7 ms·

What about the notion that switching from Electoral College to popular vote just changes the focus of power from a few key states to another few key states, spe

by talmand 14y ago

What about the notion that switching from Electoral College to popular vote just changes the focus of power from a few key states to another few key states, specifically the states with the highest populations and/or voter turnout?

mikeash 14y ago
It's a silly complaint because putting most of the power in the most populated states is exactly how you'd expect it to work. California, with a huge population, should be vastly more influential than Montana. How much more influential? Well, I'd say about 38 times more. Montana won't get much attention, but Montanans should get just as much attention per person as the rest of us, in that case.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I disagree, and so did the founders when they made two houses, one based on population and one based on states. I don't think the current electoral college is the right answer, but I don't think a pure populist vote is right, either.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    I'm well aware that I disagree with the founders on this question. After all, it's hardly the only thing I disagree with. Other items include whether women should be allowed to vote and whether people should be able to own other people. I think the federal government's original setup makes a great deal of sense when you're trying to tie together a loose collection of independent states, but no longer makes much sense today, now that the states have almost completely been subordinated to the federal government.
  - shrughes 14y ago
    What do you mean, "the founders"? The two house system was a compromise.
    - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
      It's a compromise that has worked fairly well, balancing population versus the independent needs of states. Throwing out that balance could fundamentally unsettle the US, because many states would quickly become tired of New York and California telling them how to live their lives.
      - richardjordan 14y ago
        ...as opposed to people in California and New York, states which create disproportionately large amounts of the national wealth, being told what to do by people in small states which don't have to manage the issues California and New York have to in order to keep the national economy moving. When you're in a small state with disproportional voting power you end up with more money coming back to your state than it contributes in federal taxes, so you can afford to act out and pretend we can all live in a screw the government utopia - the big states you're sticking your thumb in the eye of have to pay the tab.
        talmand 14y ago
        Considering that there has only been three elections where the winner of the electoral vote did not win the popular vote, per Wikipedia, it stands to reason that California and New York have roughly the same amount of influence either way. Therefore it is silly for them to complain over the system in place because it more than likely would still be what would be in place if the Presidential election was decided by popular vote. Personally, I think this issue comes from a confusion of how the electoral college works and how Congress works. The things you say that bother California and New York are not determined by the electoral college, which is used to elect the President, it is in fact how Congress itself works. If those two states are bothered by smaller states telling them what to do then the problem lies with Congress, not how the President is elected. It is only in the Senate where a smaller state gets the same amount of influence as every other state since they all get an equal number of votes. The electoral college electors and House of Representative members are determined by population count. The problem with a possible mismatch between popular vote and the electoral college is that states tend to be winner takes all, which they can change anytime they want since a state determines how its electors are chosen.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > California, with a huge population, should be vastly more influential than Montana. Justify this, please.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Sure. One person, one vote. If you need justification for that, well, that gets thornier. But I don't know what level of justification you're after, so let's start with this.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      No, go ahead. I'd love to see how you justify mob rule.
      - mikeash 14y ago
        Can't see any reason to continue the conversation after that dickish reply.
        jeffool 14y ago
        Agreed the grandparent's reply was a smarmy way of saying it, but, avoidance of majority rule is indeed why we use it. And to look at it another way: to keep one state (or a tiny few) from deciding the direction the rest of the states in the union must go. I don't think it's a stretch to say we've become a more singular nation state, so that second part may not be as obvious, but, it's definitely still a factor. Imagine the general mentality in a state whose populace you have a low opinion of can now dictate things formerly decided in your state. In a few words? That really sucks.
        mikeash 14y ago
        The system doesn't seem to work to prevent a tiny few states from deciding the direction the rest must go, it just shuffles them around. Instead of states like California, Texas, and New York having the biggest say, we have states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida doing it. I don't see how that's an improvement, and it actually looks substantially worse to me.
- talmand 14y ago
  Montana doesn't seem to get much attention now, including most other states. Only swing states get attention. But the complaint you have doesn't make sense because what you speak of is problems the states would have with how Congress works. The electoral college has nothing to do with law, only how the President is elected. Well, Vice President too, supposedly, but the choice of who to vote for is determined for us. To say that California doesn't have enough influence in federal laws because of the electoral college seems misdirected. California already has more influence over Montana right now because both the electoral college electors and House of Representatives are based on population count while the Senate is not. The only place that a small state has the same level of influence on the federal level is in the Senate. Therefore California's complaint about smaller states is partly caused by themselves and the other more populous states. Why does the Senate exist? To actually give the small states a chance in deciding things on a federal level. If everything was decided by popular vote then small states might as well not bother. Notice that the Senate has more powers than the House, which is as designed because each state has equal voting power. If treaties, for example, were ratified in the House then small states would most often have to follow the lead of the most populous states. That would open the possibility of our country being led by mob rule, which the Founders were fearful of and you call a dick comment. The only people who seriously push for everything being decided by popular vote tend to have an agenda to push that can only be done by mob rule, to the detriment of the minority for the advantage of the majority. Also note that most often the winner of the electoral college also wins the popular vote, it is rare for the reverse to happen. So it seems that whether we use electoral college or popular vote for electing the President it would rarely make a difference, other than the focus of campaigning. Want to have some real fun? Force the states to stop using winner takes all in determining electors. But even then it still probably wouldn't make much of a difference.

by talmand 14y ago

mikeash 14y ago

It's a silly complaint because putting most of the power in the most populated states is exactly how you'd expect it to work. California, with a huge population, should be vastly more influential than Montana. How much more influential? Well, I'd say about 38 times more. Montana won't get much attention, but Montanans should get just as much attention per person as the rest of us, in that case.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I disagree, and so did the founders when they made two houses, one based on population and one based on states. I don't think the current electoral college is the right answer, but I don't think a pure populist vote is right, either.
- mikeash 14y ago
  I'm well aware that I disagree with the founders on this question. After all, it's hardly the only thing I disagree with. Other items include whether women should be allowed to vote and whether people should be able to own other people. I think the federal government's original setup makes a great deal of sense when you're trying to tie together a loose collection of independent states, but no longer makes much sense today, now that the states have almost completely been subordinated to the federal government.
- shrughes 14y ago
  What do you mean, "the founders"? The two house system was a compromise.
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    It's a compromise that has worked fairly well, balancing population versus the independent needs of states. Throwing out that balance could fundamentally unsettle the US, because many states would quickly become tired of New York and California telling them how to live their lives.
    - richardjordan 14y ago
      ...as opposed to people in California and New York, states which create disproportionately large amounts of the national wealth, being told what to do by people in small states which don't have to manage the issues California and New York have to in order to keep the national economy moving. When you're in a small state with disproportional voting power you end up with more money coming back to your state than it contributes in federal taxes, so you can afford to act out and pretend we can all live in a screw the government utopia - the big states you're sticking your thumb in the eye of have to pay the tab.
      - talmand 14y ago
        Considering that there has only been three elections where the winner of the electoral vote did not win the popular vote, per Wikipedia, it stands to reason that California and New York have roughly the same amount of influence either way. Therefore it is silly for them to complain over the system in place because it more than likely would still be what would be in place if the Presidential election was decided by popular vote. Personally, I think this issue comes from a confusion of how the electoral college works and how Congress works. The things you say that bother California and New York are not determined by the electoral college, which is used to elect the President, it is in fact how Congress itself works. If those two states are bothered by smaller states telling them what to do then the problem lies with Congress, not how the President is elected. It is only in the Senate where a smaller state gets the same amount of influence as every other state since they all get an equal number of votes. The electoral college electors and House of Representative members are determined by population count. The problem with a possible mismatch between popular vote and the electoral college is that states tend to be winner takes all, which they can change anytime they want since a state determines how its electors are chosen.
saraid216 14y ago
> California, with a huge population, should be vastly more influential than Montana. Justify this, please.
- mikeash 14y ago
  Sure. One person, one vote. If you need justification for that, well, that gets thornier. But I don't know what level of justification you're after, so let's start with this.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    No, go ahead. I'd love to see how you justify mob rule.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      Can't see any reason to continue the conversation after that dickish reply.
      - jeffool 14y ago
        Agreed the grandparent's reply was a smarmy way of saying it, but, avoidance of majority rule is indeed why we use it. And to look at it another way: to keep one state (or a tiny few) from deciding the direction the rest of the states in the union must go. I don't think it's a stretch to say we've become a more singular nation state, so that second part may not be as obvious, but, it's definitely still a factor. Imagine the general mentality in a state whose populace you have a low opinion of can now dictate things formerly decided in your state. In a few words? That really sucks.
        mikeash 14y ago
        The system doesn't seem to work to prevent a tiny few states from deciding the direction the rest must go, it just shuffles them around. Instead of states like California, Texas, and New York having the biggest say, we have states like Ohio, Virginia, and Florida doing it. I don't see how that's an improvement, and it actually looks substantially worse to me.
talmand 14y ago
Montana doesn't seem to get much attention now, including most other states. Only swing states get attention. But the complaint you have doesn't make sense because what you speak of is problems the states would have with how Congress works. The electoral college has nothing to do with law, only how the President is elected. Well, Vice President too, supposedly, but the choice of who to vote for is determined for us. To say that California doesn't have enough influence in federal laws because of the electoral college seems misdirected. California already has more influence over Montana right now because both the electoral college electors and House of Representatives are based on population count while the Senate is not. The only place that a small state has the same level of influence on the federal level is in the Senate. Therefore California's complaint about smaller states is partly caused by themselves and the other more populous states. Why does the Senate exist? To actually give the small states a chance in deciding things on a federal level. If everything was decided by popular vote then small states might as well not bother. Notice that the Senate has more powers than the House, which is as designed because each state has equal voting power. If treaties, for example, were ratified in the House then small states would most often have to follow the lead of the most populous states. That would open the possibility of our country being led by mob rule, which the Founders were fearful of and you call a dick comment. The only people who seriously push for everything being decided by popular vote tend to have an agenda to push that can only be done by mob rule, to the detriment of the minority for the advantage of the majority. Also note that most often the winner of the electoral college also wins the popular vote, it is rare for the reverse to happen. So it seems that whether we use electoral college or popular vote for electing the President it would rarely make a difference, other than the focus of campaigning. Want to have some real fun? Force the states to stop using winner takes all in determining electors. But even then it still probably wouldn't make much of a difference.