another thing: declare the US Congress and the White House to be articles of interstate commerce, which will allow uniform election regulation to be implemented.

And if these quarterwits want Internet-connected electronic voting, let’s make this for something good: in the Year of The GOP’s Lord 2019, it is an atrocity that I cannot walk into any polling place in America, show my ID card, receive a freshly printed ballot for my local races, vote it with a pen, scan it in and have my votes register at my own county’s election office.

[customerserviceguy]

53. Not a bug, it's a feature

It was designed to ensure consensus between the people (as represented somewhat proportionally by the House) and the states, which were once upon a time considered distinct political entities, each entitled to its own consensus within it's borders.

California and New York knew that when the Dakotas were granted statehood in 1889, but they let them in anyway. In fact, before those two states existed, they were together in one Dakota Territory, which if not divided, would have halved the number of Senators from that area.

[PSPS]

5. LOL. "At some point, the majority will rise up." Yeah, sure. But who's on dancing with the stars?

[maxsolomon]

26. Precisely.

Rise up how, where?

Rise up and demanding a Constitutional Amendment? That's a long, arduous Legislative path that Republics won't take.

America = fucked.

[PatrickforO]

6. Four happy words:

National

Popular

Vote

Compact

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Support it in your state. All we need is a few more states to pass it and we do an end-run around the EC.

[saidsimplesimon]

7. Thank you Patrick, I will support a National Popular Vote

[Polybius]

8. If it holds up in court

It would certainly be challenged on its constitutionality.

[PatrickforO]

9. Sure it will.

That doesn't mean we should get enough states to enact it. I'm not sure it would be overturned, and anyway we've got to try.

[LiberalFighter]

11. How would it be different than what Maine and Nebraska do?

Maine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes based on congressional district outcome. I don't believe that has been challenged.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. I believe the constitutional questioning arises from the actual compact...

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the U.S. Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".

Whether that makes it unconstitutional is completely uncertain.

[LiberalFighter]

23. Easy solution

Just require the votes be based on the election results regardless of what other states do.

[Joe941]

33. People really don't know what is in the constitution...

Admittedly I probably could learn a lot if I sat down and read it and studied it. But the level of ignorance on government it astounding - even in the basics. That is one of the biggest issues we face today.

[PatrickforO]

58. Yeah, I hear that. It has always tickled me how those Tea Party

Freedom Caucus people always carry a little constitution around in their pockets, but in spite of that are appallingly ignorant of pretty much everything.

[Polybius]

35. It hasn't been challenged because it never changed an election

That might not hold up either if a person wins by one electoral vote, and one of those states split, despite the majority voting for the runner up in that state.

[wryter2000]

12. California

I believe we approved it

[aikoaiko]

20. This sounds like a great solution if enough red or purple states sign on.

I'm sure it will catch on with blue states.

[elocs]

10. Saying that the Electoral College is in trouble doesn't mean it is in trouble.

I don't think it is in trouble anytime soon.

What would have created a bipartisan move to change it would have been if John Kerry had won an electoral victory but lost the popular vote. Only then would Republicans have been motivated to change it.

But let's be honest here...had Hillary Clinton become president like Trump did, winning the electoral vote but losing the popular vote, would we be hearing all of this whinging about getting rid of the Electoral College now? I doubt it.

[dajoki]

16. The last two repubs lost the popular vote n/t

[elocs]

47. Except we elect our presidents by the electoral vote, not the popular vote.

Of the last 2 Republicans elected president, only Trump lost the popular vote because Bush beat Kerry by 3 million votes in 2004. But, had Kerry managed to win Ohio he would have had an electoral victory while decisively losing the popular vote. Had that happened, in 2 elections in a row there was an electoral victory with a popular vote loss by both parties which might have resulted in a real effort to change the EC.

[dajoki]

48. Bush v Gore n/t

[elocs]

49. But Bush was reelected president in 2004 and won the popular vote that election. n/t

[dajoki]

61. But the whole thing was sketchy n/t

[Joe941]

56. I read a story that said it possible tRump could lose popular vote by 4-5 pts...

And still win the EC!

[JonLP24]

43. I wanted to get rid of the EC before 2016

[PRETZEL]

13. I'm of the opinion that it's not the EC in general,

it's the way states decide who are the electors.

In all but a couple of states, it's winner take all. I happen to believe this is more the impetus for the desire to get rid of the EC.

The EC was set up in order for states to have electors based on the number of Congressional seats they have. I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is that any Presidential candidate gets full benefit of getting all a states electoral votes no matter how slight a margin of victory.

[exboyfil]

31. Since gerrymandering is perfectly ok per the SC

I don't see splitting up the EC as a long term solution. It would make the situation better, but you still have the gerrymander and the two extra two Senate votes to proportion (winner take all in Maine and Nebraska) that still skews the representation away from California, Texas, New York etc.

Did the founding fathers envision the largest state being 67 times larger than the smallest state?

[PRETZEL]

34. We are starting to see gerrymandering being successfully challenged,

but in the sense that representative districts individually electing the EC representative was not necessarily what I envisioned. Since I live in PA, I'll use this as my example of how I would see proportional representation. PA has 20 EC votes. Trump won the state so he would get the 2 allotted for the Senators. He would then be allocated 9 votes since that was the amount based on his popular vote total. Sec. Clinton would be allocated 9 votes based on her popular vote total.

And actually, I do think the Founding Fathers did envision this, but in their case, Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania would have been their reference points.

[customerserviceguy]

54. I don't have my finger on them now

but I've read about studies where if EC votes were divided up by Congressional District (as with Nebraska and Maine) that the outcomes of the 2000 and 2016 would have been the same.

Please remember that every blue state contains some red Congressional Districts, and in a few cases, a lot of them. Yes, we would pick up the blue areas of red states, but the loss of red districts in blue states would make up for that. Also, it allows gerrymandering to become a factor in Presidential elections, which is not the case now.

[PRETZEL]

62. Didn't realize that there wouldn't have been a change to the outcomes

in 2000 and 2016, so that is a very valid point.

As for gerrymandered districts, my point in that regard is that the number of EC votes would be based solely on popular vote totals, not individual districts. Under this scenario, I don't believe gerrymandering would come into play.

[docgee]

14. Saying the electoral college is biased towards white people is not accurate.

Just because Wyoming and Idaho are mostly white does not make the electoral college racist. The issue is it's not representative of the population. Bringing race into this argument kind of distorts the issue. States like Wyoming should be getting less than half an electoral vote instead of 3.

[stopdiggin]

24. agree, and disagree

the bias is toward less populous states (but going back to the origins, I think you can make a pretty good argument that that "bias" was set up as deliberate attempt to protect a certain "class" if not race). The more egregious problem with the EC is that the "winner take all" allocation perverts the intentions of the voters (i.e. the popular vote). But -- you can, again, make the argument that the original intent never was a "popular vote" democracy.

In any event -- in practical terms I think we're a rather long way from any sort of resolution here. Dems better concentrate or learning how to prevail within the current system. Right or wrong, I think we're stuck with it.

[customerserviceguy]

55. What was racist about the EC

is that people who were not able to vote were "represented" in reapportionment after each Census. The South wanted enslaved people counted as a full person, the North wanted them to not be counted at all. The infamous 3/5ths compromise was arrived at to give the South most of what it wanted, and the North a bit of what it wanted.

Where did I learn that from? Professor Angela Davis. Yes, that Angela Davis. It ensured that for the first 48 years of the existence of the United States under the Constitution, the President came from a slaveholding state for all but eight of them (the Adamses). Even after that, up until the Civil War, the only other Presidents from non-slaveholding states were Van Buren for four years, Buchanan for four years (he was OK with slavery) and Fillmore and Pierce each for four years. Aside from John Adams, those are not considered our greatest Presidents in American history.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. The Electoral College won't ever be in trouble until a Republican president loses it...

...but wins the popular vote.

This almost happened in 2004. Kerry lost to Bush by a somewhat comfortable margin nationally but had he won Ohio, he would've been elected president. It was almost the same result as 2016, but with the Democrat instead of the Republican winning. Had that happened, I think you'd start to see a push.

Problem is, I think it's becoming increasingly unlikely the GOP can win the national popular vote. They've literally lost it now in six of the last seven elections.

[grantcart]

27. The EC is here to stay, thinking that it can be changed, even by the compact is wistful

The OP suggests that the majority will take action

Unfortunately it will take a super majority to pass change in any form.

And here is the great irony, if We get a super majority that means we are winning elections my big majorities and won't need to change.

[exboyfil]

32. And Trump whined about it and complained about the legitimacy

when it appeared that Romney was going to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.

[suston96]

18. A RE-CONSTITIONAL Convention......

The oft blessed and accursed founders left us with a republic (''if we could keep it'')Benjamin Franklin muttered to a lady at the door to convention hall who had asked:

"What kind of a government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?"

"A republic, Madam - if you can keep it".

There was trouble from the start.

The document designing the new republic, failed to preface with a Declaration of Rights, which James Madison, the leader pf the Constitutional effort designed to allegedly "repair" the severely inadequately designed Confederation articles, promising to complete and append them them to the completed proposed new Constitution.

There was little effort to repair anything. It was time to create a new form of government.

A republic, powered directly from, for and by the people, which they could accept or change at will, unfettered by ancient traditional guidances and pressures of historical governances and failures.

The amendment process we are left with is useless. It is time to complete the process started in 1787 and to reconstitute and repair what can be or start over again carefully avoiding the same pitfalls driven by the political parties and ambitions that caused the present failures that prevent fulfillment of the dream of efficient and rewarding self-government.

[matt819]

19. Tyranny of the Minority

My wife keeps using that term. If I was not as lazy as I am, I'd google it and see where it came from. But, as is always the case, she's right.

As for the various constitutional arguments - hey, it's in the constitution, so fuck off - that begins to lose its authority when you have courts pretty much approving the notion of rogue electors.

And then there's the bitching and moaning about how a popularly elected president (no electoral college) wouldn't have to campaign in or even acknowledge the existence of smaller states. Maybe, maybe not. But that's what elections are for. Right now we have a "president" ignoring well over the half the country - non-whites, Democrats, farmers, middle class workers, smart people. The electoral college could very well put this vile heap of week old garbage back in the WH. That wouldn't have with one person/one vote.

[Maru Kitteh]

45. It's a play on the phrase used by the FF to justify the EC. To prevent a "tyranny of the majority"

[Perseus]

21. First, the title of the artcle is alarming and doesn't reflect what is going on

"The Electoral College Is in Trouble"

No, unfortunately not...Who is doing what to eliminate the EC? Does anyone know?

It has proven many times over the EC is only good to allow cheating, it eliminates having to cheat in all 51 states, republicans can narrow their cheating in just a few key states. Why is it that Democrats don't even discuss getting rid of the EC?

They are going to cheat in 2020 again, like in Georgia where now is know one of the machines was hacked, and in Florida where many counties were hacked the result will be the same "well, the elections is over, let's move on." and so we all move on...

[hot2na]

22. Trump has continuously given CA the middle finger.

Yes California, where I live; 40 Million people and the worlds 6th largest economy.

California gets 55 electoral votes. Wyoming (with 570,000 people) gets 3 electoral votes. In proportion to Wyoming, California should have 210 electoral votes. Why do the people of Wyoming have so much more power to elect a president than the people of California?

OK Vermont is also a small population state but by and large though, the odds are stacked against the big blue states. How else can the Republicans lose the popular votes in all but one election (2004) out of the last 7 general election cycles (34 years), and still win the presidency 3 times.

California is irrelevant in the selection of a President, thanks to the electoral college. That is why someone like Trump can tell the people of CA that they have to do a better job of raking the forests, claim no high speed rail for you, Try to derail its car emission goals (thankfully we fought him in court over that and won), on and on. In response all this California will vote in massive numbers against Trump in 2020 and guess what, It doesn't make any difference.

The Electoral College is broken and needs to be replaced by the popular vote. Anyone who argues against this is wrong.

[stopdiggin]

29. CA's 55 votes are pretty important

20% of the total needed right there in one chunk. The rest of your post -- pretty much spot on. The electoral college seems to be pretty unpopular at the moment.

[kurtcagle]

36. Taxation without representation

has been the basis for a set of colonies to break away before. Should Trump
"win", I think it a fair bet that it may prove the only option again because a second Trump term will end up with a permanent Republican government.

[pnwmom]

37. It should be less irrelevant now because their primary will be earlier:

March instead of June. So candidates won't be able to afford to ignore CA.

[Dorn]

28. The Pro-slavery College was created to maintain slavery

https://atlantablackstar.com/2016/11/12/electoral-college-origins-slavery/

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. Yes and no.

I kind of understand their weariness of an "overbearing majority" that, if mobilized, could crush the rights and concerns of minorities.

Of course, it's hard to overlook the fact that the guy who was most concerned was also the dude who owned the most slaves. So yeah.

[Blue Owl]

41. Good. Just think, we'd have HRC in office right now if it weren't for the #$%$#@#$ E.C.

n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

44. No it isn't.

I wish it was; but alas, it's in no immediate trouble now.

[PBC_Democrat]

46. As Much as I like Wishful Thinking ...

There is no chance the EC will go away.

On the remote chance that they get to the 270 EC vote threshold, it will fall apart the first time a Republican wins the popular vote.

Of the 14 states now signed on to the compact, ALL 14 state's EC votes went to the Democratic party.

I can't imagine the CA or MA legislature voting to allot their EC votes to the Republican ticket after the citizens favor the Democratic candidate by 20 or 30 points.

If any Republican states join, it would the reverse scenario. in 2016 eight states voted Republican by over 20 points. Can you imagine OK or UT disregarding the will of the voters?

There would be riots in the streets and the compact will fall apart. That would lead the pro-compact people to sue to force the non-compliant states to abide by the agreement. Then the courts would nullify the compact. Based on Article One, Section Ten of the Constution: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress… enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…

Energy, time, and money spend on the NPVIC is only slightly more effective than shouting at clouds.

We need better communication, better methods of getting our ideas to voters, and more aggressive GOTV efforts.

[The Wizard]

51. Minority rule will result in

pitchforks torches and rope (AKA insurrection).

[not_the_one]

57. One Person, One Vote

Real simple concept.

The electoral college throws that out the window. Use whatever pretzel logic you want to try to justify it, but its purpose is to allow some to have more power than others.

The concept of "tyranny of the majority" is only brought up when the minority gets pissed off because they can't have THEIR way, so they justify the "tyranny of the minority"..

We are a diverse population. No one is happy with everything.

Given the assumption of fair and equal, the majority should always rule. Fair and equal are still being addressed, but until it IS, it doesn't mean that we allow the losers to be winners, when their sole purpose is to wreak havoc on the entire concept of America.

[dalton99a]

59. Kick

[Shanti Mama]

63. AOC's comment about affirmative action is spot on

Affirmative action is a perfect analog to the electoral college, but the latter was put in place to protect rather than lift up.

[real Cannabis calm]

65. K&R