US Electoral College: would you support its abolition?

[greenchristian]

Feb 27, 2016 18:24:29 GMT Richard Allen said:

It matters not one jot what anyone thinks. The chances of getting a constitutional amendment through is practically zero.

It doesn't actually need a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines how many electoral votes a state has, but says nothing about how states decide who gets those votes. All it requires is for states which have a majority of the electoral votes to pass a law giving their electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. There is a scheme in place trying to do this, which will come into force when enough states pass it. Unfortunately I can't recall which states have already passed it.

[johnloony]

I would prefer the delegates from each state to be allocated proportionally, but otherwise I wouldn't need to abolish the Electoral College. So the 2000 election would result in an allocation of 13-12 from Florida rather than 25-0. I would also allow the EC to vote for the President by AV, rather than somehow expecting it to get an absolute majority on the first ballot. On this basis, Ralph Nader would (IIRC) have got 5 votes in the EC in 2000, and those votes would have held the balance of power in the EC between Bush and Gore.

[Richard Allen]

Feb 27, 2016 23:24:42 GMT greenchristian said:

Feb 27, 2016 18:24:29 GMT Richard Allen said:

It matters not one jot what anyone thinks. The chances of getting a constitutional amendment through is practically zero.

It doesn't actually need a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines how many electoral votes a state has, but says nothing about how states decide who gets those votes. All it requires is for states which have a majority of the electoral votes to pass a law giving their electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. There is a scheme in place trying to do this, which will come into force when enough states pass it. Unfortunately I can't recall which states have already passed it.

I am sorry but this is clearly nonsense. The states can decide how they allocate their electoral votes but this does not get rid of the electoral college.

[Deleted]

Feb 27, 2016 23:24:42 GMT greenchristian said:

Feb 27, 2016 18:24:29 GMT Richard Allen said:

It matters not one jot what anyone thinks. The chances of getting a constitutional amendment through is practically zero.

It doesn't actually need a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines how many electoral votes a state has, but says nothing about how states decide who gets those votes. All it requires is for states which have a majority of the electoral votes to pass a law giving their electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. There is a scheme in place trying to do this, which will come into force when enough states pass it. Unfortunately I can't recall which states have already passed it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

It is currently signed by 10 states + DC. They have 165 electors (as the big states CA, NY and IL are among them), it will come into effect when states representing 270 of the 538 electors have signed (= a simple majority of the EC).

[john07]

The historical reason for the electoral college was that the president wasn't originally intended to be elected by popular vote. That was the role of the House. The nomination of the State's electors has only been universally by popular vote since the end of the Civil War.

As Richard Allen has pointed out there is zero chance of abolition of the electoral college given the entrenched positions of those in the smaller states.

On the issue of apportioning the votes by Congressional Districts, I can't really see this happening either. There is zero chance of the likes of California, Texas, or New York diluting their influence in this way. It will not make a lot of difference with the smaller states although Obama did nick one college vote in Nebraska in 2008 in the Omaha district.

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2016 13:41:21 GMT john07 said:

On the issue of apportioning the votes by Congressional Districts, I can't really see this happening either. There is zero chance of the likes of California, Texas, or New York diluting their influence in this way. It will not make a lot of difference with the smaller states although Obama did nick one college vote in Nebraska in 2008 in the Omaha district.

As you can see above three of the big states (Illinois, California and New York) have already agreed to allocate all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote (#), which is a more radical change than allocating per congressional district. 

(#) if states representing a majority of electors agree.

[iain]

Allocation by congressional district is an horrific idea. Think of the gerrymandering.

[mboy]

Feb 28, 2016 14:10:29 GMT @odo said:

As you can see above three of the big states (Illinois, California and New York) have already agreed to allocate all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote (#), which is a more radical change than allocating per congressional district. 

So after a Democrat candidate wins the popular vote but not the electoral college, three solid Democrat states say they will vote for the popular vote. Let's see if that survives e.g. Donald Trump winning the popular vote but not the electoral college...

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2016 15:11:54 GMT mboy said:

Feb 28, 2016 14:10:29 GMT @odo said:

As you can see above three of the big states (Illinois, California and New York) have already agreed to allocate all of their electors to the winner of the popular vote (#), which is a more radical change than allocating per congressional district. 

So after a Democrat candidate wins the popular vote but not the electoral college, three solid Democrat states say they will vote for the popular vote. Let's see if that survives e.g. Donald Trump winning the popular vote but not the electoral college...

You misunderstand. There is an actual proposal approved by the legislatures in 10 states and DC (see earlier in the thread)

[mboy]

I know it is. My point stands. You are aware that every single state that has ratified the proposal voted for Gore in 2000, right? You are aware how partisan US politics is, right?

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2016 15:29:15 GMT mboy said:

I know it is. My point stands. You are aware that every single state that has ratified the proposal voted for Gore in 2000, right? You are aware how partisan US politics is, right?

No need to condescend, as you can see from my posting history I know a lot about US politics and political history.

The proposal will automatically take effect when ratified by enough states (= representing 270 electors). It will not change the effect of past elections, only of future ones. So the candidate in question would not get elected.

What you need is a situation in which a Republican candidate lose, but win the popular vote, to convince Republican legislatures that this can harm them too, which would likely lead enough states to ratify it.

 Even if no such scenario occurs; with the states discussing it now you will soon get close to states representing 40% of electors and from then on it will slowly increase. It is a popular proposal with momentum gradually building. I could see it happen around 2025 or so, but faster if the above GOP loss/win scenario occurs.

There are bills pending in the big swing state Pennsylvania, and Republican dominated Arizona, Georgia and Missouri. So we will soon know more about whether the momentum continues. The first two are states the GOP where the demographic trends are against the Republicans, so the local GOP might come around to supporting it.

[greenchristian]

Feb 28, 2016 1:30:01 GMT Richard Allen said:

Feb 27, 2016 23:24:42 GMT greenchristian said:

It doesn't actually need a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines how many electoral votes a state has, but says nothing about how states decide who gets those votes. All it requires is for states which have a majority of the electoral votes to pass a law giving their electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. There is a scheme in place trying to do this, which will come into force when enough states pass it. Unfortunately I can't recall which states have already passed it.

I am sorry but this is clearly nonsense. The states can decide how they allocate their electoral votes but this does not get rid of the electoral college.

It would be a de facto abolition of the electoral college.

[Deleted]

Feb 28, 2016 20:28:04 GMT greenchristian said:

Feb 28, 2016 1:30:01 GMT Richard Allen said:

I am sorry but this is clearly nonsense. The states can decide how they allocate their electoral votes but this does not get rid of the electoral college.

It would be a de facto abolition of the electoral college.

Yes, it would reduce it to a technicality. 

[timrollpickering]

Feb 27, 2016 22:56:29 GMT @odo said:

When it happened in 2000 it was the first time since 1888,

Depending on how you count it, it also happened in 1960. It hinges on Alabama where the electors were directly elected with the Democrat slate split between Kennedy and Unpledged and it gets into arguments about how to count multi-member FPTP in a situation where individual options lack full slates but you can find a popular lead for Nixon.

However Richard Nixon is one of the worst losing candidates to base historic outrage on.

[Foggy]

Feb 28, 2016 0:55:01 GMT johnloony said:

I would prefer the delegates from each state to be allocated proportionally, but otherwise I wouldn't need to abolish the Electoral College. So the 2000 election would result in an allocation of 13-12 from Florida rather than 25-0. I would also allow the EC to vote for the President by AV, rather than somehow expecting it to get an absolute majority on the first ballot. On this basis, Ralph Nader would (IIRC) have got 5 votes in the EC in 2000, and those votes would have held the balance of power in the EC between Bush and Gore.

This is the correct answer. Gradually it would open up a route for minor parties to win electors, especially in the larger states. This method was proposed in one state but failed:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_36

Austria, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria and Russia should all be disbarred from calling themselves or their institutions 'federal' or 'federative' if they insist on retaining a President elected by nationwide popular vote. Just because the USA is in the minority among federations doesn't mean it's doing it wrong in this instance. 

[J.G.Harston]

Feb 28, 2016 21:36:52 GMT Foggy said:

Austria, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria and Russia should all be disbarred from calling themselves or their institutions 'federal' or 'federative' if they insist on retaining a President elected by nationwide popular vote. Just because the USA is in the minority among federations doesn't mean it's doing it wrong in this instance. 

The difference is that most federal countries are a single country that is divided up into federal subunits. The USA is rare in that it is multiple soverign units that collectively form the federal unit. Off the top of my head the only other examples are Switzerland and - nominally - the USSR(1).

(1)When Ukraine and Byelorussia expressed support for joining Russia in 1920ish, Stalin as Head of Ethnicities draw up plans to absorb them into Russia. Lenin told him to throw them away and "build another floor" and create a supraunion of members equal to Russia. Clearly, with Stalin taking over after Lenin's death he ran the place as he originally planned.

[Khunanup]

Feb 28, 2016 22:05:21 GMT J.G.Harston said:

Feb 28, 2016 21:36:52 GMT Foggy said:

Austria, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria and Russia should all be disbarred from calling themselves or their institutions 'federal' or 'federative' if they insist on retaining a President elected by nationwide popular vote. Just because the USA is in the minority among federations doesn't mean it's doing it wrong in this instance. 

The difference is that most federal countries are a single country that is divided up into federal subunits. The USA is rare in that it is multiple soverign units that collectively form the federal unit. Off the top of my head the only other examples are Switzerland and - nominally - the USSR(1).

(1)When Ukraine and Byelorussia expressed support for joining Russia in 1920ish, Stalin as Head of Ethnicities draw up plans to absorb them into Russia. Lenin told him to throw them away and "build another floor" and create a supraunion of members equal to Russia. Clearly, with Stalin taking over after Lenin's death he ran the place as he originally planned.

The states of the United States are certainly not 'multiple sovereign units' and arguably have never been. If they ever were it would be until the Civil War after which secession has become virtually impossible to achieve even if they wanted to.

It is a nation state when most of the states are former territories, have been allowed by the federal government to become states with the same rights as existing states but where they cannot opt out of federal law even if they want to (the rights of the states are also the same for all of them).

Just because US states have more autonomy than most states in most other federal countries doesn't make their relationship to the larger country fundamentally any different. In fact Canadian provinces (for example) are probably even more devolved than US States.

If the Confederalists had been successful in the early days of the republic then you might have a point but then the US wouldn't exist today if they had.

[Foggy]

Feb 28, 2016 23:08:22 GMT Khunanup said:

Just because US states have more autonomy than most states in most other federal countries doesn't make their relationship to the larger country fundamentally any different. In fact Canadian provinces (for example) are probably even more devolved than US States.

Fair point, and I agree completely, but I didn't mention Canada because the position of popularly elected Canadian President does not currently exist.

[maxque]

Feb 28, 2016 23:08:22 GMT Khunanup said:

Just because US states have more autonomy than most states in most other federal countries doesn't make their relationship to the larger country fundamentally any different. In fact Canadian provinces (for example) are probably even more devolved than US States.

Canadian provinces being more devolved is an accident, through.

In the 1870's, when Canada was created, they saw the mess made by the Civil War in the USA, so they decided they wanted a strong central state with weak provinces.

So, they gave provinces only powers unimportant matters, like health and education (well, at the time, churches were running all of it). Poor forecast of the future.

It also leads to some unlogical things. Marriage law (as stated in Constitution) being federal, but civil unions (as a civil/common-law contract between 2 persons) being provincial. As Québec used civil law instead of common law due to the Quebec Act 1774 (which gave very extensive rights to French Catholics, such as restauring French seigneurs and allowing Quebec public servants to not be Anglicans, to incite them to not join the 13 Colonies rebellion).

Also, the first Premier was making a very extensive use of the "disallowance and reservation" power granted to him by the Constitution. He was VERY centralist. His Liberal opponent cut greatly the use of those powers and it became less and less used. Last use was in 1943, to delete the law forbidding land sales to Hutterites. These days, if the federal government has issues with a provincial law, they'll just sue the province.

Also, Liberal provincial governments were very active in Courts to curtain any infringment of the Federal government into their powers. These days, pretty much all provinces do it, especially Québec and Alberta.

[carlton43]

Feb 27, 2016 18:15:43 GMT @odo said:

I think any sane person should support that.

You thus imply a number of us are insane! I object. And I call upon you to explain why our support of the status quo is so far beyond the pale as to be regarded as the product of insanity.