Has the Electoral College Outlived Its Usefulness?

[Landshark]

In California, you need to swing millions of undecided voters to have any impact.
In Wyoming, if you can convince a single town of 10,000 people to vote for you, you've swung the election.

And Wyoming gets you only three electoral votes whereas California gets you 55.

[Spider-Dan]

California gets you 55, or it gets you zero (because of the winner-take-all system).  That's the point... when you have to reach millions of voters to make an impact, each individual voter makes a bigger difference.

Your campaigning efforts only make a difference if you can actually swing the state, and it's easier to swing a lower population than it is to swing a higher one.  This is simple, straightforward math.

If the electoral college didn't exist, you might have a point; in that kind of a system, every vote is equal but you can reach more people at once campaigning in a more densely populated state.  But in the current system, in the less-populated states, each individual voter has more impact on whether one candidate wins or loses that state.

[raptorsfan29]

I am also kinda torn on the electoral college.

What about some kind of split electoral vote -- some states do that already.

I was thinking something along those lines, I think we should distribute electoral colleges based on the percentage of what a candidate got in a certain state. so like if 60% of people voted for one candidate in a certain state than 60% of the electoral college in that state should go for that candidate.

It could be sort of a compromise between people that want the electoral college to stay and people that want the popular vote.

[Spider-Dan]

raptorsfan29, that would be the practically same thing as getting rid of the electoral college, only you would introduce the possibility of a candidate winning the popular vote but still losing the election due to state-by-state rounding, which would cause incredible fury among the electorate (presuming that this solution was sold as a "fix").

Best to stay away from the half-measures and either keep the electoral college or do away with it.

[TonyB0D]

of course it has to be done away with.  anytime someone can win the popular vote but lose the election the system is broken.  it's absolutely inexcusable and completely pants-on-head retarded.

[Tenshot13]

If the majority of the country votes for one person, that person should be the president.  Pretty simple.

[Spider-Dan]

This thread is funny now.

[Fau Teixeira]

how quickly we forget

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

My position has not changed. 

[DaLittle B]

Huh interesting thread....
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

I love me some CGPgrey,He's had a few add on video's to the trouble with the electoral college (the original video shows some problems too)

[CF DolFan]

I don't know if it's me getting older or if the problem seems to be getting worse but I think it's time to revamp the system. If you live in Florida and Ohio you see a different political environment than most places. I think it's funny that Ann Romney says to the crowd in New York that they must be getting tired of the ads and gets almost no response because they don't have many. It is such a strongly democratic state that the nominees don't waste resources there.  Is this fair when I get at least 3 or 4 calls a day from one of the parties or polling services and every commercial is an ad telling me how horrible life is or will be under someone.

As things are now, a person can lose the popular vote by millions and still be president.  As things are now, if you are the minority party in a state not only does your vote doesn't count, the nominees won't even come to your state. Is this really what we had intended by the electoral college.

I found this article that illustrates the issue.

Actually I think this last election kind of proved my question wrong. If it weren't for Trump including more states on his run he would have never won and the electoral college worked as it should have. The trend has been .... as Clinton did, was to spend big in the big states and regardless of Democrat or GOP I think you need to speak to the whole country.

The only change I would make is that states award based on percentage and not winner take all.  For instance ... if Trump had a chance to get anything out of California he'd be forced to spend time there. The same goes for Clinton and Texas. I hate that the current system which only forces you to win your base and then some.   

[Spider-Dan]

Actually I think this last election kind of proved my question wrong.

You don't say!

As things are now, a person can lose the popular vote by millions and still be president.

Apparently, this is actually not a Bad Thing, but a Great Thing that proves the vibrancy of our system.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Actually I think this last election kind of proved my question wrong. If it weren't for Trump including more states on his run he would have never won and the electoral college worked as it should have. The trend has been .... as Clinton did, was to spend big in the big states and regardless of Democrat or GOP I think you need to speak to the whole country.

The only change I would make is that states award based on percentage and not winner take all.  For instance ... if Trump had a chance to get anything out of California he'd be forced to spend time there. The same goes for Clinton and Texas. I hate that the current system which only forces you to win your base and then some.   

If we moved to a popular vote Clinton would have spent time in Texas and Trump in California.  All 50 states would matter. 

If you mean proportional in the way Maine and Nebraska do it would result in even more of the country being ignored and 20 or so congressional districts being heavily targeted.

If you mean in Florida where Trump barely beat Clinton Trump gets 15 and Clinton gets 14, that would result in many smaller states being much less important than with a staight popular vote.  Straight popular vote EVERY vote counts.  in California with a proportional vote you can move the needle.  But a state that has 4 electoral votes, it might be impossible to change anything.  As it might take a 20% swing to get one more electoral vote.

The biggest problem with the electoral vote is when the majority of voters feel their vote doesn't matter you crease having a government that has the moral authority to govern. 

[Dave Gray]

Neither solution really fixes everything....that's kinda the issue. 

A popular vote system means that "population center" issues are the forefront.
Electoral college means that swingable states are at the forefront.

What about a system where it's both?  Like, half of a state's votes automatically go to the winner and the remaining are split via percentage of popular vote?  It would allow a 50 state strategy that would change a state by a couple of delegates here and there, but not allow you to ignore any state completely.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Neither solution really fixes everything....that's kinda the issue. 

A popular vote system means that "population center" issues are the forefront.
Electoral college means that swingable states are at the forefront.

What about a system where it's both?  Like, half of a state's votes automatically go to the winner and the remaining are split via percentage of popular vote?  It would allow a 50 state strategy that would change a state by a couple of delegates here and there, but not allow you to ignore any state completely.

Yes you could ignore states with your system.

 A state with 3 delegates would still be winner take all.  A state with 4 delegates would almost certainly go 3-1.  So if they are battle ground states now they would still be, if not they remain out. 

With a pure popular vote every state and every person matters. 

Everyone would matter.  The half million people who live in Wyoming will mattter and the 8.5 million people in NYC will mattter.  NYC will likely get more attention than Wyoming, but it makes more sense that 8.5 million people have more power than a half million, under our current system the half million have more power than 8.5.