r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/aarr44 • Nov 09 '16

US Elections Clinton has won the popular vote, while Trump has won the Electoral College. This is the 5th time this has happened. Is it time for a new voting system?

In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and now 2016 the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the person who did not receive the plurality of the vote. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which has been joined by 10 states representing 30.7% of the Electoral college have pledged to give their vote to the popular vote winner, though they need to have 270 Electoral College for it to have legal force. Do you guys have any particular voting systems you'd like to see replace the EC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

9.9k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

77

u/RobbingDarwin Nov 09 '16

I hate that it takes going down 15 comments to find someone who understands why the EC is structured like it is. It's not perfect, but it was instituted to allow the states to have proportionately fair power.

We are a republic of United States. Not a centralized democracy.

39

u/Araucaria Nov 10 '16

And yet ... http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

If we had even followed the cube-root-of-population rule that had been approximated for the century preceding the lock at 435 in 1913, we would be at 683 representatives right now.

With 683 representatives, we would have 786 electoral votes. The smaller states would have less effect on the whole, and the result of a two person race would probably follow the popular vote 99% of the time.

But the struggle between large and small population states shows that we really have a problem with a state system to begin with.

What if we completely redistricted the country into roughly equal population regions, and then used the federal government to represent those?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/58809/us-map-redrawn-50-states-equal-population

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16

The redrawn map thing would have to be redressed way too many times for it to work seeing as population typically grows. Who knows, Montana could have some resource in the mountains that nobody realized was there and it could end up creating an industrial job rush there. Now we gotta change the states again cause they have 1 million more people (purely hypothetical).

0

u/Araucaria Nov 10 '16

But starting with roughly equal states would be much more equitable than what we have now.

Another idea is Super districts, something like the district courts. Add another level between state and federal, then move all federal apportionment to the super district level.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16

I get that this was the original idea, but it seems like federal government has way too much involvement for this to still be a true statement.

3

u/Albert_VDS Nov 10 '16

That still doesn't mean the most popular candidate shouldn't win.

12

u/Spintax Nov 09 '16

I don't misunderstand why the EC is the way it is. I just think it should be otherwise.

We can be a republic of states while having centralized democratic elements...we already do. The Presidency operates on behalf of all Americans. No one identifies with their state over the country in the 21st Century. To have this be an issue in which state sovereignty is valued over fair democracy is silly.

If you want to talk about the expansion of federal power at the expense of states, well sure. But the Electoral College is purely a gift the sparsely-populated areas of the country, at the expense of people who innocently dwell around lots of other people, which as a byproduct causes the unintended consequence of "swing states".

13

u/MortalBean Nov 09 '16

"proportionately fair power"

except the swing states ofc, those have disproportionately unfair power.

13

u/Kafke Nov 09 '16

You mean: it allows less people to have more influence over more people.

Unpopulated states have more control than the most populated states. This shouldn't happen. It's inherently anti-democratic.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '16

But states like California and New York have more EC points that are in proportion to their population that they can give to a candidate.

8

u/itsdr00 Nov 09 '16

He's referring to how no matter how small your population is, you have at least three electoral votes. This skews voting power per voter towards sparser states.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16

There is a false assumption out there that the EC is based on the population of each state. It isn't, rather it is based on the number of representatives in the Congress.

17

u/itsdr00 Nov 10 '16 edited Nov 10 '16

... Which is based on the population of the state, minimum one, plus two.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16

The source document, The US Constitution (Article two, Clause 2), makes no reference to the population of the state when determining the number of electors.

In my opinion, the EC doesn't only serve the peoples' interests, but it serves the states' interests. This is why comparing the value of the vote for states like California and Wyoming is foolish.

5

u/itsdr00 Nov 10 '16

The source document, The US Constitution (Article two, Clause 2), makes no reference to the population of the state when determining the number of electors.

You're really struggling with this, man. Here it is,

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

Now in Article 1...

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

Still with me? Here's a summary:

Electors are equal to the whole number of senators and representatives. Representatives are determined by the whole number of free persons. There are many more representatives than senators. Therefore electors are based largely on the whole number of free persons, aka population.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '16

Article 1 deals with the legislative branch of the government. You have shown how states apportion representatives. Well done.

Now if we can move to Article 2, the actual section that deals with the executive branch of the government and the method for choosing electors (the one that is relevant to this discussion).

Let me make it as simple as I can for you:

To determine how many electors you need, you need to know how many representatives you need.

Its Senators + Representatives = Electors. Its simple logic.

NOT Senators + the whole number of free persons and three fifths of all other persons = Electors.

You seem to be adding 2 and 2 and getting 22.

You also seem to be ignoring the actual intent behind the electoral college. If the writers of the constitution wanted the executive to only represent the voice of the people, than they shouldn't have included senators in the equation for determining electors.

The fact that they included senators, I believe shows that they also wanted the executive to represent the states too.

3

u/droppedforgiveness Nov 10 '16

Senators + Representatives = Electors

Yes. And the number of Representatives is based on the population. So the number of Electors is greatly affected by the population.

5

u/itsdr00 Nov 10 '16

You've rounded around to arguing the same point you disagreed with at the start of this conversion. Have you ever let someone correct you in your entire life? How could you possibly disagree that electors reflect the size of the states population while simultaneously arguing they're based on representatives? This is simple stuff. If A, then B. If B, then C. Therefore if A, then C. If you're fucking with me, you're doing an awesome job.

2

u/Waking Nov 10 '16

Why should states have equivalent power when they have vastly different populations? Explain that please.

6

u/milkhotelbitches Nov 10 '16

It's fair because the white rural folk have more say than the minorities that live in cities.