Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Online
I know we’ve had good posts and conversations spread over a number of threads
Thought we should have a single thread
=================
The electoral college is gearing up for the fall semester. An election that once promised a presidential rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump now features a fresh face in Vice President Kamala Harris.
On Election Day, Americans will cast their votes — but it will be the college that determines the winner, weeks later. Sometimes its decision is to bypass the people’s choice and award the presidency to a candidate with fewer votes. That’s occurred twice in the last six presidential elections.
And it’s not out of the question this year.
The college was originally advertised as a shield against a fickle public and the excesses of democracy. Its deliberations would be governed by honorable, judicious men, who would avoid secrecy and plotting.
The institution would harbor a preference for low-population states to ensure those in the minority have a strong voice. And it would use weighted calculus to help reach fair decisions. But today, its design is antiquated. The math, too old. The college has certainly seen its share of intrigue and corruption.
Along the way, it’s become increasingly unrepresentative even as our democracy has become more accessible.
For example, since Harris became the Democratic nominee, Trump has dropped nearly seven points in national polling. That shift represents millions of voters who’ve changed their minds about the election.
But the people’s shift is of little interest in the college. There, states matter most. And its winner-takes-all system doesn’t care whether victory in a state is decided by one vote or 1 million.
As a result, though Harris could win the popular vote by millions, Trump could still win more states. In a system designed more than 200 years ago, that combination means lopsided elections can become electoral nail-biters.
In short, the college has lost touch with the campus. In 2016, though Hillary Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes, in the vote that counts she lost by 77 electors — an outcome effectively decided by 80,000 people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
In 2020, Biden won the popular vote by 8 million, yet failed to match Trump’s margin of victory in the college four years earlier. Of those 8 million, the deciders amounted to just 44,000 people in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.
These numbers don’t add up. That’s why Americans favor scrapping the electoral college by a margin of 2 to 1. And it’s another reason the public has such low confidence in this not-quite-democracy…….
We have options. One suggestion is to rely solely on a national popular vote, though wide margins of victory in a populous state put the race out of reach nationally. Clinton’s winning margin of 4.3 million votes in California is why she won the popular vote — without it, she loses the national vote by more than a million.
Biden won the state by 5.1 million votes in 2020, more than the total population of 27 states.
A more representative idea would be to allocate electoral votes in all states as Maine and Nebraska already do: two electors to the statewide winner and one vote for each congressional district.
But that approach is spoiled by partisan gerrymandering, which can help losers of the statewide vote win more electors.
A third alternative is a combination of the two. Assign electors based on each candidate’s share of the statewide vote: win 60 percent of the vote, get 60 percent of the state’s electors.
More importantly for our democracy, losing candidates can still receive the electors they earn. These changes would restore meaning to margins of victory and inspire candidates to compete in every state. Additional electors can be found wherever candidates lose by a little less or win by a little more. It’s even good for third parties.
In 2016, under this scheme, Green Party nominee Jill Stein would’ve won an elector in both deep-blue California and deep-red Texas……
Thought we should have a single thread
=================
The electoral college is gearing up for the fall semester. An election that once promised a presidential rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump now features a fresh face in Vice President Kamala Harris.
On Election Day, Americans will cast their votes — but it will be the college that determines the winner, weeks later. Sometimes its decision is to bypass the people’s choice and award the presidency to a candidate with fewer votes. That’s occurred twice in the last six presidential elections.
And it’s not out of the question this year.
The college was originally advertised as a shield against a fickle public and the excesses of democracy. Its deliberations would be governed by honorable, judicious men, who would avoid secrecy and plotting.
The institution would harbor a preference for low-population states to ensure those in the minority have a strong voice. And it would use weighted calculus to help reach fair decisions. But today, its design is antiquated. The math, too old. The college has certainly seen its share of intrigue and corruption.
Along the way, it’s become increasingly unrepresentative even as our democracy has become more accessible.
For example, since Harris became the Democratic nominee, Trump has dropped nearly seven points in national polling. That shift represents millions of voters who’ve changed their minds about the election.
But the people’s shift is of little interest in the college. There, states matter most. And its winner-takes-all system doesn’t care whether victory in a state is decided by one vote or 1 million.
As a result, though Harris could win the popular vote by millions, Trump could still win more states. In a system designed more than 200 years ago, that combination means lopsided elections can become electoral nail-biters.
In short, the college has lost touch with the campus. In 2016, though Hillary Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes, in the vote that counts she lost by 77 electors — an outcome effectively decided by 80,000 people in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
In 2020, Biden won the popular vote by 8 million, yet failed to match Trump’s margin of victory in the college four years earlier. Of those 8 million, the deciders amounted to just 44,000 people in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.
These numbers don’t add up. That’s why Americans favor scrapping the electoral college by a margin of 2 to 1. And it’s another reason the public has such low confidence in this not-quite-democracy…….
We have options. One suggestion is to rely solely on a national popular vote, though wide margins of victory in a populous state put the race out of reach nationally. Clinton’s winning margin of 4.3 million votes in California is why she won the popular vote — without it, she loses the national vote by more than a million.
Biden won the state by 5.1 million votes in 2020, more than the total population of 27 states.
A more representative idea would be to allocate electoral votes in all states as Maine and Nebraska already do: two electors to the statewide winner and one vote for each congressional district.
But that approach is spoiled by partisan gerrymandering, which can help losers of the statewide vote win more electors.
A third alternative is a combination of the two. Assign electors based on each candidate’s share of the statewide vote: win 60 percent of the vote, get 60 percent of the state’s electors.
More importantly for our democracy, losing candidates can still receive the electors they earn. These changes would restore meaning to margins of victory and inspire candidates to compete in every state. Additional electors can be found wherever candidates lose by a little less or win by a little more. It’s even good for third parties.
In 2016, under this scheme, Green Party nominee Jill Stein would’ve won an elector in both deep-blue California and deep-red Texas……
Last edited:
