So you answered your own question?
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Because no one else did, the current system is crap but to insist that its rigged is nonsense IMO
Crap is definitely the best general description. It's perfectly valid to describe for example gerrymandering as rigged, though.
That would meant the votes of outskirt low population state means squat.
EC was originally invented to prevent that
Rigged by both sides to be fair. Dems do a shitload of gerrymandering too. Just that right now GOP controls more state legislatures and supreme courts, so are able to do more gerrymandering. Nevertheless, in the last two elections, the number of representatives pretty much was identical to the popular vote.
On the larger debate, I think that Senate is fine as it is. While it might be stupid that Wyoming and Vermont have as many senators as California and Texas, I think it is ok when you consider that it is states, not state of the US. Otherwise, the larger populous states would be the only ones that matter. It is for the same reason that Malta or Luxembourg have the same number of votes as Germany or France in EU council. You want to give some power to the small entities too, otherwise their needs won’t ever be listened. So, I would ha e kept the Senate as it is, but probably make House of Representatives more important than the Senate (as it is in the UK, where the Democratic lower chamber, the House of Commons is more important than the undemocratic higher chamber, the House of Lords).
I think the electoral system for the president is idiotic though. The president is the president of the entire US, so no reason to have anything else except a popular vote. Even a proportional state voting (e.g, if Dems win 60% in California, they get 31-32 votes with the remaining to GOP) would be better than the current winner takes all nonsense, which in the current polarization, means that only a couple of states are those that matter. At this stage, I do not see any justification for the existence of electoral college.
Good. Then this country can be governed with the enrichment of the majority and not the prejudice of the minority. Example, the ACA (under a different name) is popular in red states. Championed by most Republicans. Change that name to "Obamacare" and then see what these people think of it. Exact same fecking thing. These voters are low information voters. They also love socialism as long as you don't call it socialism.
The problem with the Senate IMO is not the 2 per state thing but the senate rules, the filibuster is a big problem, the 60 level needs to be changed to a lower number - 55-56 something like that is probably the correct level
You can't compare the UK system though, the Lords aren't elected and TBH, in the US you wouldn't want the house being more important, giving more power to MTG, Gaetz, Jordan and so on is not a good idea!
Both sides do that though
I didn't say they didn't, but one side clearly does it significantly more than the other.
I'm not sure that's actually true but one side definitely is more blatant about it
This argument is illogical, unfair and untrue.
Getting rid of the EC means everyone vote is equal which is the only way that is fair and democratic and it's the only way it should be. A voter from Wyoming should not have 3 times more influence on who is President than a voter from California or Texas. A system should never be inherently unfair and value one person's vote more than another for any reason. That violates every value that matters for a democratic republic.
It's untrue because right now, the voice of any minority voter in any non-swing state "means squat". So what you said isn't even true. It's been completely debunked. A small, non swing state doesn't have candidates paying attention to their interests anyway because under the EC the power and attention from candidates all falls to the swing states. The book I referenced documents this with a lot of evidence. In reality the EC doesn't do anything to protect the "interests" of a small state, it just overvalues the interests of swing states.
Why should someone from Wyoming have more influence than a voter? Because the state is less populated? That makes zero sense as a premise.
Someone will correct me of I'm wrong but isn't the number of electoral college votes based on population size, CA gets 55 Wyoming gets 3, house seats are based on population, only the senate could be considered the way you suggest
I'm not saying EC is perfect but 1 head 1 vote isnt ideal either.
Just saying.
The EC gives votes equal to representation in Congress so house + Senate members which means smaller states have more electoral votes than they would if it was simply distributed based on population.
So when you calculate out the impact of votes from a state on influencing the electoral college vote, it means a voter in Wyoming has three times more influence on an EC vote than one from California.
Oh and the winner take all votes by state also changes the calculus as well and contributes to overvaluing swing states (not small states as the other poster believed).
Last edited:
It is ideal because it's the only way it's actually fair.
No idea why you would think it wasn't ideal to have every voter have equal power.
Demography. If popular vote is all that matters alot of minorities needs would be bulldozed in favor of the biggest majority in the country.
There's no one size fits all and everything has its own pro and cont.
Just because it's being manipulated doesnt mean the system is bad. If it comes to one man one vote they'll find another ways to gerrymander it. At the end of the days all rules under the cheating hand would be bad eventually
The system absolutely is bad, and your demography answer there assumes every group is a voting bloc monolith.
Also - how is it possible to gerrymander 1 person, 1 vote? If you mean gerrymandered congressional districts, that’s a separate issue altogether, as that’s already decided by popular vote within a manipulated border. If we’re talking about a 1 man, 1 vote presidential election, then that can’t be gerrymandered by manipulating borders because state and national borders aren’t set at the whimsy of partisanship.
Now the EC may be bad but when you actually look at the popular vote, it doesn't often change the winner
Clinton got more votes than Trump, Gore got more than Bush 45, prior to that you have to go back to 1888, 1876 and 1824 for the only other times when the popular vote winner was not elected president
Clinton got more votes than Trump, Gore got more than Bush 45, prior to that you have to go back to 1888, 1876 and 1824 for the only other times when the popular vote winner was not elected president
The number of electoral votes is defined as number of senators + number of congressmen. Every state gets 2 senators, while the number of congressmen is proportional to the population, but there must be at least a congressmen for each state.
Now for populous states like California, Texas, Florida or New York, the number of electoral votes is similar to the number of congressmen. However for tiny states like Wyoming or Vermont who have just 1 congressmen, the number of electoral votes is triple that, because of the two senators. Which makes the votes of people there almost 3 times as valuable ad the votes of people in large states.
To be fair, in grand scheme of things it is relatively irrelevant, because a) there are just a couple of states like this, b) for every Wyoming, you have a Vermont and for every California you have a Texas. However, if you’re a Democrat who likes to whine you always mention Wyoming and California instead of saying how unfair it is that the votes of Democratic Vermont are 3 times more valuable than those of Republican Texas.
I just want to point out that the elections of 2016, 2000, and 1876 are some of the more game changing elections in US history.
Maybe but it doesn't change the fact that the popular vote winner usually ends up president
To add: it’s also stupid that the EC is winner take all. If EC votes were kept in place, but made proportional, it would at least be a more accurate representation of the populace than what’s in place now.
It ain't 50/50. Republicans have had a bias built into the House of Representatives for half a century. Sometimes it's been as high as +6%.
Last cycle it was less than previous because Democrats got their maps through scrutiny while Republicans had theirs challenged in court. Yet even with several Republican maps held up this swing still meant Democrats needed an estimated +1 to +1.9% to retain the House. So a historical bias instigated by Republican gerrymandering was partly, but not wholly, resolved by Democratic retaliation. However now that courts such as the one in North Carolina are ruling that evaluating partisan maps is outwith their competence this partial redress will be undone with the potential for full reestablishment (and even expansion) of Republican bias going forward.
Also, when evaluating the popular vote you need to factor in that Republicans field more candidates than Democrats due to holding a greater number of uncompetitive districts. Can't vote Democrat if there isn't a Democrat to vote for. This skews the popular vote. Uncompetitive, but contested seats also suppresses turnout, though it's less clear who this favours. You also need to factor in voter suppression tactics. Who gets sufficient ballot boxes? Who's vote's more likely to get challenged? So while yes, Republicans won the popular vote, that headline figure masks a slightly more complicated reality.
Edit: Just to add, that when you've looked at what affects the popular vote you still have to recognise that even though 2022 was a relatively good year for Republicans winning the popular vote masks another primary feature of gerrymandering which is elasticity. Basically you want to create as many districts as possible with buffers such as reliably provides you with seats regardless of the actual vote. In good years you might win the national vote by 2% and win your seat by 20,000. In such circumstances your seat will seem representative. In bad years you might lose the national vote by 2%, but still win your seat by maybe 5,000. Meanwhile your opponents win their (as few as possible) seats with enormous majorities of 50,000 or more, even in bad years. It's then that the facade of representation suddenly starts to crumble.
In any case the sheer weight of partisan gerrymandering means that the House is at best a facsimile of representative democracy. The roots are self evidently rotten. More and more people find themselves and their districts represented by people they didn't vote for. Even if the overall proportion of seats fairly matched the overall vote it's a post-hoc reconstruction that belies local level alienation.
This absence of democracy is even more fiercely evident at the state house. Take South Carolina for example. Almost 60% of seats in the upper house were filled without contest. Out of 124 districts a Republican stood in 106, a Democrat in 68.
Partisanship and gerrymandering are eating away at whatever democracy your country has left.
That is true, I'd be curious to know if it would actually make any difference to the results, too much math for me to work out
Yep. EC is stupid, winner takes all is stupid, combining both of them is double stupid.
Some of the most well-functioning and equal democracies in the world have something that gets in the way of completely equal power. Though it would be much better than what the US has now, that's obvious.
First, far more minorities get bulldozed under the EC, more than would in a popular vote. What you're essentially saying is you don't think a majority of the country should be allowed to elect the President and that it should be some arcane minority that favors random rural voters that gets more power arbitrarily. I say random because why should a rural voter in Jackson Hole, WY matter more than a rural voter in Lone Pine, CA? It's also much easier for wealthy special interests to manipulate the EC system than it would be the popular vote and voter suppression wouldn't be as easy as it is now.
The pros to one person, one vote popular vote system far outweigh the cons whereas there are actually not really any pros to the current EC. The one you stated earlier isn't even true. So yes, the way the EC is being manipulated absolutely means it's a ridiculously bad and moronic system. There are actually not any sound arguments for the electoral college.
For @Revan it's not irrelevant in the modern sense. 2 of the last 6 elections, the popular vote winner diverged from the EC winner and based on the current state of politics its likely that number will continue to increase. I don't think data points from previous eras are as relevant here as just looking at the 21st century because of how the system has evolved currently.
No system is perfect, of course, but what the US has now is one of those "worst of both worlds" type of situations.
That is true, I'd be curious to know if it would actually make any difference to the results, too much math for me to work out
It would make a difference to the results. In 2000 and 2016 neither candidate would have had a majority and it would have required a coalition with one of the third-party candidates to reach 50%. This alone means it's more possible for a third or fourth party to gain some power which breaks the stranglehold of the two-party system. Just that difference in the equation would cause a pretty important change to the 2 party system that could have dramatic effects in the years to come.
In 2000, a coalition with Nader could have helped shift Democratic priorities and legitimize issues like climate change at an earlier date.
2016 would have been crazy in a different way because Clinton would have needed a coalition with the Libertarian to get 270 and Trump would have needed the Libertarian and McMullin. That very possibly could have been a deadlock at 269-269 with Trump eventually getting it through the GOP house. It's unlikely Clinton could have secured a deal with the Libertarian but I suppose it's not impossible considering many who voted L that year were anti-Trump.
I forgot the bolded part which is also incorrect. It's important to correct this false view.
The EC was originally invented to allow slave-owning states to have more votes without allowing slaves the right to vote.
This guy is clearly making it up as it comes.
Also, that hair - Beavis or Butthead ?
Do you have the figures to back this up?
Understand also - I’m not saying proportional EC based on the gerrymandered districts that already exist, because all that will do is largely reflect the gerrymandered House. I’m saying proportional EC based on rounding the % of the popular vote within that state to fit the number of EC votes available in that state.
And even still, I don’t like that system because it is state by state and involves rounding the vote to a whole number. The president is president of the whole country. Let their vote be a vote of 1 electoral district - the USA as a whole.
And even still, I don’t like that system because it is state by state and involves rounding the vote to a whole number. The president is president of the whole country. Let their vote be a vote of 1 electoral district - the USA as a whole.
This guy is clearly making it up as it comes.
Also, that hair - Beavis or Butthead ?
Even ignoring what he said, his look and his voice screamed "I am not a serious candidate for President". Which he isn't, obviously.
He comes across as a YouTube parody candidate - almost with a Stephen Colbert like vibe.
This guy would make Neville Chamberlain blush
At least he managed to get Don Lemon fired, so hats off for that.
That's what I understood you meant