How can we fix the Electoral College?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by shyam09, Nov 12, 2016.

  1. shyam09 macrumors 68000

    shyam09

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    #1
    Disclaimer: I want to take this towards a serious discussion. Let's forget the results of the election and focus on ideas that can make the way we elect presidents better for the future. This thread is open for everyone, regardless of which country; I'd love to hear your thoughts / bring in your experiences as well.

    The EC has both flaws and benefits. Electoral voters / Faithless voters can be seen as a flaw, while representation for less populated states as a benefit. Faithless voters obviously aren't bound to vote for the candidate the people of his/her state chose, unless restricted by the state law. This, thus, can take the meaning of a person's vote away from the people.

    For example, if Californians vote Clinton but one Electoral Voter disagrees with this and wants Trump, he / she can vote Trump, even though he was technically supposed to vote for Clinton.

    Popular vote, on the other hand, is a flawed way of judging the presidential candidate. As has been mentioned in other threads, candidates would have to focus on large, metropolitan areas - NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. / the states with these big cities to win the election since urbanized areas are more populated. This doesn't ensure equal representation.

    We could set up a system where majority ECs + majority popular vote will grant victory, and since it's a rare case when the ECs and Popular votes support agree with each other, we could have the House vote?

    What are your thoughts on this subject?
     
  2. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #2
    I think that all states should apportion their electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska do. The winner of the statewide vote gets the 2 senatorial electoral votes. The winner in each congressional district gets that electoral vote. In Maine this year, Trump was able to peal off 1 electoral vote because he won the vote in the 2nd congressional district. Clinton got the other 3 votes. Under this system, the only winner take all states would those that only have 1 representative in the House.

    Under this system, I believe that less people would feel like their vote didn't count.
     
  3. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #3
    I'm not American and haven't looked closely into the system. But what's wrong with abolishing boundaries and having all votes worth the same? It seems daft to me to have someone in one county have a vote that's worth more than someone in a mega city - and all those people in cities are fully developed individuals, it's not like they're 0.75 of a human.
     
  4. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #4
    It doesn't matter in my State. They might as well put ours in the left column for 2020 already. I'd love to see electors assigned to congressional disctricts. You win that district, you get that elector. Make them work for it. There are two electors assigned to each Senate seat. Winner of popular vote in a State gets both if they win by 50%+1. If no one passes 50% of the popular vote each of the top two candidates gets one from that State.
     
  5. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #5
    And you have faith that these congressional districts will be apportioned how?
     
  6. Night Spring macrumors G5

    Night Spring

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    #6
    The US is a huge country, with many of its states having land areas bigger than lots of European countries. You wouldn't expect people in Greece to have the same needs/wants as those living in England. Likewise, people living in a midwestern state has very different concerns than those living in California. Since California has a much larger population than any one midwestern state, if the Presidental election was decided by popular vote, then the people of California can effectively override the people of Midwest. Even though each person's vote is counted the same, because on some issues, people would naturally tend to one side based on geography, on such issues California would always win over the Midwest. The electoral college gives the people in less populous areas some chance of having their voice heard.
     
  7. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #7
    How can we fix the Electoral College?

    Maybe start with having the exact same voter rules and regulations for every state.

    If you can vote early in one state, voters in all states should have the same privilege. This would help voter turnout everywhere.

    All states should have the same time frame. No reason voting deadline should be at 7pm in one state, when it's a 9pm deadline in another state. It really should be a 10pm deadline for all states.

    If NYC (the most populated city in America) can have the majority of voter lines under 40 minutes, then I don't see why other states and cites that's less populated should have lines that are 3+ hours wait. And it's mostly in specific areas that cause suspicion for voter suppression. And you can't blame the infrastructure or man power for long wait times, cause there is more than ample time to prepare.

    States just shouldn't have any say so about voter regulations.



    Popular vote .....

    The argument that high populated regions will have an advantage, kind of falls short for me. The racial makeup in this country itself is already an advantage for whites, religion is an advantage for the religious, and the list goes on and on ...

    The popular vote is really not that bad, since state and city local laws are voted from within. California is not ruling on NY state and city local laws. Laws that cater to regional needs.

    Actually, lower populated states can change the face of health care for much higher populated states and the rest of the country. That's kind of unfair when you think about it, especially when it has nothing to do with a regional issue.

    With a popular vote, voter tallies of states should be kept secret. If we are the UNITED States of America, then let's vote in a UNITED fashion, so politicians would cater to us in a UNITED manner.

    We truly need to kill the Red state, Blue state, Swing state ideology, It's like Bloods and Crips fighting for each other's turf and neutral grounds. We will continue to be a divided nation with this method.

    Demographics are changing quickly. Soon the GOP will be locked out completely from the majority of big electoral states. Minority population counts for about 80% of American population growth(excluding undocumented). And many will turn of voter age sooner or later. The majority of minorities at the moment are the Left, and given today's climate, that's not going to change any time soon. So what happens win the GOP is locked out the Popular and the Electoral voting method? :eek:







     
  8. Michael Goff macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #8
    I say get rid of it.

    "But what about the small states..."

    A major decision should not be able to made by a minority. I don't care how it measures geographically. If a majority of Americans live on the coasts, that means whatever is done will affect more people on the coasts. The EC is a flawed Federalist mess.

    Edit: While we're at it, the system of states is kind of flawed as well.
     
  9. jerwin, Nov 12, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2016

    jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #9
    Right. Most people in Virginia speak English. Most people in Texas speak Spanish. They have nothing in common.

    PS. What's with the obsolete nomenclature-- it's the United Kingdom. England hasn't stood on its own since 1707.
     
  10. nrvna76 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
  11. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    I don't think the electoral college is flawed. It's not a perfect system but neither is the popular vote. America is a diverse place and I do believe an popular voting system would not adequately represent the entire country's needs.

    There are other aspects I'd like to change. Like making Election Day a national holiday so people can get the day off to vote.

    Secondly the primary voting is very flawed IMO. All primary votes should take place on the same day and/or different days for logistical reasons but withhold results and exit polls until all voting is complete. I feel like we risk undue influence if people think they need to vote for candidates who they see is already winning. As in "X doesn't have a chance because he lost in the first five states' primaries".

    I wouldn't be opposed either to universal voting rules across all states. Makes sense to me.

    In Connecticut where I'm registered to vote, I have to pay for the stamp to send in my absentee ballot. Sure $0.47 is not a lot of money, but I thought voting was free...

    Just because Clinton didn't win this time around does not mean we have to rework the fundamental design of our government.
     
  12. samiwas Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #12
    But, as it is now, candidates really only have to focus on a handful of swing states. For example, in 2012, Ohio had 73 campaign events and Florida had 40, while 38 states and DC had none at all.

    But, our system does allow someone with a much as 76% of the vote to still lose. Well, actually, it's technically possible for someone to receive 99% of the vote but still lose. That's not right.
     
  13. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #13
    Is it deja vu or didn't we just go through this? I remember thinking you were the only one I've seen here who gets that model....

    Maybe I'm going crazy?
     
  14. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #14
    The EC isn't perfect but it's what the Framers wanted. A straight popular vote would bring it's own set of problems. FWIW, the large California population skews the popular vote numbers. Remove Cali and Trump (and Bush 2000) win the popular vote, too.
     
  15. jerwin, Nov 12, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2016

    jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #15
    The Framers also wanted to keep slavery around, and feared the political power of women. Why deify them? Why exalt their hypotheses in the face of disprobative experimental evidence?
     
  16. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #16
    California is part of America too. And it has the highest GDP. Why should states like Michigan, Wisconsin, NC and a few others, be the deciding factor of the election when they bring in much less revenue.
     
  17. Michael Goff macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #17
    The framers also wanted voting to be only white males.

    Also, why remove a huge number of people? Because they don't agree with you politically?
     
  18. Abazigal macrumors 604

    Abazigal

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #18
    So what exactly is wrong with it? Both Hillary and Trump tried to game the system, and Trump simply did a better job of it.

    You can't talk about changing a system just because the candidate you didn't vote for won.
     
  19. Michael Goff macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #19
    Way to make it partisan.
     
  20. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #20
    Everyone loves the Electoral College - teaching the "idiot" masses how good a system it is - 'till it isn't.

    Then they demand change!
     
  21. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #21
    lol, pot meet kettle.
     
  22. Abazigal macrumors 604

    Abazigal

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #22
    No idea what you mean here. Not trying to start a war, just genuinely curious.
     
  23. Michael Goff macrumors G4

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #23
    How is bringing up history partisan?

    A lot of people who want it fixed voted for Trump. You're saying it's because their candidate lost, an us vs them mentality.
     
  24. Abazigal macrumors 604

    Abazigal

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #24
    Would people be amenable to revamping the whole system if it meant that Trump now stood an even higher chance of winning?

    What other way is there of looking at it? In an election, there will always be winners and losers, regardless of which system is in place or how flawed it is. There will always be people happy with the outcome, and people unhappy with the results.

    I guess we have to work back from the end in mind and ask the question - what sort of outcome were you looking for? What sort of person do you think would make a great president, then make those provisions enshrined in the requirements. Maybe make it such that before someone could run for president, they had to first fulfill a set of criteria? It might narrow down the list of suitable candidates drastically, but it could help ensure a more qualified bunch.
     
  25. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #25
    Easy, require independent boards and only zip codes can serve as boundaries.
     

Share This Page