Electoral College

[Lagom]

He also bragged that he would have only campaigned in 3 or 4 if it was popular vote.  Also how many states are historically "locks" for one party or another?  Why not focus your campaign time and money on the states that could go either way to try to win them. 

As for the straight national popular vote here is where half of the US lives according to the census. http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9  (this was posted in 2013 so I'm assuming 2010 census data) That is a lot of the country not included in those areas.

All of this is why, despite being a "liberal" of sorts, and in the anti-EC camp, I support a substantially reduced federal government. Our country is too large and too diverse to give so much influence to a central authority.

[RosieTR]

When the Electoral College was created, we did not have such an entrenched 2-party system, which also messes it up. Washington was very against a two party system, but one formed and has been entrenched ever since. Then again, from the descriptions folks have provided about Canada and France, it may not be wildly better to have a bunch of parties. In any case, instituting some sort of runoff elections that would make more parties viable is probably even less likely than removing the EC.

America was not set up as a democracy, and many of the founders were suspicious of true democracies/mob rules: http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/articles/22
So, while the EC was set up in part to protect the slave owning states, it hearkens to the idea that America is supposed to be a Republic and that majority rule should not completely supersede minority concerns. Modifying the EC to reflect proportional voting for Presidential candidates would sort of go against this idea, and possibly cause some various effects that might be beneficial: candidates would likely have to campaign more widely, and it would be more likely that nobody would get 270 more often. This would also open the door some for multiple parties, making "vote your conscience" less of an act of a wasted vote.

As for probable changes that could be reasonably enacted, gerrymandering is crap and could be vastly improved. Voter participation could be wildly improved as well.

[sol]

Modifying the EC to reflect proportional voting for Presidential candidates would sort of go against this idea, and possibly cause some various effects that might be beneficial: candidates would likely have to campaign more widely, and it would be more likely that nobody would get 270 more often.

I suspect that modifying the distribution of EC votes based on the popular vote would lead to nobody getting 270 most of the time, in which case each state would get one vote and we'd effectively have ONLY the Senate's system of equal state representation regardless of population.  That seems worse, not better.

Clearly, modifying the EC vote distribution to better reflect the popular vote would require also make significant other changes to our electoral process, rather than just proportional electors.

In the modern era of instant electronic communications and nationally available media, I'm not sure why we need the electoral college at all.  What would be wrong with just letting every American citizen vote for the person they want to be president?

There are more republicans in California than there are total voters in some other states, and they have absolutely no say in the election.  How is that fair?

Similarly, the primary system is an equivalent disaster.  I live in Washington, so the major party candidates were chosen by primaries in other states long before I ever got the chance to vote. I had absolutely no say in who would be on the ballot.  How is that fair?

Meanwhile, under the current system, a few hundred thousand people in Iowa and New Hampshire basically dictate who gets to be president, over the voices of hundreds of millions in other states who are silenced.  We fought so hard for to expand suffrage to blacks and women, when are we going to expand it to the whole country?

[Joel]

In the modern era of instant electronic communications and student available media, I'm not sure why we need the electoral college at all.  What would be wrong with just letting every American citizen vote for the person they want to be president?

There are more republicans in California than there are total voters in some other states, and they have absolutely no say in the election.  How is that fair?

Similarly, the primary system is an equivalent disaster.  I live in Washington, so the major party candidates were chosen by primaries in other states long before I ever got the chance to vote. I had absolutely no say in who would be on the ballot.  How is that fair?

Meanwhile, under the current system, a few hundred thousand people in Iowa and New Hampshire basically dictate who gets to be president, over the voices of hundreds of millions in other states who are silenced.  We fought so hard for to expand suffrage to blacks and women, when are we going to expand it to the whole country?

These are the points that upset me the most.

[FINate]

In the modern era of instant electronic communications and student available media, I'm not sure why we need the electoral college at all.  What would be wrong with just letting every American citizen vote for the person they want to be president?

There are more republicans in California than there are total voters in some other states, and they have absolutely no say in the election.  How is that fair?

Similarly, the primary system is an equivalent disaster.  I live in Washington, so the major party candidates were chosen by primaries in other states long before I ever got the chance to vote. I had absolutely no say in who would be on the ballot.  How is that fair?

Meanwhile, under the current system, a few hundred thousand people in Iowa and New Hampshire basically dictate who gets to be president, over the voices of hundreds of millions in other states who are silenced.  We fought so hard for to expand suffrage to blacks and women, when are we going to expand it to the whole country?

These are the points that upset me the most.

California is free to change from winner-takes-all to proportional allocation of EC votes if it wants to. This would make sure every district in the state has a voice while also ensuring that presidential candidates campaign here. A real boon for democracy!

However, this isn't going to happen because California is a solidly "blue" state and doing so would be advantageous for the GOP. It's the same reason small, conservative states still support the EC. I think it's funny that liberal big states are now harping on the EC, basically telling smaller, conservative states that they should fall on their sword for democratic principles, yet they themselves are unwilling to do so.

For better or worse, the EC is the deal the states agreed upon when forming the union, along with the rules for how to change it. People can whine all they want about how they view the EC as an anachronism, but if you can't get a constitutional amendment ratified to change it then there are people who don't view it as such. This is the same reason that changing constitution is not a simple matter of a popular vote.

[Joel]

In the modern era of instant electronic communications and student available media, I'm not sure why we need the electoral college at all.  What would be wrong with just letting every American citizen vote for the person they want to be president?

There are more republicans in California than there are total voters in some other states, and they have absolutely no say in the election.  How is that fair?

Similarly, the primary system is an equivalent disaster.  I live in Washington, so the major party candidates were chosen by primaries in other states long before I ever got the chance to vote. I had absolutely no say in who would be on the ballot.  How is that fair?

Meanwhile, under the current system, a few hundred thousand people in Iowa and New Hampshire basically dictate who gets to be president, over the voices of hundreds of millions in other states who are silenced.  We fought so hard for to expand suffrage to blacks and women, when are we going to expand it to the whole country?

These are the points that upset me the most.

California is free to change from winner-takes-all to proportional allocation of EC votes if it wants to. This would make sure every district in the state has a voice while also ensuring that presidential candidates campaign here. A real boon for democracy!

However, this isn't going to happen because California is a solidly "blue" state and doing so would be advantageous for the GOP. It's the same reason small, conservative states still support the EC. I think it's funny that liberal big states are now harping on the EC, basically telling smaller, conservative states that they should fall on their sword for democratic principles, yet they themselves are unwilling do to so.

For better or worse, the EC is the deal the states agreed upon when forming the union, along with the rules for how to change it. People can whine all they want about how they view the EC as an anachronism, but if you can't get a constitutional amendment ratified to change it then there are people who don't view it as such. This is the same reason that changing constitution is not a simple matter of a popular vote.

Like you pointed out, California is not going to individually make this change as it would shift power from democrats to GOP. It would require a national effort to actually make a change like this happen.

I say this as a republican in California. I said the same thing BEFORE the election results as well.

[Northwestie]

For better or worse, the EC is the deal the states agreed upon when forming the union, along with the rules for how to change it. People can whine all they want about how they view the EC as an anachronism, but if you can't get a constitutional amendment ratified to change it then there are people who don't view it as such. This is the same reason that changing constitution is not a simple matter of a popular vote.

Yep - that's the bottom line.  Odd system but no change is in sight.

[Metric Mouse]

In the modern era of instant electronic communications and student available media, I'm not sure why we need the electoral college at all.  What would be wrong with just letting every American citizen vote for the person they want to be president?

There are more republicans in California than there are total voters in some other states, and they have absolutely no say in the election.  How is that fair?

Similarly, the primary system is an equivalent disaster.  I live in Washington, so the major party candidates were chosen by primaries in other states long before I ever got the chance to vote. I had absolutely no say in who would be on the ballot.  How is that fair?

Meanwhile, under the current system, a few hundred thousand people in Iowa and New Hampshire basically dictate who gets to be president, over the voices of hundreds of millions in other states who are silenced.  We fought so hard for to expand suffrage to blacks and women, when are we going to expand it to the whole country?

These are the points that upset me the most.

California is free to change from winner-takes-all to proportional allocation of EC votes if it wants to. This would make sure every district in the state has a voice while also ensuring that presidential candidates campaign here. A real boon for democracy!

However, this isn't going to happen because California is a solidly "blue" state and doing so would be advantageous for the GOP. It's the same reason small, conservative states still support the EC. I think it's funny that liberal big states are now harping on the EC, basically telling smaller, conservative states that they should fall on their sword for democratic principles, yet they themselves are unwilling do to so.

For better or worse, the EC is the deal the states agreed upon when forming the union, along with the rules for how to change it. People can whine all they want about how they view the EC as an anachronism, but if you can't get a constitutional amendment ratified to change it then there are people who don't view it as such. This is the same reason that changing constitution is not a simple matter of a popular vote.

Like you pointed out, California is not going to individually make this change as it would shift power from democrats to GOP. It would require a national effort to actually make a change like this happen.

I say this as a republican in California. I said the same thing BEFORE the election results as well.

Other states have done this, though.  If the issue were not biased against certain political parties, why would it matter if the results handed power from one party to another?

[Glenstache]

For better or worse, the EC is the deal the states agreed upon when forming the union, along with the rules for how to change it. People can whine all they want about how they view the EC as an anachronism, but if you can't get a constitutional amendment ratified to change it then there are people who don't view it as such. This is the same reason that changing constitution is not a simple matter of a popular vote.

Yep - that's the bottom line.  Odd system but no change is in sight.

... but it doesn't take a constitutional amendment. Yes, outright removal of the EC would, but circumventing it would not (as discussed above).
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

[FINate]

For better or worse, the EC is the deal the states agreed upon when forming the union, along with the rules for how to change it. People can whine all they want about how they view the EC as an anachronism, but if you can't get a constitutional amendment ratified to change it then there are people who don't view it as such. This is the same reason that changing constitution is not a simple matter of a popular vote.

Yep - that's the bottom line.  Odd system but no change is in sight.

... but it doesn't take a constitutional amendment. Yes, outright removal of the EC would, but circumventing it would not (as discussed above).
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

As I mentioned earlier on this thread, the national popular vote compact depends on federal law requiring official count of the popular vote (section 6 of Title 3 of the United States Code) that may contradict Article II Section I of the US Constitution which grants broad latitude to the state's Legislature on how electors are selected ("Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors"). A very conservative state could decide that Representatives should directly choose the Electors (bypassing any normal semblance of a popular vote) or decide to change to Ranked Choice Voting/Instance Runoff, or any other of other schemes that would throw a wrench into a nation wide popular vote.

There's also the possibility that, as the national popular vote gains traction, that the law is modified at the federal level (easier to do since it's a law).

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Every time someone suggests changing the electoral college because they don't like the outcome of the most recent election, it's a little silly.

You can not like the electoral college, that's fine.  But you are delusional if you think it would significantly change the election results in any given year.  The popular vote nationwide is a number that is staggeringly misleading.

If we play a game where there are four different color squares, and the object is to trade among all the players to change your distribution of squares, the goal being to get the most red squares, and we play to the end, and I ended up with fewer red squares than you but more blue squares, I lost the game.

I could argue that because I got more blue squares than anyone else I should win, but it doesn't matter, we weren't playing that game.

The election was about winning electoral college votes.  If you think the outcome would be the same otherwise you are wrong.

Republicans and Democrats both know where they are strong and where they are weak.  Not just the candidates, the individual voters too.  Fewer Republicans vote in California at all because they know their candidate is going to lose anyway.  Right down to the individual congressional districts, you see a suppression in voter turnout of the minority party for that district.  On a %age basis.

Now ask yourself, if California were suddenly in play, and if 5 or 10% of the voters in heavily Democratic districts in the heart of California cities showed up to vote and voted Republican, would the margin still be 2 million votes?  vs. the 800 extra Democratic voters who show up in the entire state of Indiana?

The electoral college has its flaws, but given the GOP has for all practical purposes not even bothered to campaign in these densely populated areas has affected the numbers we see, both in turnout and in the makeup of that turnout.  Los Angeles and San Diego and San Francisco and Chicago and Houston and New York and Miami were not contested.  These places have been given up as lost in a way that wouldn't make sense to do except in the Electoral College.  This frees the Democrats to campaign elsewhere.  This is how the concept of "safe home territory" and "not campaigning in your own backyard" impacts everything right down to candidate selection.

Resources go where they can win.

Looking at the popular vote is like looking at the number of penalties in a football game.  It doesn't fucking matter, the actual score matters.  Literally any opinions or actions you take based on the popular vote in an election that was not about the popular vote is a blatant and egregious misuse of the information presented to you.

The facts of buoyancy are that a vessel which displaces a volume of water which outweighs the weight of the vessel can float.  Everything else is irrelevant to if that vessel has a chance to float.  Talking about how high it sits on the water or what its made out of or what color it is are all things to discuss certainly, but they absolutely don't fucking matter if doesn't displace enough water.

So it is with the electoral college.  Elections which take place under those rules can only be analyzed within the auspices of those rules.  Drawing conclusions about what would have happened under different rules based on these outcomes will be conclusions derived from a place of error.  Anything beyond coincidence is impossible.

Maybe it would be better for Democrats.  I seriously doubt it though.

Maybe it would be better for Republicans.  I seriously doubt it though.

One things certain, it would change what gets talked about.  Both sides would have a huge incentive to totally ignore huge swaths of the country because they'd have a real need to win over the urban centers.  I'd love a massive federal investment in mass transit for Houston.  That would be great.  It would do fuck-all for the rest of the country and has nothing to do with something that should be a federal program, but fuck it, this is about being selfish right?

Your food is cheaper than its ever been, your quality of life is higher than its ever been, everything in your life is unimaginably good compared to just 100 years ago.  Yea, lets change the fundamental rules that got us here because we know better.

Good plan.

[Lagom]

Yes, campaigns would be run differently in a popular vote model, and yes that model would also disproportionately prioritize the needs of large urban areas. Go figure, a federal system that favors the needs and social opinions of only part of the country is maybe not so democratic/fair, just like our current system.

This is why the best solution is to do what I've noticed Republicans have talked about less and less over the years-shrink the federal government and give more latitude to the states. If I had it my way, Washington would only be responsible for things that truly do represent national interests (defense, diplomacy, environmental regulations, resolving disputes between the states, etc.) and thus a popular vote would be a sensible way to elect national representatives. I won't have it my way, of course, so I'll continue to advocate for my vote to count as much as any other, just as conservative rural areas continue to advocate that their vote be worth more than mine. Like many here, I have been consistent in this view whether a Democrat or Republican was in office.

As Sol has pointed out, the reason you see people being more vocal now is because there was an especially stark contrast this year between the popular vote and the election outcome. Regardless, we're just shouting into the wind here so it doesn't really matter.

[RangerOne]

I say it should be treasured if it can actually do what it states. But if it can't keep a jack ass like Trump from taking office I doubt that ability greatly. When they vote Trump in which I assume is 99.999% likely it will in part be due to the mob rule of the electorate because most establishment politicians would throw Trump out on his ass if they didn't think it would cost them their seat in office. So they are just spineless.
 
An electoral college that cant oust a bad candidate is just a minor variation of a full on popular vote. It just shifts which populace matters.

And mind you I wouldn't see him ousted for racist rhetoric. It would be because he is ignorant of all aspects of the job, has profound conflicts of interest and has the leadership ability of a 10 year old with a twitter account. Filling out his cabinet with mostly equally ignorant rich sycophants while continuing to tweet blatantly false statements as a president elect.

I can't wait till he declares war via twitter, this is gonna be spectacular.......

[FIPurpose]

Technically the EC has not voted yet, so the President has not officially been decided on yet.

I think there's a mistake in the poll, that the EC's purpose is to prevent mob rule by empowering less populous states. While the distribution of electors is advantaged to smaller states, the EC's protection from mob rule is that power is instilled in a small group of representatives that can vote in the country's interest. That is mob protection is from the small group of ultimate deciders, not the vote of the people.

The EC could still decide to elect Hillary or someone else come Dec. 19. That would be the prevention of Mob Rule. Preventing someone so insanely bad for the country, even to vote against the will of the people. It's state rules about forcing electors to vote a particular way that have destroyed the meaning of the EC. Thankfully there are still enough to have a meaningful difference come time for the vote.

[NoStacheOhio]

Similarly, the primary system is an equivalent disaster.  I live in Washington, so the major party candidates were chosen by primaries in other states long before I ever got the chance to vote. I had absolutely no say in who would be on the ballot.  How is that fair?

Meanwhile, under the current system, a few hundred thousand people in Iowa and New Hampshire basically dictate who gets to be president, over the voices of hundreds of millions in other states who are silenced.  We fought so hard for to expand suffrage to blacks and women, when are we going to expand it to the whole country?

Honestly, I think the primaries are a bigger problem than the Electoral College. They push candidates to the extremes, and then they either backpedal for the general, or you get Trump.

[FINate]

RE the primaries: There's also the issue of DNC superdelegates which gave Clinton the majority of delegates from WY even though Sanders won the popular vote there by more than 10%. Superdelegate reform passed during the convention helps, but it's still the case that a few hand picked elites have outsized influence on the DNC primaries. Seems not a little hypocritical for Dems to make a big deal about the superiority of a popular vote when their own party rules, which they set, don't follow the same standard.

[Lagom]

RE the primaries: There's also the issue of DNC superdelegates which gave Clinton the majority of delegates from WY even though Sanders won the popular vote there by more than 10%. Superdelegate reform passed during the convention helps, but it's still the case that a few hand picked elites have outsized influence on the DNC primaries. Seems not a little hypocritical for Dems to make a big deal about the superiority of a popular vote when their own party rules, which they set, don't follow the same standard.

You do realize most Democrats had nothing to do with setting those rules, right? "They" didn't have a say in anything. And more than a few were pissed about the primary.

[FINate]

Bernie supporters were pissed, Hilary supporters not so much. Now Hilary supporters are pissed that she won the popular vote yet lost the EC. Oh the irony.

If rank and file Democrats can't fix what they perceive as broken rules within their own party what hope do they have for changing things at the national level? They should remove the plank from their own eye first.

[Lagom]

???

What are you talking about? Rank and file Democrats have no more control over what their party does than rank and file Republicans do. Both are rife with elite insiders. The irony is that because of how the primaries played out, the latter thinks Trump somehow represents a change candidate, despite his tireless efforts to prove them wrong. I am neither Democrat nor Republican, personally. Both are corrupt and Trump is just the cherry veneer on top for those who still somehow pretend that their party is the "best" one.

Maybe Bernie losing was for the best in that enough of the elite Democrats will finally realize how much they have lost touch. The Republicans will continue to march on in their tone-deaf way, no matter what Trump does, as already evidenced by the scramble to recant/ignore their past criticisms of him. All the better to pull the strings, of course.

[FINate]

Individually they don't, but collectively the rank and file from both parties can push for changes to rules by voting and/or leaning on committee members. From the DNC: "Each state Democratic Party has its own rules for selecting its DNC members. Some members are elected on the ballot as part of the state’s Democratic primary, and in other states the members are elected by the State Democratic Committee or the State Convention."

However this isn't going to happen because none of this is about high-minded democratic principles, just people upset that their tribe didn't win. If Democrats can't persuade their own party to change, how do they expect to persuade congress and 3/4 of states to change?

I'm also neither Democrat nor Republican because I also think both parties are corrupt and full of insiders, but one party does not have superdelegates and did nominate a party outsider. This doesn't mean I think the Republican party is better, on the contrary it makes a good case for additional checks such as superdelegates. My point is that it's incongruent for Dems to say the EC is unfair and an anachronism when their own party contains rules to temper the popular vote.

I did not vote for either of the mainstream candidates and am not impressed with Trump, though admit that seeing reporters in shock and near tears on election night was entertaining - I like a good upset from time to time.

[Cressida]

My point is that it's incongruent for Dems to say the EC is unfair and an anachronism when their own party contains rules to temper the popular vote.

No, it's not. Maybe we don't like our own party's rules. We can say what the fuck we want.

It's also worth pointing out that in some ways the Republican primary rules are less democratic than the Democratic ones. Many Republican state primaries are winner-take-all, and no Democratic state primaries are. So "Democrats have superdelegates --> Democrats have a less democratic process than Republicans" is not a valid argument. Not saying FINate was making that argument necessarily, just saying it's unsound.

[FINate]

No, it's not. Maybe we don't like our own party's rules. We can say what the fuck we want.

It's also worth pointing out that in some ways the Republican primary rules are less democratic than the Democratic ones. Many Republican state primaries are winner-take-all, and no Democratic state primaries are. So "Democrats have superdelegates --> Democrats have a less democratic process than Republicans" is not a valid argument. Not saying FINate was making that argument necessarily, just saying it's unsound.

I don't belong to any party. Nor am I claiming one party's primary process is more or less democratic than the other's. But superdelegates came about because the DNC believed "the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of primary elections over insider decision-making" - it is intended to temper the popular vote. It is incongruent for Democrats to argue that a popular vote doesn't work for primaries while also advocating for a national popular vote. So sure, you can say whatever the fuck you want, but that doesn't mean it's congruent.

[Metric Mouse]

No, it's not. Maybe we don't like our own party's rules. We can say what the fuck we want.

It's also worth pointing out that in some ways the Republican primary rules are less democratic than the Democratic ones. Many Republican state primaries are winner-take-all, and no Democratic state primaries are. So "Democrats have superdelegates --> Democrats have a less democratic process than Republicans" is not a valid argument. Not saying FINate was making that argument necessarily, just saying it's unsound.

I don't belong to any party. Nor am I claiming one party's primary process is more or less democratic than the other's. But superdelegates came about because the DNC believed "the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of primary elections over insider decision-making" - it is intended to temper the popular vote. It is incongruent for Democrats to argue that a popular vote doesn't work for primaries while also advocating for a national popular vote. So sure, you can say whatever the fuck you want, but that doesn't mean it's congruent.

Well said.

The wheels of change grind slowly in this great country - hopefully the Democratic party and its voters have learned some great lessons and can come out in the next election with better ideals, better candidates and even better processes.  It's unlikely that Republicans will, since, you know, they've been winning elections at the congressional level for awhile and now the presidency, but hopefully in the future they'll be even better as well.

[Lagom]

Well said.

The wheels of change grind slowly in this great country - hopefully the Democratic party and its voters have learned some great lessons and can come out in the next election with better ideals, better candidates and even better processes.  It's unlikely that Republicans will, since, you know, they've been winning elections at the congressional level for awhile and now the presidency, but hopefully in the future they'll be even better as well.

I would hope so but I doubt it. They have successfully gerrymanded and voter suppressed their way into thinking they represent majority views (ironic, because of how fiercely many have defended our system's "protections" against "mob rule," which of course implicitly accepts that the Democrats represent a majority). As far as the Republican Party is concerned, they believe they are the most in touch with the common American. To repeat myself, they are probably only slightly worse than the Democrats at this, but I have at least some hope that the latter will wake up to that fact after this last election. Still not super optimistic, though.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I think it is a fantastic point that the electoral college really was intended to prevent someone really bad from being able to get the office.

While I don't think Trump is that bad (lacks true malevolence) I don't fault people that do.  The EC probably will elect him, but I think they'd be within their rights to choose someone else.  What would be interesting is who they would choose.  If they chose HRC then we'd be in for a shitshow the likes of which nobody has ever seen.  But if they just chose some random former governor from a moderate state that was relatively unknown I think most people would actually breathe a quiet sigh of relief.

It's actually kind of a shame that it never came to that in the past, the lack of precedent isn't a good thing, and at this point the traditions are the only checks on power being even pseudo respected.

As to HRC winning the popular vote...She did not win the popular vote.  Right now she is still less than 50%.  The majority of voters voted for someone else.  BHO won the popular vote in 2012 at over 51%.  She is, out of everyone who was running that we would rather not see as president, the person we would not want to see president the least.  Out of a basket of deplorables, slightly more people saw her as less deplorable.

This was the lowest voter turnout since her husband's second term by %ages, both candidates so bad they managed to reverse a trend that had us almost back to give-a-shit days of voter participation.  If you combine the 46% of people who could not be bothered to vote with the 52% of voters who did vote for someone else, roughly 3/4 of the population of the country was at least indifferent to her being president if not actively opposed to it.

So keep that in mind when you're trying to reconcile what has happened with what you feel should have happened.  1/4 wanted him, 1/4 wanted her, 1/2 figures we're screwed either way, 3/4 is now sure we're screwed.

As always.

[boarder42]

The 2 party system is not an electoral college issue.  the electoral college is b/c our nation is a democratic republic.  each state chooses how they elect their electors, and are free to change those rules. no national rule should be made to make it be popular vote b/c that changes the fundamental way this country was founded.

[FIPurpose]

The 2 party system is not an electoral college issue.  the electoral college is b/c our nation is a democratic republic.  each state chooses how they elect their electors, and are free to change those rules. no national rule should be made to make it be popular vote b/c that changes the fundamental way this country was founded.

The debate honestly gets to the center of how people want to view this country. People who vote democratic I bet also feel no loyalty to their state. They tend to be people that freely move from state to state. Therefor the protections and powers granted to states make no sense to them. They see states largely as an unnecessary bureaucracy where rules are arbitrarily different depending on where you live. Protections and rights can be wildly different between states, and I would submit that liberals/ intellectuals have more frequently lived in vastly different states. Either we are one people or we are not, and the division of states forces a somewhat useful competition but also a terrible tension. (We begin to see particular states as hostile or friendly to our own views and generalize large groups of people). This would naturally lead someone to think that a popular vote makes the most sense.

But people who live in one small section of a particular state feel that if they are a truly sovereign person and people, then they and their own local communities should be able to dictate their own lives. They have a strong connection to their state, and act in a way that they believe is best for their own. They view the federal government as a loose agreement meant for enforcement of basic rights, militaristic protection, and interstate trade regulation. They're told that their attachment to their land and people is arbitrary/ stolen from natives/ based on some other historical advantage, but they don't feel that way. While state lines are somewhat arbitrary, they have created boundaries of particular peoples and cultures, and those things mean something. The EC represents some protection for their way of life and beliefs.

This system has definitely had it's bumps. This means that a few states have been able to keep highly unethical/ immoral laws for a long time. There is a system for compelling states to behave otherwise, constitutional amendment. People don't like this answer because our country on most ideas are split 60/40 and the amendment process requires something more like 80/20 and even then it's extremely difficult. But I personally believe this is what makes our country superior to other civilized nations. For example, what rights does the UK have that could not be removed by a simple majority vote (The UK has a system where parliament is superior to the constitution)? We have a system that progresses extremely slow but also cannot be easily destroyed. At times this means we are jealous of much of Europe's quick moving bodies, but where as Europe is in serious danger from Nationalism, the US has protections in place that no president or legislative body can simply eliminate. If we see Europe descend, I think we'll see many here thankful for the power that we've invested in the constitution.

[boarder42]

The 2 party system is not an electoral college issue.  the electoral college is b/c our nation is a democratic republic.  each state chooses how they elect their electors, and are free to change those rules. no national rule should be made to make it be popular vote b/c that changes the fundamental way this country was founded.

The debate honestly gets to the center of how people want to view this country. People who vote democratic I bet also feel no loyalty to their state. They tend to be people that freely move from state to state. Therefor the protections and powers granted to states make no sense to them. They see states largely as an unnecessary bureaucracy where rules are arbitrarily different depending on where you live. Protections and rights can be wildly different between states, and I would submit that liberals/ intellectuals have more frequently lived in vastly different states. Either we are one people or we are not, and the division of states forces a somewhat useful competition but also a terrible tension. (We begin to see particular states as hostile or friendly to our own views and generalize large groups of people). This would naturally lead someone to think that a popular vote makes the most sense.

But people who live in one small section of a particular state feel that if they are a truly sovereign person and people, then they and their own local communities should be able to dictate their own lives. They have a strong connection to their state, and act in a way that they believe is best for their own. They view the federal government as a loose agreement meant for enforcement of basic rights, militaristic protection, and interstate trade regulation. They're told that their attachment to their land and people is arbitrary/ stolen from natives/ based on some other historical advantage, but they don't feel that way. While state lines are somewhat arbitrary, they have created boundaries of particular peoples and cultures, and those things mean something. The EC represents some protection for their way of life and beliefs.

This system has definitely had it's bumps. This means that a few states have been able to keep highly unethical/ immoral laws for a long time. There is a system for compelling states to behave otherwise, constitutional amendment. People don't like this answer because our country on most ideas are split 60/40 and the amendment process requires something more like 80/20 and even then it's extremely difficult. But I personally believe this is what makes our country superior to other civilized nations. For example, what rights does the UK have that could not be removed by a simple majority vote (The UK has a system where parliament is superior to the constitution)? We have a system that progresses extremely slow but also cannot be easily destroyed. At times this means we are jealous of much of Europe's quick moving bodies, but where as Europe is in serious danger from Nationalism, the US has protections in place that no president or legislative body can simply eliminate. If we see Europe descend, I think we'll see many here thankful for the power that we've invested in the constitution.

well said.  and if you dont like the state you live in guess what you're allowed to do.. move to a state with more favorable laws dont try to get the federal govt to enforce laws on all states.  its the best of all worlds.  though i do believe b/c of the way insurance works(large pot of people spread out the cost). that nationalized medicine all in all the way would be better for everyone.

[FIPurpose]

I actually also agree with nationalizing things such as healthcare. We have a federal government to provide a combined protection and economic advantage for all its members. If healthcare will be much cheaper, then it's in our best interest nationally to do so. Honestly, I think it gives up little in the way of states' rights to do so. We have a nationalized military, banking system, etc. healthcare would just be an extension of things made cheaper by our sheer size.

[boarder42]

I actually also agree with nationalizing things such as healthcare. We have a federal government to provide a combined protection and economic advantage for all its members. If healthcare will be much cheaper, then it's in our best interest nationally to do so. Honestly, I think it gives up little in the way of states' rights to do so. We have a nationalized military, banking system, etc. healthcare would just be an extension of things made cheaper by our sheer size.

unfortunately there is an army of lobbyists for the insurance industry against us on that front. 

[TheOldestYoungMan]

We have a nationalized military, banking system, etc. healthcare would just be an extension of things made cheaper by our sheer size.

I...we...no, we don't have a nationalized banking system.  Gah.  Would it make it cheaper?  That's a pretty big assumption.  It really isn't about the insurance lobby, it's about there are a lot of people in the country that still believe in things like personal responsibility.  The SCOTUS discussions on the ACA made clear that they buy the idea that everyone has to use the healthcare system at some point, but that's absolute horseshit.  You don't have to go to the doctor.  If you can't pay you have the option to just die.  The alternative of going into debt is also available.  The idea that the economic decision to consume a service is any different from the decision to eat at a restaurant is self-serving ideology masquerading as a moral crusade.

If I could get the same quality of service cheaper that would be great.  It that was possible it would be available.  Forcing providers to accept a below-market payout at the point of a gun isn't morally right, it's theft.

The 2 party system is not an electoral college issue.  the electoral college is b/c our nation is a democratic republic.  each state chooses how they elect their electors, and are free to change those rules. no national rule should be made to make it be popular vote b/c that changes the fundamental way this country was founded.

The debate honestly gets to the center of how people want to view this country. People who vote democratic I bet also feel no loyalty to their state. They tend to be people that freely move from state to state. Therefor the protections and powers granted to states make no sense to them. They see states largely as an unnecessary bureaucracy where rules are arbitrarily different depending on where you live. Protections and rights can be wildly different between states, and I would submit that liberals/ intellectuals have more frequently lived in vastly different states. Either we are one people or we are not, and the division of states forces a somewhat useful competition but also a terrible tension. (We begin to see particular states as hostile or friendly to our own views and generalize large groups of people). This would naturally lead someone to think that a popular vote makes the most sense.

But people who live in one small section of a particular state feel that if they are a truly sovereign person and people, then they and their own local communities should be able to dictate their own lives. They have a strong connection to their state, and act in a way that they believe is best for their own. They view the federal government as a loose agreement meant for enforcement of basic rights, militaristic protection, and interstate trade regulation. They're told that their attachment to their land and people is arbitrary/ stolen from natives/ based on some other historical advantage, but they don't feel that way. While state lines are somewhat arbitrary, they have created boundaries of particular peoples and cultures, and those things mean something. The EC represents some protection for their way of life and beliefs.

This system has definitely had it's bumps. This means that a few states have been able to keep highly unethical/ immoral laws for a long time. There is a system for compelling states to behave otherwise, constitutional amendment. People don't like this answer because our country on most ideas are split 60/40 and the amendment process requires something more like 80/20 and even then it's extremely difficult. But I personally believe this is what makes our country superior to other civilized nations. For example, what rights does the UK have that could not be removed by a simple majority vote (The UK has a system where parliament is superior to the constitution)? We have a system that progresses extremely slow but also cannot be easily destroyed. At times this means we are jealous of much of Europe's quick moving bodies, but where as Europe is in serious danger from Nationalism, the US has protections in place that no president or legislative body can simply eliminate. If we see Europe descend, I think we'll see many here thankful for the power that we've invested in the constitution.

This was well said.  On a whole host of issues, if you think your particular party actually cares about whatever single-issue voter they've turned you into, ask yourself why there isn't a constitutional amendment currently under consideration on that issue.

The 27th amendment to the constitution was first proposed on September 25, 1978, and wasn't ratified by enough states until May 5, 1992.  That is 202 years, 7 months and ten days.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It's one thing to say that we're divided 60/40 on an issue, the truth is that your political leaders aren't actually trying in any meaningful way.  They don't want to win on these issues, they want these issues so they can win.

[sol]

Forcing providers to accept a below-market payout at the point of a gun isn't morally right, it's theft.

You're confused about definitions here.  Socialized services don't force anyone to accept below market rates, they offer consumers lower rates in the free market shared by small profit driven private enterprises and large nonprofit government enterprises.  Whichever can provide superior service for the price will grow.  In most cases it is both, interdependently.

The post office doesn't force FedEx to take a loss.  Your state university does not force a private university to take a loss.  The US military does not force Blackwater to take a loss.  Your police department does not force your neighborhood watch to take a loss.  The CDC does not force your private hospital to take a loss.  None of these cases are theft.

These things can coexist.  In some cases, services are more efficiently provided by large government organizations and private enterprises benefit from government participation in their market.  You can certainly argue about whether or not healthcare is one of those cases, but that does not change the fact that such cases do exist.

[Cressida]

It is incongruent for Democrats to argue that a popular vote doesn't work for primaries while also advocating for a national popular vote.

I agree, but that's not what you said the first time. You said this:

My point is that it's incongruent for Dems to say the EC is unfair and an anachronism when their own party contains rules to temper the popular vote.

Which is not the same thing. The latter point is incorrect because it's perfectly "congruent" for a Democrat to say the EC is unfair if they aren't also claiming that superdelegates are fair. I have no control over whether there are superdelegates or not.

[TheOldestYoungMan]

Forcing providers to accept a below-market payout at the point of a gun isn't morally right, it's theft.

You're confused about definitions here.  Socialized services don't force anyone to accept below market rates, they offer consumers lower rates in the free market shared by small profit driven private enterprises and large nonprofit government enterprises.  Whichever can provide superior service for the price will grow.  In most cases it is both, interdependently.

The post office doesn't force FedEx to take a loss.  Your state university does not force a private university to take a loss.  The US military does not force Blackwater to take a loss.  Your police department does not force your neighborhood watch to take a loss.  The CDC does not force your private hospital to take a loss.  None of these cases are theft.

These things can coexist.  In some cases, services are more efficiently provided by large government organizations and private enterprises benefit from government participation in their market.  You can certainly argue about whether or not healthcare is one of those cases, but that does not change the fact that such cases do exist.

You are absolutely right.  I assumed they were talking about nationalizing the healthcare system because that's what was said.  I agree that the american healthcare system is fine as I work at a government healthcare facility and we have competing private healthcare systems right next door and we both do fine.

It was my assumption based on the context of the current discussions on healthcare that such sentiments were referencing a change to the status quo.  But I agree with you, what we've got now is excellent and the ACA was an unnecessary change as a universal federal healthcare nationalization would be as well.

[boarder42]

What we have now blows and I don't believe Sol was indicating what we have is excellent.

[sol]

I assumed they were talking about nationalizing the healthcare system because that's what was said.

I think that "nationalizing" is a strong word because it smacks of Communist appropriation, and that's never been proposed here. 

What HAS been proposed is a government-supplied health insurance (aka a "public option") as a sort of insurer or last resort.  HealthCARE would still be provided by both government facilities like the VA and by private hospitals.  Health INSURANCE would be provided by your employer, if you have one, or by a private insurer if you can find one you like, or by the government if you can't.  The idea was that the government would become a new non-profit health insurance provider on a massive scale, so that all those people who previously couldn't get health insurance now had an option to get at least basic services funded by their (presumably now higher) taxes.

They probably wouldn't get dental or vision.  Their policies wouldn't cover cosmetic surgeries.  But they would target preventable illnesses, and they would attempt to bend the cost curve by leveraging their large size to negotiate better rates, just like private insurers do.

Do you think government-provided health insurance would be theft?  To me, it looks like just another competing service, and if that service could be better provided by private industry then the gov option would wither and die.  In practice, the insurance industry lobbies heavily against this form of competition because they don't care if people can get medical care, they just care (and rightfully so) about their own profit margin.  The government's health insurance could be run at cost.

This is what Medicare already tries to do, which is why I have advocated for just lowering the Medicare qualification age to effectively grant everyone government health insurance.  Every old person I know loves Medicare.  It's a government program that works.  Let it grow!

To bring this back on topic, we got here by discussing the appropriate role of the federal government vs the state governments in the context of each state being represented in the electoral college.  We could run health insurance like Canada does, with each province running an independent system, but I think the economies of scale support a single federal insurance program.  Even Trump has said he wants people to be able to buy insurance across state lines.  Dividing up insurance pools by state doesn't make much sense to me.  Dividing up electoral college votes by state also doesn't make much sense to me.  Why not let everyone vote together, just like we want everyone to be insured together?

[TheOldestYoungMan]

I assumed they were talking about nationalizing the healthcare system because that's what was said.

I think that "nationalizing" is a strong word because it smacks of Communist appropriation, and that's never been proposed here. 

No, Sol, that's literally what he said.  It was literally proposed.  And my response was that nationalizing it would be like theft, because it would be.  There's the initial theft of the government seizing the private healthcare providing assets of medical equipment, practices, and facilities, and then the ongoing theft of forcing people to work in an industry without setting their own wages.

And then your response was what it was and I responded in kind.

Medicare is entirely responsible for the crazy healthcare pricing, expanding it will accelerate the problem.  We can certainly argue that back and forth, I'm going to fall back on actually seeing the effects of Medicare reimbursements of my organization and how they affect future pricing of those things to non Medicare customers, you'll fall back on the Democrat talking points of that's not true here's this chart that proves it, and we won't agree.  Because my "facts" are anecdotal and yours are anecdotal but with a larger sample size you'll leave sure you're right and I'll just keep rolling my eyes.

It isn't my actual objection to the ACA or to the government providing healthCARE or health INSURANCE.  My objection is that it isn't constitutional to do either, and they've been backdoored in by abusing the commerce clause and the income tax amendment.  If we, as a country, want to do these things, lets have an amendment and agree that the federal government has the right to do it.  Doing it over the objection of half the country and in violation of the constitution is wrong, a violation of actual moral principles instead of imagined ones.

From a practical perspective, the price-fixing the government engages in when providing care or insurance perverts the market in the same way any price fixing does in any market.  I think the government getting out of it entirely makes sense.  As a second-best option, taking it over entirely makes sense (not nationalizing it but just making a national free option funded by tax dollars).  It's the half-measures that are the result of "well this is all we can get because we're forcing it on a bunch of folks who don't want it and doing so by dubious-legal means" that bothers me.

But I respect your right to disagree with that.