Four more years, just ask a Princeton Professor

[falsefashion]

Electoral College Meta-Analysis
From Prof. Sam Wang of Princeton University.

For the record, this Professor is a Democrat and you can see in this report he himself admits to this.
"Although the calculation is unbiased, I am not. I am a Democrat and I donate to key races" ( Read more... )

Comments

[falsefashion]

The electoral college is a way to balance power. If we would of left it to congress or the judicial branch then obviously one of those two would end up with an overwhelming amount of power. Congress is debatable the most powerful branch as it is. If we would of left it up to the popular (our votes) alone then that gives the way too much power to the majority and totally destroys the rights of the minority. That's why Congress is set up the way it is. The house is represented by each state's population, so if a state has more of a population, that state gets more representation. Then you have the Senate in which it's an equal representation, each state getting 2 senators, each getting his/her own vote. Now, could you imagine how much power California, New York and Texas would have if Representation was left only on population of the state. States like WV, RI, the Dakotas would have absolutely no power what so ever. So the way congress is set up protects the smaller states (the minority) and prevents the bigger states (the majority) from being too powerful based on their representation. That's is how the electoral college sorta works. If the president was elected based on the popular vote ... well which ever candidate a couple bigger states wanted is going to get even if most of the less populated states wanted the opposite candidate. It just provides a balance of power. Now, the electoral college isn't required by law to cast their vote in favor of what their state's popular vote was. So all 5 of our voters could vote for kerry even though WV's popular vote would go to Bush. I don't like that. I think that gives way too much power to those electors. I think if a law required those electors to represent the popular vote by the people it would provide a much safer and balanced ruling. Not only is it giving the people and popular vote much more meaning and power, but the electoral college still protects minority balance.

[subterfugeboy]

    You seem to know your shit. So I'll ask you a question about the electoral college that has always bugged me. The point of the EC is to give a bigger voice to smaller states, right? And the number of votes a state gets in the EC is based on the number of members the state has in Congress, correct? And the number of Congress seats a state has is based on population plus two in the Senate. That means a state, no matter how small, gets at least 3 votes. Is the ratio of population to EC votes the same in all states, then?
    So doesn't that mean the EC is also indirectly based on population? Just rounded down numbers of people? For example, California has the largest population, thus the largest number of Congressmen, thus the most EC votes. West Virginia has a fraction of California's population, merely five seats on the Hill, and only five EC votes. So a canidate would, in a non-EC election, would want to campaign in Cali because that's where the popular vote is. And a canidate in an EC election would... still go for California because of the higher EC votes there.
    I guess what I'm trying to ask is this: Why, if the Electoral College is just an indirect representation of a state's population, do we not use a popular election instead?

[falsefashion]

Each state gets the same amount of electoral votes as their congress representation (House of Rep + Senate), that is correct. So for example, West Virginia has 3 house members and 2 senators so we have 5 electoral votes.

Now, you ask why not go to the popular vote since the electoral college is actually based around population ultimately as well. Ok, the answer is again if we give the vote directly to the people the minority interest is no long there. Ok, this election ... John Kerry is going to take California and New York. If somehow John Kerry won texas too ... he could probably almost win the popular vote with just those 3 states alone. If he got a overwhelming turnout in those states for him. That makes states like us worthless and meaningless (the minority). Now, when it's done with the electoral college ... a candidate HAS to receive at least 274 i think EC votes. It might be 272 or something but 274 rings a bell. So with it being that specific, West Virginia and smaller states like us are all of a sudden more relevant and therefor giving us (minority) a voice and some power. This is a prime example of how both candidates has campaigned in WV like mad. They NEED these 5 votes. Now if it was based on just our popular vote, they wouldn't even bother with West Virginia or the state's interests. The builders of the Constitution was really focused on balancing interests. They did everything in their power to not give one single institution or branch too much power. Letting the people or electing by popular vote would give not only the people too much power it risks majority rule, ignoring minority interests and giving the executive branch way too much power.

[subterfugeboy]

    Yes, well, with the quota (I acutally think it is 272, but I'm not sure either) the EC makes a bit more sense. But what is wrong with just adding a quota to the popular vote? Not a number, mind you, but an over all percentage. There are about 500 EC votes, right? More or less. So if Kerry needs 270 out of 500 then why not say Kerry just needs 51% of the popular vote instead? Even if he gets Texas, Cali, and NY, he'd still have to find millions and millions more voters.

[falsefashion]

actually if you take those 3 states populations, i think it is over 50% of america's population.

You would again be doing the same thing while totally destorying minority interests. I don't mean minority as in race minority, but as in those smaller states. If they went by popular vote alone, why would they bother with WV or RI or North and South Dakota. Therefor those states are made even weaker than they already are. The electorial college provides that popular vote idea, but protecting the minority interests by preventing majority rule.

[subterfugeboy]

    So you are saying that, by popular vote, no one would bother campaigning in Rhode Island or West Virginia because our piddly million or so votes wouldn't matter, right? I disagree.
    Look at things today. If Bush campagins in Ohio he'll get barely more than 50% of the people there. Not a landslide, but enough to get every last one of Ohio's EC votes. If we went with a popular vote, Kerry would get 40% and Bush would get 60% (I'm pulling this out of my ass). No one would 'win Ohio' because there is nothing to win.
    So while Bush and Kerry are working their ass off in Texas and New York, they will both get votes from each state. It won't be 60 million (how many people live in California?) for Bush in Cali. No, it'd be 38 million for Bush and 22 for Kerry. No one wins all the votes in a state.
    It would make sense to campaign in populated areas because you'll see more people with each stop, sure. But each Rhode Islander's vote is worth just as much as each Californian's.
    It wouldn't be about making a state more powerful or weaker. Fuck the states and their power. It would give the citizens more power. California is going to go Kerry, like it or not. So the millions of pro-Bushers there can probably not show up on voting day. What's the point if Kerry is sure to get all of the EC votes? If, instead, that that one little Bush supporter's vote mattered and wouldn't be ignored because of the EC then it gives more power to the people.

[falsefashion]

ok I was wrong about the 3 states being 50% of the US population it's a little over 26% or 27%. But none-the-less that's 3 states being a fourth of the population.

And this is what you're not understanding. Direct voting of the Executive branch by the people gives the people, majority rule and the executive branch way way way too much power.

Fuck the states and their power? That's exactly the opposite of what we want. That is the whole idea of the way Articles 1 2 and 3 were written, to prevent the "fuck the states" idea. When one branch gains too much power, our government crumbles. When majority rules beyond control (which is what direct vote would do) minority interests are gone.

You have to remember this process was put into place in the 1800s. Virginia and New York could of decided the election alone if they went by popular vote. The south had more land and bigger area but were all farmers so their % of the popular vote was much smaller compared to their % of electoral votes because each state had equal representation in the senate. Sure, population is much different today but the idea and problems would still exists if we did away with the electoral college. Smaller states are left in the dark and that is a fact. That is exactly why the authors of the constitution wrote it up that way.

[subterfugeboy]

    When I said "fuck the states" I meant that the states, in a national election for president, shouldn't be a factor. It shouldn't matter if I'm from a big state or a small state. My vote should count the same.
    When I'm in California, my vote (if I don't vote for Kerry this time) is for the most part ignored. Kerry got the majority in California so Kerry gets all the EC votes.
    When you used the Virginia and New York (in the past) and the California and New York examples you still think that the whole state will vote one way. I disagree with that. I don't think that the states should be considered when it comes to presidential vote. California won't decide the election. There will be millions who vote Kerry and millons who vote Bush (and thousands for Nader and millions who won't vote at all). California, the state, should have nothing to do with it. (this is where I got my 'fuck the state' statement from)
    Today, Rhode Island has a smaller voice than Texas. Without a state-based EC, neither Rhode Island nor Texas will have a voice. The people of each state will. So campaigns will stop being about winning states (act pro-union in a pro-union state or pro-big business in a pro-big business one) and more about winning individual votes.

[falsefashion]

are you going to once again ignore the fact it's giving the people and the executive branch too much power?

You're also basing your view on what is happening. We don't know what will happen. If those 3 states all voted for one candidate ... fuck, that's it, half of the country is useless now. This protects the smaller states. And by what you're saying we should do, we will be weakening the states so much that the national government will be a few processes away from a communist nation.

[subterfugeboy]

    Yeah, that was my bad. I was going to mention that in the last comment but forgot. Sorry.
    How will a popular vote give more power to executive branch? And how is that extra power going to be bad? I honestly don't know so I'm not trying to be an ass here if the answer is obvious.

We don't know what will happen. But unless there is something that targets a particular location (immigration for California, oil for Texas, coal for West Virginia, tourism for Florida) going on in the election, people are not going to vote for their state. What I mean is, a state of millions will never vote 100% or even 90% for one contender. Sure, if the guy said that he'd bomb Indiana if he were elected he could expect 0% of Indiana's vote, but barring state-specific issues, the people will vote for who better helps the country not who better helps their state. After all, congressmen and governors help the individual states, not the president.
    But in the unlikely even that all of Texas, California, and New York voted for one guy that means millions of Americans are voting for that guy.
    And not to bash your view at all, either, but maybe if you looked at a map of America without state lines drawn on it. Now, what makes a voter somewhere in the middle part of the map any more important than a person on the south western part? In a popular election, there would be no difference. In an EC election, his vote counts for more ('cause he's a minority). I don't see how, without those state lines on the map, he is a minority. If he is, then where is the majority? 'Cause when I look at the map without state lines all I see is one giant mass of people with no divisions.

[falsefashion]

A direct election of the people is an obvious direction of majority rule. When this process was written in the 1800s obviously the population was not close to what it is today. So the majority rule was a much bigger factor then than it is now. They could NOT have got away with not having an electoral college then without having 2 or 3 states (Virginia mostly, the first 5 presidents came from that state) deciding the president. The south was in an obvious disadvantage because they were mostly farmers, so the population wasn't nearly as big.

So, in going by populuar vote, A President has a much powerful hand in determining his election. It also makes the majority rule and it trumples the minority. Our government was made up to protect minority rights, hence the bill of rights.

You're wanting to take away the "state lines". Well, again you're weakening the states. The Executive branch has an effect of individual states who so does who is put in office. When you start weakening the states even more, the states have no grounds, the national government gains even more power, and we are dealing with a very hobbes like idea of unitary government and that is not what we want. "Government is one bad mother"

This theory (which isn't mine so by you disagreeing with it isn't insulting, this is our forefathers theory haha)is preventing majority rule ultimatly. That is the major idea behind the electoral college