Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

Food for thought - Why the Electoral College is the absolute worst, explained

"The Electoral College Will Destroy America
[...]
And no, New York and California would not dominate a popular vote."

With Links

By Andrew Proko [e-mail] Updated Dec 19, 2016, 10:15am EST

[...]

2) But the outcome of the presidential election is really just settled in a few swing states, right?

[...]

The swing states’ dominance is a consequence of the fact that almost every state chooses to allot all its electoral votes to whoever comes in first place statewide, regardless of his or her margin of victory.

[...]

3) That seems unfair.

Well, there’s a lot that’s unfair — or at the very least undemocratic — about the Electoral College.

For one, the winner of the nationwide popular vote can lose the presidency. In 2000, Al Gore won half a million more votes than George W. Bush nationwide, but Bush won the presidency after he was declared the winner in Florida by a mere 537 votes. And that wasn’t the first time — electoral college/popular vote splits happened in 1876 and 1888 too, and occurred in 2016 too.

Second, there’s swing state privilege. Millions of votes in safe states end up being “wasted,” at least in terms of the presidential race, because it makes no difference whether Clinton wins California by 4 million votes, 400,000 votes, or 40 votes — in any scenario, she gets its 55 electors. Meanwhile, states like Florida and Ohio get the power to tip the outcome just because they happen to be closely divided politically.

Third, a small state bias is also built in, since every state is guaranteed at least three electors (the combination of their representation in the House and Senate). The way this shakes out in the math, the 4 percent of the country’s population in the smallest states end up being allotted 8 percent of Electoral College votes.

And fourth, there’s the possibility for those electors themselves to hijack the outcome.

[...]

6) Well, are there arguments for the Electoral College?

It’s tough to argue with a straight face that this bizarre system is inherently better than just a simple vote. After all, why doesn’t any state elect its governor with an “Electoral College” of various counties? Why does pretty much every other country that elects a president use a simple popular vote, or a vote accompanied with a runoff?

Now, you can argue that the Electoral College’s seeming distortions of the popular will aren’t as bad as they seem — for instance, by pointing out that swing states tend to swing along with the nation rather than overriding its will, or that the popular vote winner almost always wins. But of course, that’s not guaranteed to always be the case, and the biggest major exception (the 2000 election) was an incredibly consequential one.

Others try to fearmonger about the prospect of a contested nationwide recount — which, sure, would be ugly, but if you’ll recall, the Florida recount was also extremely ugly. And since there are so many more votes cast nationally, it’s much less likely that the national vote would end up a near tie than that a tipping point’s state vote would end up as a near tie.

Some argue that the Electoral College ensures regional balance .. http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf , since it’s mathematically impossible for a candidate with overwhelming support from just one region to be elected. But realistically, the country is big and broad enough that this couldn’t happen under a popular vote system either — any regional candidate would need to get some support outside his or her region.

But when we get down to brass tacks, the most serious objections to reforming the Electoral College come from rural and small-state elites who fear that under a national popular vote system, they’d be ignored and elections would be decided by people who live in cities.

Gary Gregg of the University of Louisville wrote in 2012 .. http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/keep-electoral-college-for-fair-presidential-votes-084651 .. that eliminating the Electoral College would lead to “dire consequences.” Specifically, he feared that elections would “strongly tilt” in favor of “candidates who can win huge electoral margins in the country’s major metropolitan areas.” He continued:

-
If the United States does away with the Electoral College, future presidential elections will go to candidates and parties willing to cater to urban voters and skew the nation’s policies toward big-city interests. Small-town issues and rural values will no longer be their concern.
-

And Pete du Pont, a former governor of Delaware (three electoral votes), has made a similar case, calling proposals for a national popular vote an “urban power grab.”

But a national popular vote system wouldn’t devalue the votes of people who live in rural states and small towns. It would accurately value them by treating them equal to people who live in cities, rather than giving them an extra weighting. Furthermore, small-state interests are built into the Senate’s math (where Delaware absurdly gets as many senators as California), and many House districts are rural. So rural and small-state areas are hardly hurting for national political representation.

Sure, candidates might end up spending less time stumping in the rural areas that currently happen to be lucky enough to fall within the borders of swing states, and more time in urban centers. But is that really a convincing rebuttal to the pretty basic and obvious argument that in the most important electoral choice Americans make, their votes should be treated equally?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/12315574/electoral-college-explained-presidential-elections-2016

One last.

Facts support national popular vote

By Matt Mackowiak, Opinion Contributor — 09/08/19 02:00 PM EDT
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill 09/08/1


© Getty Images

All links

I wanted to believe the critics.

I assumed their arguments against a national popular vote were valid. But with each new claim, even basic research undermines the opposition to the movement toward a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States.

No, the recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling does not affect a National Popular Vote. The ruling dealt with faithless electors, not the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact enacted by Colorado’s legislature and governor.

No, cities would not be advantaged over rural areas. Only one-sixth of the country lives in the top 100 cities. One-fifth live in rural areas. California and New York together only have 18 percent of all voters.

According to the 2010 census, the five biggest cities in the country (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) account for only about six percent of the national population.

The top 20 cities account for only about 10 percent of the population. Even the top 50 cities only account for 15 percent of the nation’s population. Big cities could never dominate under a national popular vote.

Opponents also often say .. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40041769?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents .. a national popular vote would lead to TV campaigns where candidates only attempt to win votes in the largest cities, ignoring the rural areas. Again, the math simply doesn’t support this claim.

The Constitution does not require “winner-take-all.” The Constitution leaves it to the states to decide how their electors are chosen. Currently, 48 states and the District of Columbia use a voting method called winner-take-all.

The state-based, winner-take-all was never discussed at the constitutional convention. In fact, it wasn’t until the 11th presidential election that a majority of the states had a winner-take-all system. States can change the method they use to select their Electoral College votes without any constitutional amendment as Article II, Section I of the Constitution gives states the power to award electors however they see fit.

Some people claim that a national popular vote advantages Democrats. But I can find no hard evidence that this is the case. Since 1988, 38 states have voted the same way .. https://www.270towin.com/same-since-electoral-maps/ .. in presidential elections, giving Democrats an automatic 242-102 electoral vote advantage and placing them a mere 28 electoral votes from clinching the presidency even before the first votes are cast.

Dan Balz’s recent column in The Washington Post posits that the 2020 election may have only four battleground states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. Can a voting method that lets four states chose the next president really be defended?

Moving from a winner-take-all method to a national popular vote is not a fantasy.

In fact, the National Popular Vote .. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ .. Interstate Compact, which has now been adopted by 15 states and the District of Columbia, totaling 196 electoral votes, is an actionable and realistic presidential election reform plan. (The compact has also passed in at least one house of state legislatures in eight additional states, accounting for 75 electoral votes.)

Only when the compact hits a total of 270 electoral votes by July 20 in a presidential election year will it take effect. This means a national popular vote will likely not happen in time for the 2020 presidential election, but it certainly may for the 2024 election.

This compact still respects the constitutional role of the states in selecting the president, but it does so through a popular mandate. It’s the best of both worlds. It would also force a Democratic nominee to campaign in red states and a Republican nominee to campaign in blue states.

Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, every vote would have equal value, but neither party would have an automatic advantage. America would finally elect a president of the United States and not a president of the Battleground States of America.

Matt Mackowiak is the president of Potomac Strategy Group, a Republican consultant, a Bush administration and Bush-Cheney re-election campaign veteran and former press secretary to two U.S. senators. His national politics podcast, “Mack on Politics,” may be found on iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher and on the web at MackOnPolitics.com.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/460425-facts-support-national-popular-vote