7 ms·

The mere existence of this tool highlights the complexity and opaqueness of the electoral college system compared to the popular vote. You can't expect a layper

The mere existence of this tool highlights the complexity and opaqueness of the electoral college system compared to the popular vote. You can't expect a layperson to have a somewhat accurate mental model of this probability breakdown and I believe it totally erodes their motivation to vote in the first place.

icegreentea2 6y ago
I don't think the electoral college is that opaque, or complex. It's certainly more complex then a straight popular vote. But consider that there are many many parliamentary systems in the world that have a degree of complexity and subtly on the same order as the electoral college (though the unequal sizes of states does mean the EC is more complex). I certainly don't think the electoral college is a good system for modern day America, but I also think that it's blamed for far too many ills. For one thing, I really doubt that not being able to form a good mental model of the EC is in the top 4 reasons of voter apathy.
- wvenable 6y ago
  If you're in a safe state that's a different political leaning than you are, there isn't much incentive for you to vote. Your vote, for President anyway, is effectively meaningless.
  - titanomachy 6y ago
    That's true even if your state is the same political leaning as you. The only way to have a vote that matters is to live in a state which is split close to 50/50.
  - icegreentea2 6y ago
    Right, but for all systems that isn't directly proportionate to popular vote (that means no geographic grouping of representatives), that's true. Parliamentary systems, and both American house of representatives suffer from this failure mode - it's not particular unique to the American presidential election. Finally, I would not defend the EC as a particularly good system, and certainly from a campaigner's standpoint, its particularly complex to navigate. But from an individual voter's standpoint, the mental model is simple. If you are in a swing state, you especially should vote. Parliamentary systems have concepts of "crucial ridings", which are quite similar.
    - Gwypaas 6y ago
      You will never get it completely right but at least do something with a true grounding in math aiming for the most precise outcome. Every vote, in every election, should count for something and not only be a participation point on all other levels than local because you live in a gerrymandered district in Chicago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_me...
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        Every vote in every election does count. The current selection of states that vote so consistently for one party is a trend that goes all the way back to... Bill Clinton’s election. It’s not anomalous in history at all, and you have no reason to believe that in the future California wouldn’t go back to being a sure bet for Republicans, and Texas a sure bet for Democrats. If a person thinks their vote doesn’t count because of the state they live in, they haven’t been failed by the electoral college, they’ve been failed by their own ignorance of history.
  - syshum 6y ago
    I have always found it odd, and sadly commentary on the state of the nation that soo many people put so much weight on the office of president. It is become itself a title of nobility in a way something the founders opposed. With the consolidation of power, and congress' continual abjection of their responsibility to legislation (something BOTH parties are guilty of) and instead passing more and more power to the executive and courts the office of president and now the Supreme Court are considered more of a legislative body than the actual legislature. That is equal parts alarming and sad Ideally the president should be one of the least important races a person casts for vote for, not the most important
- tekkk 6y ago
  As the other children comments noted, I think the biggest problem of the system is game theory wise that there is no considerable pay-off when voting in a heavily blue or red state. There should be either a two-tier system with points from winning a state and from getting the most votes, or just straight popular vote. Granted, in that case the smaller states would probably lose meaning but eh. Isn't that what democracy is about? The most popular candidate should win?
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>> Granted, in that case the smaller states would probably lose meaning but eh. Isn't that what democracy is about? Which is exactly why the founders set up the electoral collage in the first place, because they had no desire for a strait democracy, nor do I democracy is 2 wolfs and a lamb voting on what is for dinner, I have no desire to live in such a system. I prefer a constitutional republic of independent states bound by a common defense, economic and legal system aka the United States of America >There should be either a two-tier system with points from winning a state and from getting the most votes Something like that be done under the current system in fact 2 states already do this by Proportionally allocating their electors instead of winner take all There is nothing under the current system preventing a state from doing that Personally I have always been in favor of Every congressional District being awarded by the popular vote of that district, which would leave 2 "At Large" votes per state to be given out based on the popular vote of the state.
    - noahtallen 6y ago
      How does the concept of the electoral college protect the republic any more than a popular vote? It seems to be a layer of indirection rather than anything useful. If it was useful for preventing poor candidates, I feel it’s not working that well. The effect it has is to amplify the voice of sparsely populated states. Do we actually think that these states are more qualified to decide what we have to dinner (or more qualified to protect the republic?) I’m also unsure how breaking down the popular vote by district helps to protect the republic further. Why not just use the popular vote (or even better, RCV or approval voting) instead of adding these layers of indirection?
austincheney 6y ago
If states’ winner takes all rules were eliminated the EC would serve as a far more accurate representation of voter interest than either the EC in its current form or the straight popular vote. I say that because it would allow a wider distribution of diversity in the vote while countering bias of density disparities.
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  That will only happen if a super gerrymandered state flips. E.g., Texas might go proportionate if their EC votes swing blue. Why? Because it's not impossible that Dems might win Texas's EC votes in the next 30 years but it is literally impossible for them to control the state government in that time-frame. However, in all the cases I can think of with that flavor, it's hard to imagine the electoral college remaining competitive even with gerrymandered states going proportionate. So IMO, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is much more likely than the majority of states go proportional with their EC votes (and even that is highly unlikely).

icegreentea2 6y ago

I don't think the electoral college is that opaque, or complex. It's certainly more complex then a straight popular vote. But consider that there are many many parliamentary systems in the world that have a degree of complexity and subtly on the same order as the electoral college (though the unequal sizes of states does mean the EC is more complex). I certainly don't think the electoral college is a good system for modern day America, but I also think that it's blamed for far too many ills. For one thing, I really doubt that not being able to form a good mental model of the EC is in the top 4 reasons of voter apathy.

wvenable 6y ago
If you're in a safe state that's a different political leaning than you are, there isn't much incentive for you to vote. Your vote, for President anyway, is effectively meaningless.
- titanomachy 6y ago
  That's true even if your state is the same political leaning as you. The only way to have a vote that matters is to live in a state which is split close to 50/50.
- icegreentea2 6y ago
  Right, but for all systems that isn't directly proportionate to popular vote (that means no geographic grouping of representatives), that's true. Parliamentary systems, and both American house of representatives suffer from this failure mode - it's not particular unique to the American presidential election. Finally, I would not defend the EC as a particularly good system, and certainly from a campaigner's standpoint, its particularly complex to navigate. But from an individual voter's standpoint, the mental model is simple. If you are in a swing state, you especially should vote. Parliamentary systems have concepts of "crucial ridings", which are quite similar.
  - Gwypaas 6y ago
    You will never get it completely right but at least do something with a true grounding in math aiming for the most precise outcome. Every vote, in every election, should count for something and not only be a participation point on all other levels than local because you live in a gerrymandered district in Chicago. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_me...
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      Every vote in every election does count. The current selection of states that vote so consistently for one party is a trend that goes all the way back to... Bill Clinton’s election. It’s not anomalous in history at all, and you have no reason to believe that in the future California wouldn’t go back to being a sure bet for Republicans, and Texas a sure bet for Democrats. If a person thinks their vote doesn’t count because of the state they live in, they haven’t been failed by the electoral college, they’ve been failed by their own ignorance of history.
- syshum 6y ago
  I have always found it odd, and sadly commentary on the state of the nation that soo many people put so much weight on the office of president. It is become itself a title of nobility in a way something the founders opposed. With the consolidation of power, and congress' continual abjection of their responsibility to legislation (something BOTH parties are guilty of) and instead passing more and more power to the executive and courts the office of president and now the Supreme Court are considered more of a legislative body than the actual legislature. That is equal parts alarming and sad Ideally the president should be one of the least important races a person casts for vote for, not the most important
tekkk 6y ago
As the other children comments noted, I think the biggest problem of the system is game theory wise that there is no considerable pay-off when voting in a heavily blue or red state. There should be either a two-tier system with points from winning a state and from getting the most votes, or just straight popular vote. Granted, in that case the smaller states would probably lose meaning but eh. Isn't that what democracy is about? The most popular candidate should win?
- syshum 6y ago
  >>> Granted, in that case the smaller states would probably lose meaning but eh. Isn't that what democracy is about? Which is exactly why the founders set up the electoral collage in the first place, because they had no desire for a strait democracy, nor do I democracy is 2 wolfs and a lamb voting on what is for dinner, I have no desire to live in such a system. I prefer a constitutional republic of independent states bound by a common defense, economic and legal system aka the United States of America >There should be either a two-tier system with points from winning a state and from getting the most votes Something like that be done under the current system in fact 2 states already do this by Proportionally allocating their electors instead of winner take all There is nothing under the current system preventing a state from doing that Personally I have always been in favor of Every congressional District being awarded by the popular vote of that district, which would leave 2 "At Large" votes per state to be given out based on the popular vote of the state.
  - noahtallen 6y ago
    How does the concept of the electoral college protect the republic any more than a popular vote? It seems to be a layer of indirection rather than anything useful. If it was useful for preventing poor candidates, I feel it’s not working that well. The effect it has is to amplify the voice of sparsely populated states. Do we actually think that these states are more qualified to decide what we have to dinner (or more qualified to protect the republic?) I’m also unsure how breaking down the popular vote by district helps to protect the republic further. Why not just use the popular vote (or even better, RCV or approval voting) instead of adding these layers of indirection?

austincheney 6y ago

If states’ winner takes all rules were eliminated the EC would serve as a far more accurate representation of voter interest than either the EC in its current form or the straight popular vote. I say that because it would allow a wider distribution of diversity in the vote while countering bias of density disparities.

throwawaygh 6y ago
That will only happen if a super gerrymandered state flips. E.g., Texas might go proportionate if their EC votes swing blue. Why? Because it's not impossible that Dems might win Texas's EC votes in the next 30 years but it is literally impossible for them to control the state government in that time-frame. However, in all the cases I can think of with that flavor, it's hard to imagine the electoral college remaining competitive even with gerrymandered states going proportionate. So IMO, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is much more likely than the majority of states go proportional with their EC votes (and even that is highly unlikely).