The electoral college dilemma

[Walter]

In the first census, in 1790, the difference in population between the largest populated and smallest, was roughly 10 to 1 in population. Rhode Island had just shy of 69,000 citizens, while Virginia, the largest, had roughly 691,000.
that means that when the Constitution was written, the founders gave small states a roughly 10-1 advantage in the number of senators vs. their respective population.

Today, the discrepancy between between the largest, California, at 37.2 million, and the smallest, Wyoming, at 0.56 million, is about 75-1.

That means that over the course of the time between the writing of The Constitution and today, small states have gained more pro-rata power than they held at the time of the founding. As that disparity continues to widen, there will be more and more instances where the popular vote is confounded by the Electoral College system. If the trend continues as it has almost from the beginning, it's going to get worse, not better. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected. Trump's margin of loss in the popular vote will be seen as a "relatively close" popular vote election.

That seems like a big problem systemically going forward.

[bamorin]

Nov 16, 2018 12:30:21 GMT -5 Walter said:

In the first census, in 1790, the difference in population between the largest populated and smallest, was roughly 10 to 1 in population. Rhode Island had just shy of 69,000 citizens, while Virginia, the largest, had roughly 691,000.
that means that when the Constitution was written, the founders gave small states a roughly 10-1 advantage in the number of senators vs. their respective population.

Today, the discrepancy between between the largest, California, at 37.2 million, and the smallest, Wyoming, at 0.56 million, is about 75-1.

That means that over the course of the time between the writing of The Constitution and today, small states have gained more pro-rata power than they held at the time of the founding. As that disparity continues to widen, there will be more and more instances where the popular vote is confounded by the Electoral College system. If the trend continues as it has almost from the beginning, it's going to get worse, not better. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected. Trump's margin of loss in the popular vote will be seen as a "relatively close" popular vote election.

That seems like a big problem systemically going forward.

at the writing of it, the small states had the advantage, by not allowing the population as a whole be counted. The north had over representation.

[bamorin]

Nov 16, 2018 12:30:21 GMT -5 Walter said:

In the first census, in 1790, the difference in population between the largest populated and smallest, was roughly 10 to 1 in population. Rhode Island had just shy of 69,000 citizens, while Virginia, the largest, had roughly 691,000.
that means that when the Constitution was written, the founders gave small states a roughly 10-1 advantage in the number of senators vs. their respective population.

Today, the discrepancy between between the largest, California, at 37.2 million, and the smallest, Wyoming, at 0.56 million, is about 75-1.

That means that over the course of the time between the writing of The Constitution and today, small states have gained more pro-rata power than they held at the time of the founding. As that disparity continues to widen, there will be more and more instances where the popular vote is confounded by the Electoral College system. If the trend continues as it has almost from the beginning, it's going to get worse, not better. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected. Trump's margin of loss in the popular vote will be seen as a "relatively close" popular vote election.

That seems like a big problem systemically going forward.

at the writing of it, the small states had the advantage, by not allowing the population as a whole be counted. The north had over representation.

wyoming and vermont could double their population, and not gain 1 seat in the house.

[daleko]

Nov 16, 2018 12:30:21 GMT -5 Walter said:

In the first census, in 1790, the difference in population between the largest populated and smallest, was roughly 10 to 1 in population. Rhode Island had just shy of 69,000 citizens, while Virginia, the largest, had roughly 691,000.
that means that when the Constitution was written, the founders gave small states a roughly 10-1 advantage in the number of senators vs. their respective population.

Today, the discrepancy between between the largest, California, at 37.2 million, and the smallest, Wyoming, at 0.56 million, is about 75-1.

That means that over the course of the time between the writing of The Constitution and today, small states have gained more pro-rata power than they held at the time of the founding. As that disparity continues to widen, there will be more and more instances where the popular vote is confounded by the Electoral College system. If the trend continues as it has almost from the beginning, it's going to get worse, not better. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected. Trump's margin of loss in the popular vote will be seen as a "relatively close" popular vote election.

That seems like a big problem systemically going forward.

I don't see the issue primarily because I agree w the system as is and the well publicized and oft debated reasoning behind it. If you don't, I get your concern. We are still and should be, a Group of States United in the Americas. Obviously the only vote that this situation matters is when the states unite for a common leadership role. Further, disenfranchising 3/4 (It's just a guess, so pick any number you like) of the states might create other issues.

But if a fix becomes necessary, as judged by a majority of the states, perhaps eliminating a winner-takes-all method of allocating each state's electors might be a step forward. As I understand it, there is no provision for winner-takes-all in the Constitution.

[Walter]

Nov 16, 2018 13:52:11 GMT -5 daleko said:

Nov 16, 2018 12:30:21 GMT -5 Walter said:

In the first census, in 1790, the difference in population between the largest populated and smallest, was roughly 10 to 1 in population. Rhode Island had just shy of 69,000 citizens, while Virginia, the largest, had roughly 691,000.
that means that when the Constitution was written, the founders gave small states a roughly 10-1 advantage in the number of senators vs. their respective population.

Today, the discrepancy between between the largest, California, at 37.2 million, and the smallest, Wyoming, at 0.56 million, is about 75-1.

That means that over the course of the time between the writing of The Constitution and today, small states have gained more pro-rata power than they held at the time of the founding. As that disparity continues to widen, there will be more and more instances where the popular vote is confounded by the Electoral College system. If the trend continues as it has almost from the beginning, it's going to get worse, not better. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected. Trump's margin of loss in the popular vote will be seen as a "relatively close" popular vote election.

That seems like a big problem systemically going forward.

I don't see the issue primarily because I agree w the system as is and the well publicized and oft debated reasoning behind it. If you don't, I get your concern. We are still and should be, a Group of States United in the Americas. Obviously the only vote that this situation matters is when the states unite for a common leadership role. Further, disenfranchising 3/4 (It's just a guess, so pick any number you like) of the states might create other issues.

But if a fix becomes necessary, as judged by a majority of the states, perhaps eliminating a winner-takes-all method of allocating each state's electors might be a step forward. As I understand it, there is no provision for winner-takes-all in the Constitution.

That's not a bad idea. Apportion delegates by popular vote ratio, and then perhaps give a winner take all system for the two Senate seats. Thus, A Wyoming would still get 3 votes for their popular vote winner, while California would get, (in 2016 for example) 60%/40% (or whatever it was) D/R electors + 2 Democratic electors.

At least then my vote would have some meaning. As it stood in 2016, millions could have stayed home and not affected the outcome.

[bamorin]

Nov 16, 2018 14:05:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 16, 2018 13:52:11 GMT -5 daleko said:

I don't see the issue primarily because I agree w the system as is and the well publicized and oft debated reasoning behind it. If you don't, I get your concern. We are still and should be, a Group of States United in the Americas. Obviously the only vote that this situation matters is when the states unite for a common leadership role. Further, disenfranchising 3/4 (It's just a guess, so pick any number you like) of the states might create other issues.

But if a fix becomes necessary, as judged by a majority of the states, perhaps eliminating a winner-takes-all method of allocating each state's electors might be a step forward. As I understand it, there is no provision for winner-takes-all in the Constitution.

That's not a bad idea. Apportion delegates by popular vote ratio, and then perhaps give a winner take all system for the two Senate seats. Thus, A Wyoming would still get 3 votes for their popular vote winner, while California would get, (in 2016 for example) 60%/40% (or whatever it was) D/R electors + 2 Democratic electors.

At least then my vote would have some meaning. As it stood in 2016, millions could have stayed home and not affected the outcome.

the representative EC vote, would be by districts, as it is in Maine. Where The Hag would have picked up 4 in Ohio, she would have lost more in NY or Cal

[drjensen]

Nov 16, 2018 12:30:21 GMT -5 Walter said:

In the first census, in 1790, the difference in population between the largest populated and smallest, was roughly 10 to 1 in population. Rhode Island had just shy of 69,000 citizens, while Virginia, the largest, had roughly 691,000.
that means that when the Constitution was written, the founders gave small states a roughly 10-1 advantage in the number of senators vs. their respective population.

Today, the discrepancy between between the largest, California, at 37.2 million, and the smallest, Wyoming, at 0.56 million, is about 75-1.

That means that over the course of the time between the writing of The Constitution and today, small states have gained more pro-rata power than they held at the time of the founding. As that disparity continues to widen, there will be more and more instances where the popular vote is confounded by the Electoral College system. If the trend continues as it has almost from the beginning, it's going to get worse, not better. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected. Trump's margin of loss in the popular vote will be seen as a "relatively close" popular vote election.

That seems like a big problem systemically going forward.

So it worked in 1790 and every election since, and it is still working today. RI was out numbered in population by Virginia tenfold and yet they both got the same number of Senate votes, 2, but Virginia did get more electoral votes because of the representation in the House. Democrats convieniently forget that and only bring up the EC when it doesn't work in their favor. The Founding Fathers were a group of individuals who formulated a successful system of government that has never been matched, equaled, or surpassed in the history of man. Yet, we have a bunch of bawl-asses who aren't getting their way and they want to change it. In our group we have an architect from California who has difficulty running a board chat room, a Uber driver from Ohio who can't find success in life, and a quack from Denver who gets his jollies off eating dingleberries, who along with like-minded snowflakes who don't like the outcome of an election, and we are just supposed to do away with a process that has worked successfully for over 200 years. Simply because some people didn't get their way. To the best of my knowledge, the EC was put in place for the election of the President of the United States, yet the initial author of this thread made this statement. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected.  The gentlemen that founded our country did not agree on every item or law in our Republic but they had the wisdom to come together and formulate a government that would not and could not be controlled a select group or area of people. That was their intent, and yet we continually are bombarded certain individuals who piss their panties if things do go their way. This is the same group of people who were awarded participation trophies when they were kids because guess what, they weren't winners then and they aren't winners now! And when they don't win they want to change the rules of the game so it is advantageous to them. Leave the system alone, start at the grass roots and elect candidates who have the best interest of America and her people at heart, not people who are nothing but career politicians promising you everything you want to hear then only doing what gets them elected next term. If you really want to see changes in the future, get on board with term limits for all of our Congressmen and women. See how much traction you can get with that!

[Walter]

Nov 16, 2018 16:46:41 GMT -5 drjensen said:

Nov 16, 2018 12:30:21 GMT -5 Walter said:

In the first census, in 1790, the difference in population between the largest populated and smallest, was roughly 10 to 1 in population. Rhode Island had just shy of 69,000 citizens, while Virginia, the largest, had roughly 691,000.
that means that when the Constitution was written, the founders gave small states a roughly 10-1 advantage in the number of senators vs. their respective population.

Today, the discrepancy between between the largest, California, at 37.2 million, and the smallest, Wyoming, at 0.56 million, is about 75-1.

That means that over the course of the time between the writing of The Constitution and today, small states have gained more pro-rata power than they held at the time of the founding. As that disparity continues to widen, there will be more and more instances where the popular vote is confounded by the Electoral College system. If the trend continues as it has almost from the beginning, it's going to get worse, not better. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected. Trump's margin of loss in the popular vote will be seen as a "relatively close" popular vote election.

That seems like a big problem systemically going forward.

So it worked in 1790 and every election since, and it is still working today. RI was out numbered in population by Virginia tenfold and yet they both got the same number of Senate votes, 2, but Virginia did get more electoral votes because of the representation in the House. Democrats convieniently forget that and only bring up the EC when it doesn't work in their favor. The Founding Fathers were a group of individuals who formulated a successful system of government that has never been matched, equaled, or surpassed in the history of man. Yet, we have a bunch of bawl-asses who aren't getting their way and they want to change it. In our group we have an architect from California who has difficulty running a board chat room, a Uber driver from Ohio who can't find success in life, and a quack from Denver who gets his jollies off eating dingleberries, who along with like-minded snowflakes who don't like the outcome of an election, and we are just supposed to do away with a process that has worked successfully for over 200 years. Simply because some people didn't get their way. To the best of my knowledge, the EC was put in place for the election of the President of the United States, yet the initial author of this thread made this statement. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected.  The gentlemen that founded our country did not agree on every item or law in our Republic but they had the wisdom to come together and formulate a government that would not and could not be controlled a select group or area of people. That was their intent, and yet we continually are bombarded certain individuals who piss their panties if things do go their way. This is the same group of people who were awarded participation trophies when they were kids because guess what, they weren't winners then and they aren't winners now! And when they don't win they want to change the rules of the game so it is advantageous to them. Leave the system alone, start at the grass roots and elect candidates who have the best interest of America and her people at heart, not people who are nothing but career politicians promising you everything you want to hear then only doing what gets them elected next term. If you really want to see changes in the future, get on board with term limits for all of our Congressmen and women. See how much traction you can get with that!

So if we continue to have elections where the winner of the popular vote is not the person elected, hasn't the government given control to a bunch of small state constituencies, and wouldn't you call that a "select group or area of people"? You are undercutting your own argument. If the trend continues, small states will have even fewer people relative to big states, and their power will only grow. The disparity between big state and little state is such that it could then be considered a tyranny of small state systemic bias every time the EC overrules what could be a decisive win by popular vote by the people as a whole.

And, BTW...this is the rules board. No personal insults allowed. Next time, I'll dump your entire post.

[bamorin]

Nov 16, 2018 17:21:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 16, 2018 16:46:41 GMT -5 drjensen said:

So if we continue to have elections where the winner of the popular vote is not the person elected, hasn't the government given control to a bunch of small state constituencies, and wouldn't you call that a "select group or area of people"? You are undercutting your own argument. If the trend continues, small states will have even fewer people relative to big states, and their power will only grow. The disparity between big state and little state is such that it could then be considered a tyranny of small state systemic bias every time the EC overrules what could be a decisive win by popular vote by the people as a whole.

That's the uniqueness of a republic. The minority has a say. however, your "example" of small state constituencies running things won't, can't happen in the current system.

[drjensen]

Nov 16, 2018 17:21:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 16, 2018 16:46:41 GMT -5 drjensen said:

So it worked in 1790 and every election since, and it is still working today. RI was out numbered in population by Virginia tenfold and yet they both got the same number of Senate votes, 2, but Virginia did get more electoral votes because of the representation in the House. Democrats convieniently forget that and only bring up the EC when it doesn't work in their favor. The Founding Fathers were a group of individuals who formulated a successful system of government that has never been matched, equaled, or surpassed in the history of man. Yet, we have a bunch of bawl-asses who aren't getting their way and they want to change it. In our group we have an architect from California who has difficulty running a board chat room, a Uber driver from Ohio who can't find success in life, and a quack from Denver who gets his jollies off eating dingleberries, who along with like-minded snowflakes who don't like the outcome of an election, and we are just supposed to do away with a process that has worked successfully for over 200 years. Simply because some people didn't get their way. To the best of my knowledge, the EC was put in place for the election of the President of the United States, yet the initial author of this thread made this statement. Candidates might get their asses kicked in the popular vote and still be elected.  The gentlemen that founded our country did not agree on every item or law in our Republic but they had the wisdom to come together and formulate a government that would not and could not be controlled a select group or area of people. That was their intent, and yet we continually are bombarded certain individuals who piss their panties if things do go their way. This is the same group of people who were awarded participation trophies when they were kids because guess what, they weren't winners then and they aren't winners now! And when they don't win they want to change the rules of the game so it is advantageous to them. Leave the system alone, start at the grass roots and elect candidates who have the best interest of America and her people at heart, not people who are nothing but career politicians promising you everything you want to hear then only doing what gets them elected next term. If you really want to see changes in the future, get on board with term limits for all of our Congressmen and women. See how much traction you can get with that!

So if we continue to have elections where the winner of the popular vote is not the person elected, hasn't the government given control to a bunch of small state constituencies, and wouldn't you call that a "select group or area of people"? You are undercutting your own argument. If the trend continues, small states will have even fewer people relative to big states, and their power will only grow. The disparity between big state and little state is such that it could then be considered a tyranny of small state systemic bias every time the EC overrules what could be a decisive win by popular vote by the people as a whole.

And, BTW...this is the rules board. No personal insults allowed. Next time, I'll dump your entire post.

Look at the map of the US of the last Presidential election, an area that covers most of America would not be considered a "select group or area", unless you were describing it as the majority of America. The little blue dots in highly populated areas such as NYC and LA would we considered a select group or area defined by a small area with a dense population The Senate is essentially a representative of the different States, the House represents the people, it was well thought out, leave it alone. Now, would you get on board with term limits?

[Walter]

Nov 16, 2018 17:37:18 GMT -5 bamorin said:

Nov 16, 2018 17:21:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

That's the uniqueness of a republic. The minority has a say. however, your "example" of small state constituencies running things won't, can't happen in the current system.

Huh?....it just did, in 2016.
Trump lost the election by 3 million votes. That ain't even close.
...and if the trend continues, that gap could get even bigger.

[drjensen]

If each state had exactly the same number of representatives in the EC you would have a valid point, but that is not the way it works. Wyoming has 3 votes, California has how many? You are basing your argument entirely on the fact that each State has an equal number of Senators, you are avoiding the fact that more populous states do in fact get more electoral votes. This has been an issue in what, 3 elections over the course of 200+ years. It would not be an issue had your side won.

[Walter]

Nov 16, 2018 17:40:52 GMT -5 drjensen said:

Nov 16, 2018 17:21:03 GMT -5 Walter said:

So if we continue to have elections where the winner of the popular vote is not the person elected, hasn't the government given control to a bunch of small state constituencies, and wouldn't you call that a "select group or area of people"? You are undercutting your own argument. If the trend continues, small states will have even fewer people relative to big states, and their power will only grow. The disparity between big state and little state is such that it could then be considered a tyranny of small state systemic bias every time the EC overrules what could be a decisive win by popular vote by the people as a whole.

And, BTW...this is the rules board. No personal insults allowed. Next time, I'll dump your entire post.

Look at the map of the US of the last Presidential election, an area that covers most of America would not be considered a "select group or area", unless you were describing it as the majority of America. The little blue dots in highly populated areas such as NYC and LA would we considered a select group or area defined by a small area with a dense population The Senate is essentially a representative of the different States, the House represents the people, it was well thought out, leave it alone. Now, would you get on board with term limits?

Last I checked, dirt don't get a vote. The country isn't ruled by geography. It is run by people. If a specific minority of people regularly decide elections, that essentially becomes a tyranny of that minority.

...and no...I used to like the idea of term limits. Now, I think term limits is a really bad idea. It just doesn't work very well. You end up with an inexperienced legislature with no institutional memory.
I would be in favor of rotating the leadership, however, much like the common idea of rotating the mayor within a city council group. I have no problem with telling Mitch McConnell and Nancy P to go sit on the back bench and let someone else lead the respective caucus, but IMO, if they win their election, they are the people that their constituency selects and there should not be a limit placed on that idea.

[drjensen]

There are a lot of things that could possibly happen to our country in the future concerning elections. I think term limits would be a positive move, if a representative can't get his/her act together in lets say 6-8 years, get somebody in who can, same for the upper chamber, after 12 years, goodbye, and nobody gets a lifetime pension for there time in office whether it is 2 days or 20 years. Then, lets incorporate voter ID's, every eligible voter gets one when he/she turns 18, with today's technology it could contain all the info any polling place would need to verify voter eligibility. Walk up to the booth, swipe your card and bingo, that's it! Try it at another place and red lights and sirens go off. First violation, 5 years, 2nd, another 5 and lost voting privileges forever. Honest people wouldn't worry about it. Sure would clean up the mess in Florida.

[Walter]

Nov 16, 2018 18:05:19 GMT -5 drjensen said:

There are a lot of things that could possibly happen to our country in the future concerning elections. I think term limits would be a positive move, if a representative can't get his/her act together in lets say 6-8 years, get somebody in who can, same for the upper chamber, after 12 years, goodbye, and nobody gets a lifetime pension for there time in office whether it is 2 days or 20 years. Then, lets incorporate voter ID's, every eligible voter gets one when he/she turns 18, with today's technology it could contain all the info any polling place would need to verify voter eligibility. Walk up to the booth, swipe your card and bingo, that's it! Try it at another place and red lights and sirens go off. First violation, 5 years, 2nd, another 5 and lost voting privileges forever. Honest people wouldn't worry about it. Sure would clean up the mess in Florida.

You are getting off topic.
This one is about the electoral college.
If you want to discuss voter ID, start a thread.