Let's solve this whole Electoral College thing...if it needs to be.

[NecroJoe]

i can imagine is a martian landed on earth, and the US described the electoral college, that the aliens would go back to mars, comforted in their believe that there actually is no other intelligent life in the universe besides themselves.

OK, so I do totally get the concept that each state gets gets broken out and applied separately. I do see how that does benefit the interests of less populous states. However, I don't quite understand why these breakouts have to be actual people. Like...why isn't it just a tally on a scoreboard?

And secondly...in about half of the states, these electors don't even have to vote for the candidate their state chose in their popular vote. To me, this is the most baffling aspect.

Then, Congress gets to decide if they accept the vote, anyway.

So, these are just the headlines that, to me, get more and more confuzzling as you go through the steps and I realize I'm missing nuance.

Interestingly, there have been 5 times when the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral. 40% of those times have been in the last 16 years. The other 60% were in the 1800s. What happened in the 20th century that it never happened?

This last week I've been reading a fair amount about it in my downtime, but can't really find anyone that says the system we have is actually the best way. So if it isn't, what do y'all think is?

 

[avanti]

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that its the best system, but it is the system you have and its equal for both parties.

 

[NecroJoe]

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that its the best system.

That's kinda what I'm curious about. I'd be interested in what other folks might have that could improve it, or provide clarity for things that may not be commonly known.

 

[narf]

The big issue I see with the current system is winner takes all states. As a consequence, the election is decided by a few states (mostly florida, and within florida by usually narrow margins), votes in most other states don't really matter.

- - - Updated - - -

its equal for both parties.

Is it?

I only have a tablet with me so I only checked 2016, but from that it seems the smaller the state, the redder it is. As a result, the gop benefits from the skew of elector per voter ratio towards smaller states. One vote in, say, wisconsin, is worth several votes in, say, Texas.

 

[NecroJoe]

California went Republican in 1988. Texas used to swing democratic.

Check out this page. It compares the red and blue maps from previous elections. Really interesting to see how many states swap back and forth, and how some have sort-of "dynasty" periods where they are seemingly solidly on one side...until they switch.

http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

Especially check out 1936 and 1972!

- - - Updated - - -

The big issue I see with the current system is winner takes all states. As a consequence, the election is decided by a few states (mostly florida, and within florida by usually narrow margins), votes in most other states don't really matter.[/COLOR]

It came down to florida in 2000 due to the recount that just made it's results come in last, but West Virginia went Republican even though it had voted democrat in 5 of the previous 6 elections.



Is it?

I only have a tablet with me so I only checked 2016, but from that it seems the smaller the state, the redder it is. As a result, the gop benefits from the skew of elector per voter ratio towards smaller states. One vote in, say, wisconsin, is worth several votes in, say, Texas.

 

[Electric-Mayhem]

I've been looking into it a lot too, and though I'm no expert it seems like a change might be needed.

I had a mild argument/debate with a friend via facebook, and his argument for keeping it is that 1) Its how the constitution and our founding fathers wanted it and 2) He thinks it lowers the probability that voter fraud can happen since they would have to focus efforts on a bunch of states rather then a massive voter fraud attempt in one place that could effect a Popular vote. To me, my response to that is that as our country changes so should our system of voting and that what worked at the beginning may not work now. Voter fraud, while it does happen occasionally, is pretty rare and it has never made a statistically significant enough difference to effect an election. Anything big enough to do so, to me, would be very hard to pull off and not get caught.

There are many downsides to the current system too. This video does a better job explaining them then I can writing it...

So the question is, what to do about it. I think its relatively unlikely that it will change, but with enough people and politicians behind it I think it could. I'd honestly be ok with just going to a straight popular vote where the person with the most votes wins. I think the system we have right now promotes the two party system too much and it so a small fraction of the people end up making the decision for the whole. There are ways to get around it, also explained by several CGP Grey videos (the guy who did the first video I posted)...

That outlines the problem, but only mentions several of the fixes for it. My favorite is the Alternate Vote system...

Its as simple as everyone choosing a primary candidate and then several layers of alternate candidates or ranking the candidates from their first choice to their last. This system makes it so that a larger percentage of the people are represented, gives 3rd party candidates a bigger chance and gets rid of the "spolier" vote since as candidates are whittled down votes are transferred to the alternate candidate until its just two candidates. Everyone still contributes to the final vote even though their ultimate candidate may not have won.

There are other ways to make it more fair but they all revolve around the theme of transferring peoples votes to another candidate if primary choice doesn't have enough votes to win. I think we could even make a system like that work with the Electoral College system we already have, just updated to a system where you rank the candidates from first choice to last choice. It still separates the states, keeps checks in place, but allows for better overall representation of the will of the people.

 

[NecroJoe]

Ranked choice voting has quite a few different variations. It would be important to pick the "right" one.

Oakland ended up with a mayor in 2010 that basically was hardly nobody's first choice...but she did well enough to be a lot of people's 2nd and 3rd...and ended up with enough votes to win...and was eventually labelled by many as "America's worst mayor".

 

[Redliner]

We in Brazil have direct voting for all those positions, so it is basically "whoever gets the majority of votes, wins".
It has to be 50%+1 vote of all valid votas votes.
Valid votes are votes that are not blank or null.
In case no one gets that many votes, you have a second round, with just the two candidates with the most votes.

Someone will probably say I am mistaken, but that feels easier and more fair than electoral colleges.

Also, votes are compulsory here, which is not as effective as it sounds to increase engagement.
We just had elections for mayor and city council and non-valid votes (blanks, nulls and absentees) were a portions of voters bigger than the top two candidates combined.
People are feeling pretty disenfranchised and are on a "it won't matter" mindset.

 

[narf]

1) Its how the constitution and our founding fathers wanted it

...except it's not, e.g. Winner takes all wasn't a founding fathers thing.

 

[Firecat]

California went Republican in 1988. Texas used to swing democratic.

George H.W decimated Dukakis in that election. It's also shocking to know that Nixon in 72 and Reagan in 84, Republicans carried 49 of 50 states (in Reagan's first run he carried 44). I mean.....democrats really do suck. So yes, Gore and Clinton won the popular vote but ended up losing...I just wouldn't want to lose sight on the fact that the party needs a complete change...not the system.

 

[prizrak]

Putting EC aside, no matter what system we have you will always end up with "X doesn't work" in any kind of a close election from the losing side. This particular one also saw what most people consider damn near polar opposites go against each other.

EDIT: Also keep in mind that EC can work as a check on the people as it can absolutely cast a vote that has nothing to do with the popular vote, something that I have seen called for in the past few days. So if Trump is really literally Hitler EC can theoretically take his win away in December.

 

[NecroJoe]

So if Trump is really literally Hitler EC can theoretically take his win away in December.

...which then the house can reject...and since it's republican-lead, you can probably guess which way it would go.

 

[prizrak]

This could be kind of fun.

 

[Electric-Mayhem]

This could be kind of fun.

...or they could roll with it and elect someone that rides the party lines a bit better. That is honestly scarier to me, since it would be a Senate and House majority working with a president that will keep in line with that majority. I'm still not thrilled that Trump won, but the silver lining is that he is a party outsider and is tolerated but not well liked by the hardline republicans and may not fall in line with them on all things. One of the big headlines today is that after meeting with President Obama, he has decided to change his stance on repealing the Affordable Care Act and may just try to amend and improve it. I'm sure that made Mitch McConnell's head explode when he said that.

Its gonna be interesting... Trump didn't have many clear policies on anything during the campaign so seemingly get to find out what his policies will be at the same time he does. I imagine some of them will surprise the people who supported and voted for him.

 

[narf]

Its gonna be interesting... Trump didn't have many clear policies on anything during the campaign so seemingly get to find out what his policies will be at the same time he does. I imagine some of them will surprise the people who supported and voted for him.

What is he thinking next? Find out after the break.

Ten new policy ideas - number seven will shock you!

I'll keep you in suspense.

 

[prizrak]

...or they could roll with it and elect someone that rides the party lines a bit better. That is honestly scarier to me, since it would be a Senate and House majority working with a president that will keep in line with that majority. I'm still not thrilled that Trump won, but the silver lining is that he is a party outsider and is tolerated but not well liked by the hardline republicans and may not fall in line with them on all things. One of the big headlines today is that after meeting with President Obama, he has decided to change his stance on repealing the Affordable Care Act and may just try to amend and improve it. I'm sure that made Mitch McConnell's head explode when he said that.

Its gonna be interesting... Trump didn't have many clear policies on anything during the campaign so seemingly get to find out what his policies will be at the same time he does. I imagine some of them will surprise the people who supported and voted for him.

Funnily enough I was just reading an article written by the same professor who called his presidency, saying that they will basically find some way to impeach him so they can have Pence.

 

[NecroJoe]

That's scary, too.

 

[PelicanHazard]

So, I don't know if you're aware of it, but a somewhat interesting sidestep to the EC is being worked on in a few states. It's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and it's an agreement between signatory states that once the Compact comes into effect, the members will assign all of their electoral college votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. It only comes into effect once there's enough member states to get to the majority EC votes, so for now they're proceeding independently. But if it's ever activated, the EC technically remains though it becomes irrelevant as the Compact states will have enough EC votes to guarantee the national popular vote candidate wins.

How likely is it to pass? I wouldn't rate it very high, seeing as how all the member states so far tend to vote blue in presidential elections, but crazier things have happened.

 

[awdrifter]

I've been looking into it a lot too, and though I'm no expert it seems like a change might be needed.

I had a mild argument/debate with a friend via facebook, and his argument for keeping it is that 1) Its how the constitution and our founding fathers wanted it and 2) He thinks it lowers the probability that voter fraud can happen since they would have to focus efforts on a bunch of states rather then a massive voter fraud attempt in one place that could effect a Popular vote. To me, my response to that is that as our country changes so should our system of voting and that what worked at the beginning may not work now. Voter fraud, while it does happen occasionally, is pretty rare and it has never made a statistically significant enough difference to effect an election. Anything big enough to do so, to me, would be very hard to pull off and not get caught.

There are many downsides to the current system too. This video does a better job explaining them then I can writing it...

So the question is, what to do about it. I think its relatively unlikely that it will change, but with enough people and politicians behind it I think it could. I'd honestly be ok with just going to a straight popular vote where the person with the most votes wins. I think the system we have right now promotes the two party system too much and it so a small fraction of the people end up making the decision for the whole. There are ways to get around it, also explained by several CGP Grey videos (the guy who did the first video I posted)...

That outlines the problem, but only mentions several of the fixes for it. My favorite is the Alternate Vote system...

Its as simple as everyone choosing a primary candidate and then several layers of alternate candidates or ranking the candidates from their first choice to their last. This system makes it so that a larger percentage of the people are represented, gives 3rd party candidates a bigger chance and gets rid of the "spolier" vote since as candidates are whittled down votes are transferred to the alternate candidate until its just two candidates. Everyone still contributes to the final vote even though their ultimate candidate may not have won.

There are other ways to make it more fair but they all revolve around the theme of transferring peoples votes to another candidate if primary choice doesn't have enough votes to win. I think we could even make a system like that work with the Electoral College system we already have, just updated to a system where you rank the candidates from first choice to last choice. It still separates the states, keeps checks in place, but allows for better overall representation of the will of the people.

I love CGPGrey's videos. They actually used the Single Transferable vote system for the Hello Internet official flag vote.

 

[Cellos88GT]

Putting EC aside, no matter what system we have you will always end up with "X doesn't work" in any kind of a close election from the losing side.

close? HRC has 600k+ votes, you're leaving the margin of error at that point. Some project that it will swell over a lead of 2 million.