4 ms·

It seems like those people didn't feel the electoral college was problematic. Otherwise, voting would have exposed the vast discrepancy between popular opinion

by Sacho 9y ago

It seems like those people didn't feel the electoral college was problematic. Otherwise, voting would have exposed the vast discrepancy between popular opinion and the college. Even if Hillary had won, that demonstration could be used to spur reform of the election process.

tertius 9y ago
Say the majority went up to 55%... We'd still need a lot more than that to change the electoral college. And honestly, having big states control who becomes president just because of their population, given how independent states should function, is a cornerstone of the electoral college.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  A presidential candidate can win the election with only 21.91% of the popular vote. Something closer to that might be enough. However, I don't think that the electoral college could be changed because the parties responsible for changing it would be decreasing their electorates influence in the government which might be unpopular with said electorate.
  - tertius 9y ago
    > A presidential candidate can win the election with only 21.91% of the popular vote. That's great and might seem scary to some, but nothing close to that has ever happened.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      From John Q. Adams' 31% win to Clinton's 43% win, it depends on what you call "close."
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  > having big states control who becomes president just because of their population, given how independent states should function, This used to be true, but as more government control has been ceded to the federal government I don't believe this to be the case. The President is not all powerful either, this should be a fully democratic election. Also, the electoral college was broken when states started alotting their votes in a winner take all manner.
  - muninn_ 9y ago
    > This used to be true, but as more government control has been ceded to the federal government I don't believe this to be the case. Maybe this is the problem then? If you have less federal government control, and more state-level control then it wouldn't be as big of a deal if Trump is elected if you're a Californian. Likewise with a democratic candidate. And the current setup actually works pretty well. You should get diminishing returns on popular vote in a republic. Otherwise you have some areas that dominate others instead of a balance. In other words, you don't punish people/states that are not highly populated. It may not have worked out for us this time around, but it's more fair. If you want a different system, then abolish the Republic and the States.
- Sacho 9y ago
  If Hillary was up to 55%, a feat not reached by Obama, the discrepancy between the college and the popular vote would be huge, at minimum 10%, which would top the already few instances of a president winning without the popular vote.
plandis 9y ago
Actually no. Literally all the cities listed are in states that have agreed to a compact [1] that would award all electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote. The thinking being that such a system would be easier than getting rid of the electoral college. It goes into effect if 61.1% of electoral votes are part of the compact. What is it with non-US citizens in this thread? Honestly, none of you seem to have a good understanding of US politics and are being very insulting. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters...
- Sacho 9y ago
  But not all states are part of the compact, so they still could be convinced to join it, and a higher popularity vote margin would be more persuasive. Hillary's vote margin was smaller than Bush(2004) and both of Obama's. A 7%+ loss like 2008 would make a discussion about the electoral college more pertinent, since it's such a rare case that someone wins without the popular vote. My argument was that if people wanted to advance a position of reform, it would help highlight the college as being too far away from the popular vote.
path411 9y ago
Except a discrepancy between popular opinion and the college won't matter because the party who wins is the one that the problems of the electoral college worked in favor of. The electoral college was already brought up when Trump won while losing the popular vote, but it's just seen as "whining and complaining" so it just drops off pretty quickly.

by Sacho 9y ago

tertius 9y ago

Say the majority went up to 55%... We'd still need a lot more than that to change the electoral college. And honestly, having big states control who becomes president just because of their population, given how independent states should function, is a cornerstone of the electoral college.

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
A presidential candidate can win the election with only 21.91% of the popular vote. Something closer to that might be enough. However, I don't think that the electoral college could be changed because the parties responsible for changing it would be decreasing their electorates influence in the government which might be unpopular with said electorate.
- tertius 9y ago
  > A presidential candidate can win the election with only 21.91% of the popular vote. That's great and might seem scary to some, but nothing close to that has ever happened.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    From John Q. Adams' 31% win to Clinton's 43% win, it depends on what you call "close."
bluejekyll 9y ago
> having big states control who becomes president just because of their population, given how independent states should function, This used to be true, but as more government control has been ceded to the federal government I don't believe this to be the case. The President is not all powerful either, this should be a fully democratic election. Also, the electoral college was broken when states started alotting their votes in a winner take all manner.
- muninn_ 9y ago
  > This used to be true, but as more government control has been ceded to the federal government I don't believe this to be the case. Maybe this is the problem then? If you have less federal government control, and more state-level control then it wouldn't be as big of a deal if Trump is elected if you're a Californian. Likewise with a democratic candidate. And the current setup actually works pretty well. You should get diminishing returns on popular vote in a republic. Otherwise you have some areas that dominate others instead of a balance. In other words, you don't punish people/states that are not highly populated. It may not have worked out for us this time around, but it's more fair. If you want a different system, then abolish the Republic and the States.
Sacho 9y ago
If Hillary was up to 55%, a feat not reached by Obama, the discrepancy between the college and the popular vote would be huge, at minimum 10%, which would top the already few instances of a president winning without the popular vote.

plandis 9y ago

Actually no. Literally all the cities listed are in states that have agreed to a compact [1] that would award all electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote. The thinking being that such a system would be easier than getting rid of the electoral college. It goes into effect if 61.1% of electoral votes are part of the compact. What is it with non-US citizens in this thread? Honestly, none of you seem to have a good understanding of US politics and are being very insulting. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters...

Sacho 9y ago
But not all states are part of the compact, so they still could be convinced to join it, and a higher popularity vote margin would be more persuasive. Hillary's vote margin was smaller than Bush(2004) and both of Obama's. A 7%+ loss like 2008 would make a discussion about the electoral college more pertinent, since it's such a rare case that someone wins without the popular vote. My argument was that if people wanted to advance a position of reform, it would help highlight the college as being too far away from the popular vote.

path411 9y ago

Except a discrepancy between popular opinion and the college won't matter because the party who wins is the one that the problems of the electoral college worked in favor of. The electoral college was already brought up when Trump won while losing the popular vote, but it's just seen as "whining and complaining" so it just drops off pretty quickly.