Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Quimbob

2016 Presidential Election Discussion

Recommended Posts

Has anyone seen this article?

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/electoral-college-effort-stop-trump-231350

 

They are trying to get enough faithless electors to write in another Republican (Romney or Kasich) to send the election to the House.  They are assuming the R. controlled house will have an establishment republican to choose.  I don't think it will happen but stranger stuff has happened this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen this article?

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/electoral-college-effort-stop-trump-231350

 

They are trying to get enough faithless electors to write in another Republican (Romney or Kasich) to send the election to the House.  They are assuming the R. controlled house will have an establishment republican to choose.  I don't think it will happen but stranger stuff has happened this year.

 

They aren't going to get 37 of them unless something major happens between now and the college's meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of these "forecasters" were so incredibly wrong. One is HuffPo, which no one takes seriously anyway, but even the (failing) New York Times was wrong, bigly:

 

AW8wHaf.png

 

c8kst9f5mpxx.jpg

 

Though I was watching this live update throughout the night on election night, which was pretty amusing to see (I was also following the 538 live blog as they slowly imploded, you could actually see Nate Silver's hair falling out):

 

19kwgC.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

538 gave Trump a 30% chance on election night. I don't see why you keep ragging on him. I get that he disagrees with Trump and doesn't hide it, but I don't think he lets that bias get into his models. Polling was inaccurate, and while everyone else was giving a 90+% Chance (as you've pointed out), Silver gave a bold prediction of 30% Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case people forgot how peacefully people accepted Obama's election in ’08:

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/Y7Zpt


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19kwgC.png

 

I didn't check my phone all night until about 11:30 to see that my brother had texted me saying the NYT said he had a 96%~ chance of winning.  At the bar where I watched the returns, the TV never waivered from CNN, and I didn't realize why people were getting so upset, since CNN was very slow to declare any of the states.  The CNN commentators were all definitely completely aghast at what was unfolding and whoever the woman was appeared to be near tears.

 

It's incredible that with increases in technology that polling could be so inaccurate, but it's really not so surprising when you consider that estimating who will actually show up to vote continues to be the most unpredictable feature of any election.  I just think that because of all the predictions in Clinton's favor that a lot of people didn't bother to go out and vote. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case people forgot how peacefully people accepted Obama's election in ’08:

http://m.imgur.com/gallery/Y7Zpt

 

"When they go low, we go high."

 

LOL oh wait nevermind, we're going to "protest" (what exactly are these people hoping to accomplish?) and loot businesses and burn flags.  It's the same on both sides.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver was close but no cigar. I'll agree that the real problem was the polling, which had been consistently wrong at predicting who "likely voters" were. Some of us picked up on this as the election went on - the media would feign outrage over something Trump did and the polls would quickly swing wildly in favor of Clinton. This did not match, at all, the personal anecdotes of anyone I knew, who only became more staunch supporters of Trump as the media railroaded him.

 

Plus, RCP's straight up averaging out of polls ended up being more accurate than Silver's adjusted polls, particularly in some of the big swing states.

 

I always thought he was saying "big league" rather than "bigly."  Did anyone else pick that up?

 

There was a ton of debate and I still don't know which one he actually said. I think most people agree it was big league but I like bigly better so I've been using that in everyday parlance now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver was close but no cigar.

 

He wasn't "wrong" in his prediction. He gave percentages for outcomes, and the one with a lower chance came out as the result. It happens with statistics from time to time. Like the Cubs winning the World Series when down 3-1. 538 wasn't "wrong" in giving the Indians the best chance of winning. 538 wasn't guaranteeing a Clinton victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The national polling actually turned out to be fairly accurate.  But, in certain swing states, the urban vote was overestimated and the rural vote was underestimated.  Despite whatever feelings someone got from their inner circle, there were indeed swings in the election.  No doubt about that.  The Trump audio definitely turned off a lot of conservatives and if the election were held that week, he would've lost.  The Comey letter and Podesta emails helped him recover big time.  But, more than anything, I strongly suspect the deciding factor was the religious right galvanizing behind Trump for the purpose of ensuring there would not be a liberal majority on the Supreme Court.  It was those robocalls from Huckabee and the politicians from places like Utah, who first said they couldn't support Trump only to eventually fall in line, as I predicted they would.  The religious right understands the importance of the Supreme Court in a way that liberals apparently do not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The national polling actually turned out to be fairly accurate.  But, in certain swing states, the urban vote was overestimated and the rural vote was underestimated.  Despite whatever feelings someone got from their inner circle, there were indeed swings in the election.  No doubt about that.  The Trump audio definitely turned off a lot of conservatives and if the election were held that week, he would've lost.  The Comey letter and Podesta emails helped him recover big time.  But, more than anything, I strongly suspect the deciding factor was the religious right galvanizing behind Trump for the purpose of ensuring there would not be a liberal majority on the Supreme Court.  It was those robocalls from Huckabee and the politicians from places like Utah, who first said they couldn't support Trump only to eventually fall in line, as I predicted they would.  The religious right understands the importance of the Supreme Court in a way that liberals apparently do not.

 

I think both sides underestimate the power of the Supreme Court in the modern age, or the Supreme Court would have been the largest topic at every presidential debate, and every primary debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I just think it is what ended up galvanizing the Right, especially the members of the religious right who took serious issue with Trump being the nominee.  There are more single issue voters (guns, abortion) on the right than there are on the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I just think it is what ended up galvanizing the Right, especially the members of the religious right who took serious issue with Trump being the nominee.  There are more single issue voters (guns, abortion) on the right than there are on the left.

 

Guns may galvanize the right but abortion (or access to) certainly galvanizes the left.  Anecdotally, I have many people in my personal orbit who prioritize access to abortion above almost anything else in their ideological hierarchy.  No knock on that whatsoever, but it is certainly a single issue that motivates Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the polls being so inaccurate, does anyone still think the Sanders would have done better than Clinton vs. Trump?

 

I suppose we'll never really know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we'll never really know.

 

We will never know. People quote polls from March saying he would do better against Trump. But Sanders received almost no negative attention during the primaries. His socialist/communist label would have really hurt him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. They wouldn't elect a woman with a lifetime of knowledge and experience both directly and indirectly related to the position, but they would have hired a communist Jew.

 

Look I love Bernie but this is complete folly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we'll never really know.

 

We will never know. People quote polls from March saying he would do better against Trump. But Sanders received almost no negative attention during the primaries. His socialist/communist label would have really hurt him.

 

Agreed. Add in the fact that his base support, younger voters are notorious for not showing up at the polls. What would have been really interesting seeing Wall Street terrified of both major candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we'll never really know.

 

We will never know. People quote polls from March saying he would do better against Trump. But Sanders received almost no negative attention during the primaries. His socialist/communist label would have really hurt him.

 

Personally, I actually think Bernie would have been the best Democratic candidate to face Trump, while Clinton would have been the best candidate to face any of the other Republican contenders.  Bernie would have "crowded the plate" on Trump on his signature issues of trade and war, whereas Clinton was known to be a free trader (and there was no way she could ever dissemble her way out of that label) and a pretty willing interventionist.  Bernie and Trump would have remained significantly far apart on immigration, Trump's third signature issue, but on two of three of Trump's signature issues, Bernie would have at least agreed in 30,000-foot terms about the existence of a problem, which then turns the discussion towards solutions, and Trump was awful on specifics.

 

Basic debate tip: If you and your debate opponent disagree on the very existence of a problem, then you almost never have to actually talk seriously about policy specifics of a solution.  You've already won if you can convince the audience that a problem exists, and already lost if you can't, regardless of anything you might think is possible, practical, or desirable to fix that problem.  So Clinton was not only an easy target for Trump on immigration, trade, and intervention with the electorate swinging to a more populist mood, she also essentially absolved him of any need to discuss specifics, because all of his voters had already tagged him as "on my side" (at least vis-a-vis Clinton) even without anything remotely resembling a coherent plan of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Silver was close but no cigar.

 

He wasn't "wrong" in his prediction. He gave percentages for outcomes, and the one with a lower chance came out as the result. It happens with statistics from time to time. Like the Cubs winning the World Series when down 3-1. 538 wasn't "wrong" in giving the Indians the best chance of winning. 538 wasn't guaranteeing a Clinton victory.

 

I think you might have a definition of "wrong" that does not exist in reality, but aside from that fact I didn't even say Silver was wrong I said he was "close but no cigar" which is, IMO, overly kind given that he wasn't close at all.  You can't pass the buck and blame the polls for Nate Silver's shortcomings. His attempts to aadjust/correct bias in polls actually pushed his analysis to the left of what the actual polling data was indicating, which was a much closer race particularly in the stats Trump flipped.

 

If a meteorologist looks at the weather models and they all tell him there's a 45% chance of rain, but he falls back on his own expertise and decides to adjust that down to only 30%, and it ends up down-pouring all day, he isn't very good at setting probabilities. Nate Silver is that meteorologist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I just think it is what ended up galvanizing the Right, especially the members of the religious right who took serious issue with Trump being the nominee.  There are more single issue voters (guns, abortion) on the right than there are on the left.

 

Guns may galvanize the right but abortion (or access to) certainly galvanizes the left.  Anecdotally, I have many people in my personal orbit who prioritize access to abortion above almost anything else in their ideological hierarchy.  No knock on that whatsoever, but it is certainly a single issue that motivates Democrats.

 

I disagree, at least for the purposes of my point.  Most Liberals are pro-choice.  But it is not the only reason they are liberal.  There are many, many voters who are conservative for no other reason than they are pro-life.  And I get it.  They firmly believe that abortion is murder and their convictions on that point are unwavering.  The democratic party platform endorsing the right of a woman to choose automatically demonizes the entire party to staunch anti-abortion advocates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the LA Times poll which actually got it right in 2016 might not get it right next time using the same methodology and the old methodology might work. 

 

The LA Times poll did NOT get it right.  It was a national tracking poll and showed Trump up 3-5 points fairly consistently.  If it had been right, Trump would have won the popular vote and been elected with a mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the LA Times poll which actually got it right in 2016 might not get it right next time using the same methodology and the old methodology might work. 

 

The LA Times poll did NOT get it right.  It was a national tracking poll and showed Trump up 3-5 points fairly consistently.  If it had been right, Trump would have won the popular vote and been elected with a mandate.

even though Trump did not get the popular vote, one could argue that he does indeed have a mandate. The electoral college win shows a vote far more diffuse, spread widely across the entire nation, not concentrated in a few large urban areas, as the case with the popular vote. Also, with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and in control of most governorships, to say nothing of many state legislatures, that yes, in essence, Trump does have a mandate. It was a wholesale rejection of the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats have clear mandates in a few urban places. In places like NYC, Chicago, and every city in California the mandate is overwhelming. Republicans don't have as clear a mandate but they do indeed have a clear majority of votes in far more places. They control the House for the same reason. There are a few very, very safe districts for Democrats where Representatives run virtually (if not actually) unopposed. Republicans have some safe districts but most of them are still fairly close by comparison. This isn't because of gerrymandering or arbitrary political boundaries - it's the reality of the geographic distribution of populations.

 

This is a result that the founding fathers set out to achieve - they didn't want any single ideology to conquer entire populations in a few densely populated areas, whose people could then abuse a true and total democracy to force that ideology upon the rest of the country who might not be as subscribed to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, the LA Times poll which actually got it right in 2016 might not get it right next time using the same methodology and the old methodology might work. 

 

The LA Times poll did NOT get it right.  It was a national tracking poll and showed Trump up 3-5 points fairly consistently.  If it had been right, Trump would have won the popular vote and been elected with a mandate.

even though Trump did not get the popular vote, one could argue that he does indeed have a mandate. The electoral college win shows a vote far more diffuse, spread widely across the entire nation, not concentrated in a few large urban areas, as the case with the popular vote. Also, with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and in control of most governorships, to say nothing of many state legislatures, that yes, in essence, Trump does have a mandate. It was a wholesale rejection of the Democrats.

 

Wholesale rejection is a bit strong.  Trump won the EC because a TOTAL vote difference of 112,000 in three key states (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan).  Clinton's popular vote lead is likely to exceed 2 million when all votes are counted.  There are not rules on when a president is or is not elected with a mandate, but traditionally those who win the EC but lose the popular vote are considered to have been elected without a mandate.  In fact, many conservative commentators argued that Obama was re-elected without a mandate after he only won 50.3% of the popular vote in 2012. 

 

There have only been three times in American politics that a president has won the election without winning the popular vote.  Two were in the 19th century and the other was Bush's election in 2000.  But he only lost the popular vote by 0.5%.  Trump is likely to lose the popular vote by a much wider margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would only be okay with keeping the electoral college if the numbers of electors were adjusted to more accurately represent the populations (since as it stands, a Wyoming vote is 3 to 4 times more important than a California vote), and if there was some kind of guarantee that the winner of the popular vote gets a certain amount of extra EVs on top of what they won (perhaps one elector from each state could be required to vote for the winner of the popular vote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even though Trump did not get the popular vote, one could argue that he does indeed have a mandate. The electoral college win shows a vote far more diffuse, spread widely across the entire nation, not concentrated in a few large urban areas, as the case with the popular vote. Also, with Republicans in charge of the House and Senate and in control of most governorships, to say nothing of many state legislatures, that yes, in essence, Trump does have a mandate. It was a wholesale rejection of the Democrats.

 

I think the mandate notion in itself is pretty silly and a product of partisan politics.  I wouldn't think a mandate would come about because of a couple percentage points.  Also, Trump received about the same votes (so far) this election as McCain or Romney did in the last 2.  What is clear is that people weren't happy with their choices, but the Republican base seems to be a bit more reliable and enough of them came out to end up winning.  Getting the same votes as Romney and McCain doesn't feel like any sort of mandate to me.  But, again, I think mandate should mean something like 67% of the votes... that's much more clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never really liked talk of "mandates," but particularly in the person of one man.  For me, the Republican majority in the House is substantially greater evidence of popular support than a one-on-one contest of champions for the presidency, and Republican control of state legislatures is greater evidence still.  People had widely varying reasons for voting for Trump, and one of the foremost was to vote against Clinton.  (And vice versa.)  That's hardly a ringing endorsement of everything that candidate said, especially a candidate who has said an awful lot.  The president's powers flow from the Constitution (and from enormous delegations of power to the executive from Congress, but that's a whole topic of its own); whether he won by a single vote or with 90% of the popular vote and 100% of the electoral college, there are certain things he can do and certain things he cannot.  Talk of mandates is just a kind of "soft power" argument about whether he should exercise the executive power in certain ways, but at the end of the day, what he has the actual incentive to do is to exercise that power in ways that increase his chances of reelection--which means that in practice, he has a pretty broad liberty to stick it to progressive pet projects and ideas all he wants, because none of them were ever going to vote for him in 2020 anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that "mandates" are obnoxious claims...elections are usually a reflection of who shows up to vote, not the population at large.  Who shows up to vote every time?  Old people and angry dudes. 

 

If 250 people live in a nursing home, I guarantee that all 250 cast a vote in every general AND primary election.  Meanwhile, a college dormitory with 250 students might see 50 show up to vote in a presidential election year and maybe 1 or 2 to any other year and zero to a primary election. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I just remembered that on election night I talked to a guy from Australia who said he had to pay a fine when he moves back there because he hasn't voted in any recent elections.  In that country everyone is required to vote in every election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would only be okay with keeping the electoral college if the numbers of electors were adjusted to more accurately represent the populations (since as it stands, a Wyoming vote is 3 to 4 times more important than a California vote), and if there was some kind of guarantee that the winner of the popular vote gets a certain amount of extra EVs on top of what they won (perhaps one elector from each state could be required to vote for the winner of the popular vote).

 

Is it really even worth the discussion of getting rid of the EC. It is pretty much impossible to do. Also, each state is guaranteed votes representing their Senators and Reps, so the minimum is 3, you can't get below that number period, but you also cant get above 539 since the house is capped at 435. This means states like CA will have more people per rep than states like Idaho or South Dakota. Even though SD is a slow growing state, you can't get below 1 representative in the state so things are boxed in based on the cap and floor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I just remembered that on election night I talked to a guy from Australia who said he had to pay a fine when he moves back there because he hasn't voted in any recent elections.  In that country everyone is required to vote in every election. 

 

Yes, it is compulsory, and it is on a Saturday. So you know, people can actually get to the polls. Also, election season runs about 3 months due to the ability of the PM to announce the election date at any time, with a general rule that an election happen once every 3 years.  People here look at me with such confusion when I try to explain the electoral college system. When I have to dumb it down so repeatedly for people it really makes it clear and me realise just how insanely ludicrous and illogical the system is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew that Australia had mandatory voting, but I wasn't aware that they encourage it by fining non-voters until I talked to that guy. 

 

I think that mandatory voting would beneficial since people would be much more familiar with how government works at all levels.  For example, when I voted last Tuesday, I ran into a former coworker, who asked me why we vote for a county coroner.  I told him that I think it's because there needs to be an impartial party that determines causes of death in criminal cases but more often for insurance purposes.  Also, a death certificate is necessary to execute a will, and as absurd as it sounds, it's necessary to have an impartial expert declare that someone is actually dead.  I was just guessing that, because I myself have never looked up why we do elect coroners. 

 

But as another example, almost nobody seems to actually understand how property tax works in Ohio or how various types of taxes work at all levels.  Instead, they just get angry.  All of this stuff is online, but nobody is looking up this stuff now who wasn't then.  Plus, the explosion of fake news is confusing people even more.  I'm pretty upset that the internet is actually causing people to be stupider. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that mandatory voting would beneficial since people would be much more familiar with how government works at all levels. 

 

No.  They wouldn't.  We would see a name game like we do with Cuyahoga County judges.  It's perhaps the worst thing you could do to our electoral system.

 

The South Park guys were explicit in 2004 (when they did their episode that proved prophetic about this year's race) that people who don't know the issues or candidates should not vote. (They positively skewered the "Vote or Die" campaign).  They caught some Mr. Hankey for it but they were right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Hillary's campaign plane is finally being put to a good use right here in Ohio:

 

Why Dayton Flyers used Clinton’s plane for Alabama trip

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/blogs/2016/11/15/why-dayton-flyers-used-clintons-plane-alabama-trip/93942856/

 

While Donald Trump traveled the country on his personal 757 airplane, Hillary Clinton used a chartered Boeing 737 jet. Once the election ended, the airplane was made available for customers, and it just happened to be the Dayton basketball team on Tuesday.

 

The Flyers traveled for their game against Alabama on Clinton’s official campaign jet. Her campaign’s “Stronger Together” branding was still on the plane.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that mandatory voting would beneficial since people would be much more familiar with how government works at all levels.  For example, when I voted last Tuesday, I ran into a former coworker, who asked me why we vote for a county coroner.  I told him that I think it's because there needs to be an impartial party that determines causes of death in criminal cases but more often for insurance purposes.  Also, a death certificate is necessary to execute a will, and as absurd as it sounds, it's necessary to have an impartial expert declare that someone is actually dead.  I was just guessing that, because I myself have never looked up why we do elect coroners.

 

The direct election of county level positions is antiquated and leftover from when we were more rural. It would make more sense for people to elect a commission or a county executive who would hire the most qualified people for those jobs, rather than people voting for them based on name recognition and political party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Hillary's campaign plane is finally being put to a good use right here in Ohio:

 

Why Dayton Flyers used Clintons plane for Alabama trip

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/blogs/2016/11/15/why-dayton-flyers-used-clintons-plane-alabama-trip/93942856/

 

While Donald Trump traveled the country on his personal 757 airplane, Hillary Clinton used a chartered Boeing 737 jet. Once the election ended, the airplane was made available for customers, and it just happened to be the Dayton basketball team on Tuesday.

 

The Flyers traveled for their game against Alabama on Clintons official campaign jet. Her campaigns Stronger Together branding was still on the plane.

 

 

 

I thought Hillary just retreated to Dayton as a quiet respite after the campaign season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that mandatory voting would beneficial since people would be much more familiar with how government works at all levels.  For example, when I voted last Tuesday, I ran into a former coworker, who asked me why we vote for a county coroner.  I told him that I think it's because there needs to be an impartial party that determines causes of death in criminal cases but more often for insurance purposes.  Also, a death certificate is necessary to execute a will, and as absurd as it sounds, it's necessary to have an impartial expert declare that someone is actually dead.  I was just guessing that, because I myself have never looked up why we do elect coroners.

 

The direct election of county level positions is antiquated and leftover from when we were more rural. It would make more sense for people to elect a commission or a county executive who would hire the most qualified people for those jobs, rather than people voting for them based on name recognition and political party.

 

Essentially, this is what Cuyahoga County did, with the sole exception being the County Prosecutor, who then had the clout to keep his job elective.  (Until the FBI got ahold of his buddy's computer that is....).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that mandatory voting would beneficial since people would be much more familiar with how government works at all levels.  For example, when I voted last Tuesday, I ran into a former coworker, who asked me why we vote for a county coroner.  I told him that I think it's because there needs to be an impartial party that determines causes of death in criminal cases but more often for insurance purposes.  Also, a death certificate is necessary to execute a will, and as absurd as it sounds, it's necessary to have an impartial expert declare that someone is actually dead.  I was just guessing that, because I myself have never looked up why we do elect coroners.

 

The direct election of county level positions is antiquated and leftover from when we were more rural. It would make more sense for people to elect a commission or a county executive who would hire the most qualified people for those jobs, rather than people voting for them based on name recognition and political party.

 

I do know that sometimes people get frustrated with the local coroners office. When my dad passed they took him all the way out to the Montgomery County facility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would only be okay with keeping the electoral college if the numbers of electors were adjusted to more accurately represent the populations (since as it stands, a Wyoming vote is 3 to 4 times more important than a California vote), and if there was some kind of guarantee that the winner of the popular vote gets a certain amount of extra EVs on top of what they won (perhaps one elector from each state could be required to vote for the winner of the popular vote).

 

Is it really even worth the discussion of getting rid of the EC. It is pretty much impossible to do. Also, each state is guaranteed votes representing their Senators and Reps, so the minimum is 3, you can't get below that number period, but you also cant get above 539 since the house is capped at 435. This means states like CA will have more people per rep than states like Idaho or South Dakota. Even though SD is a slow growing state, you can't get below 1 representative in the state so things are boxed in based on the cap and floor.

 

Heh.

 

You actually came very close to the fully Constitutionally permissible way to greatly dilute the influence of the electoral college, without amending the Constitution.

 

Increase the size of the House of Representatives.

 

The Senate will always be 2 Senators per state.  And that is the reason for the outsize electoral college influence of less populous states.  (Liberals like to compare California to Wyoming, of course, but the fairer comparison would be Wyoming to Vermont and California to Texas ... but it doesn't matter for these purposes.)

 

The constitutional maximum size of the House is one per 30,000 citizens.  The current allocation of 435 is set only by statute (last changed in 1912, when our population was obviously much less, except for the additions of Alaska and Hawaii).  So with a population of 318.9 million, rather than having an electoral college of 538 (435 + 100 + 3 for DC), there exists the potential for an electoral college of 10,630 + 100 + 3 = 10,733 (+/- a little for getting the 318.9 million figure actually down to the nearest 30,000), almost all of which would be in practice based on population.  And note that the size of the House is set by statute, so while getting rid of the electoral college entirely would take a Constitutional amendment, increasing the size of the House would just take an ordinary federal statute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would only be okay with keeping the electoral college if the numbers of electors were adjusted to more accurately represent the populations (since as it stands, a Wyoming vote is 3 to 4 times more important than a California vote), and if there was some kind of guarantee that the winner of the popular vote gets a certain amount of extra EVs on top of what they won (perhaps one elector from each state could be required to vote for the winner of the popular vote).

 

Is it really even worth the discussion of getting rid of the EC. It is pretty much impossible to do. Also, each state is guaranteed votes representing their Senators and Reps, so the minimum is 3, you can't get below that number period, but you also cant get above 539 since the house is capped at 435. This means states like CA will have more people per rep than states like Idaho or South Dakota. Even though SD is a slow growing state, you can't get below 1 representative in the state so things are boxed in based on the cap and floor.

 

Is there a good reason why the size of the electoral college can't be changed? I don't see why it has to match up with the size of the state's representation in the Senate and House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...