5 ms·

> I don't think it's perfect, but in principle I don't see it as a bad things that people in say Montana have a means to influence the presidency. Under the el

> I don't think it's perfect, but in principle I don't see it as a bad things that people in say Montana have a means to influence the presidency. Under the electoral college system, voters in so-called swing states have much more influence on the outcome of the election than voters in states with established political supremacy. To your point above, in a system where the popular vote determines the outcome, every person's vote weighs equally. On top of that, the electoral college enables the "faithless elector" scenario, in which chosen electors who cast the legally-binding vote for president opt to either vote against the wishes of the electorate or to abstain entirely[0]. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiafalo_v._Washington

Rebelgecko 6y ago
I thought the result of the supreme court cases is that the votes of faithless electors are nonbinding?
- save_ferris 6y ago
  The ruling grants states the power to enforce the pledge of an elector or penalize them for casting an alternative vote, but it's up to the states to do so.
nl 6y ago
> voters in so-called swing states have much more influence on the outcome of the election than voters in states with established political supremacy I can't imagine any system where there aren't "safe" areas that politicians essentially ignore. Sometimes these "safe" states/areas aren't as safe as they were thought to be (2016 Midwest, 2020 Georgia and Arizona, Texas looks to be heading that way). The Midwest is a perfect example: in 2016 people there felt that the Democratic party was ignoring their needs and switched their traditional trade-union based Democratic voting behaviour to Trump. Areas get attention by changing their voting habits. I don't see this as a bad thing. > On top of that, the electoral college enables the "faithless elector" scenario, in which chosen electors who cast the legally-binding vote for president opt to either vote against the wishes of the electorate or to abstain entirely[0]. Yes I agree entirely this needs to be fixed.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > I can't imagine any system where there aren't "safe" areas that politicians essentially ignore. Of course, when you're campaigning for the support of millions of people in a large country, some areas will be prioritized over others. The problem that swing states create, which we've seen play out on multiple occasions in the US, is that a candidate can win the popular vote by a margin of millions and still ultimately lose the election. It doesn't seem logical that a democratic system exists where the majority winner can still lose the race because of how particular states are weighed in terms of electoral power. With gerrymandering factored in, the system is further skewed to require an even lower vote threshold for a particular party to retain a majority in congress versus another. Compounded, these modifications begin to fundamentally undermine the democratic system, which further discourages voter turnout and participation in the system entirely.
  - nl 6y ago
    I hadn't anticipated this somewhat odd conflation of the issue of swing states with the electoral college. That seems to be primarily a criticism from people who haven't been through many elections - California was a reliable Republican state until 1992, Texas has been reliably Republican for decades but now is a swing state etc. Most political criticism of the electoral college comes from the idea it is non-representation: A vote in Wyoming is worth between 2.9 and 3.6 times a vote in California[1] depending on if you measure turnout of population. A non-electoral college system will change that, but instead of it being Republican votes in Democratic strongholds that don't count (and vice-versa) it will be all the votes outside of CA, NY, IL, TX and FL. Parties will create policies that favor large, dense populate centers, and the rest of the country will be ignored. [1] https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280 https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-t...

Rebelgecko 6y ago

I thought the result of the supreme court cases is that the votes of faithless electors are nonbinding?

save_ferris 6y ago
The ruling grants states the power to enforce the pledge of an elector or penalize them for casting an alternative vote, but it's up to the states to do so.

nl 6y ago

> voters in so-called swing states have much more influence on the outcome of the election than voters in states with established political supremacy I can't imagine any system where there aren't "safe" areas that politicians essentially ignore. Sometimes these "safe" states/areas aren't as safe as they were thought to be (2016 Midwest, 2020 Georgia and Arizona, Texas looks to be heading that way). The Midwest is a perfect example: in 2016 people there felt that the Democratic party was ignoring their needs and switched their traditional trade-union based Democratic voting behaviour to Trump. Areas get attention by changing their voting habits. I don't see this as a bad thing. > On top of that, the electoral college enables the "faithless elector" scenario, in which chosen electors who cast the legally-binding vote for president opt to either vote against the wishes of the electorate or to abstain entirely[0]. Yes I agree entirely this needs to be fixed.

save_ferris 6y ago
> I can't imagine any system where there aren't "safe" areas that politicians essentially ignore. Of course, when you're campaigning for the support of millions of people in a large country, some areas will be prioritized over others. The problem that swing states create, which we've seen play out on multiple occasions in the US, is that a candidate can win the popular vote by a margin of millions and still ultimately lose the election. It doesn't seem logical that a democratic system exists where the majority winner can still lose the race because of how particular states are weighed in terms of electoral power. With gerrymandering factored in, the system is further skewed to require an even lower vote threshold for a particular party to retain a majority in congress versus another. Compounded, these modifications begin to fundamentally undermine the democratic system, which further discourages voter turnout and participation in the system entirely.
- nl 6y ago
  I hadn't anticipated this somewhat odd conflation of the issue of swing states with the electoral college. That seems to be primarily a criticism from people who haven't been through many elections - California was a reliable Republican state until 1992, Texas has been reliably Republican for decades but now is a swing state etc. Most political criticism of the electoral college comes from the idea it is non-representation: A vote in Wyoming is worth between 2.9 and 3.6 times a vote in California[1] depending on if you measure turnout of population. A non-electoral college system will change that, but instead of it being Republican votes in Democratic strongholds that don't count (and vice-versa) it will be all the votes outside of CA, NY, IL, TX and FL. Parties will create policies that favor large, dense populate centers, and the rest of the country will be ignored. [1] https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280 https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-t...