Gerrymandering and our fucked up electoral college

SoxIlliniRob wrote:We are talking about different things.  I am only questioning the unfair apportioning of electoral college votes to states when they ought to be assigned according to state populations.  None of my comments should be construed as complaining about the electoral college or arguing about popular vote.  

The notion of electing via the electoral college is fine.  It ain't going away.  They just need to recalculate electoral vote amounts according to the population sizes of the states, IMO.

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:We are talking about different things.  I am only questioning the unfair apportioning of electoral college votes to states when they ought to be assigned according to state populations.  None of my comments should be construed as complaining about the electoral college or arguing about popular vote.  

The notion of electing via the electoral college is fine.  It ain't going away.  They just need to recalculate electoral vote amounts according to the population sizes of the states, IMO.

To what degree? So that a candidate just needs to win California, Illinois, and New York in order to win the Presidency? Only five times in our nation's history has the electoral college elected someone who lost the popular vote.

sharpy wrote:Its my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the Electoral college was put in place by the founders in order to prevent one state with a lot of people, from getting the upper hand and making decisions for the rest of the country, and that by the electoral college, not just one area, or one state at the time, could determine the fate of the entire nation. If that's true, then the people of California's vote cannot be worth the same as the people in Wyoming, b/c if it were, then the electoral college would be no difference than the popular vote and the larger states would dominate both votes. Because of its size, California's voter have to have less sway per vote than a place like Wyoming or Rhode Island. Whether you agree with the presence of the Electoral college or not, the concept makes sense- that in order to become president you have to appeal to many different regions of the country, and not to one dominate one - unfortunately for me, the current democratic party is doing just that, appealing to one section whereas the GOP is appealing to a larger section - and also unfortunate for the country, the people who find trump and his ilk appealing, out number the sane.  The USA isn't a democratic society, its a republic, and not based on the popular vote - we vote for others to vote for us. Senators, congressman, etc ....the electoral college is just another "representative" of the people. 

sharpy wrote:Its my understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the Electoral college was put in place by the founders in order to prevent one state with a lot of people, from getting the upper hand and making decisions for the rest of the country, and that by the electoral college, not just one area, or one state at the time, could determine the fate of the entire nation. If that's true, then the people of California's vote cannot be worth the same as the people in Wyoming, b/c if it were, then the electoral college would be no difference than the popular vote and the larger states would dominate both votes. Because of its size, California's voter have to have less sway per vote than a place like Wyoming or Rhode Island. Whether you agree with the presence of the Electoral college or not, the concept makes sense- that in order to become president you have to appeal to many different regions of the country, and not to one dominate one - unfortunately for me, the current democratic party is doing just that, appealing to one section whereas the GOP is appealing to a larger section - and also unfortunate for the country, the people who find trump and his ilk appealing, out number the sane.  The USA isn't a democratic society, its a republic, and not based on the popular vote - we vote for others to vote for us. Senators, congressman, etc ....the electoral college is just another "representative" of the people. 

alohafri wrote:


That's my understanding of it also Sharpy.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:We are talking about different things.  I am only questioning the unfair apportioning of electoral college votes to states when they ought to be assigned according to state populations.  None of my comments should be construed as complaining about the electoral college or arguing about popular vote.  

The notion of electing via the electoral college is fine.  It ain't going away.  They just need to recalculate electoral vote amounts according to the population sizes of the states, IMO.

To what degree? So that a candidate just needs to win California, Illinois, and New York in order to win the Presidency? Only five times in our nation's history has the electoral college elected someone who lost the popular vote.

You keep deflecting back to the popular vote.  I'm not really referencing the popular vote.  I'm talking about how they assign electoral votes.  One would think or expect that states would be given electoral votes based upon some kind of proportional formula.  Cali, Illinois and NY combine for only about 25% of our nation's population, so I would expect that 25% of all electoral votes (or approximately that many) ought to come from the states of Illinois, California and NY.  Even if they assigned electoral votes the way I'm asking, it would still allow for a candidate to win the electoral college while receiving, hypothetically, as little as 30-35% of the popular vote.  If they assigned the electoral votes as I suggest, then a candidate couldn't win without winning at least 10 states worth of electoral votes or so.  It would definitely require more than just winning the three you mentioned. 

Does it not bother you that your vote counts only 1/3 to 1/2 as much as residents of small states?  You like it that some lefty liberal in Vermont has 240% of the electoral voting power as you?  or that some right wing tea party nut in Alaska has 240% of the voting strength as you?  I don't.  Figured you wouldn't, either.

blondy28 wrote:The issue I have with the "bigger states...represent everyone" argument is that about half of the residents of California aren't from California.  Putting aside that some folks will say that they're immigrants voting illegally....let's just pretend that half of the voting population there is from somewhere else.  I know a few people who live in California.  Not a lot.  One is from Iowa.  One is from Indiana.   So when my friend lived in Indiana, she was "middle America" and he vote, to the public perception, had value.  She changes her geography, and now she's from one of those big states who expect the rest of us to adopt their warped California values.  There's an argument, I suppose, that people gravitate to the states that have their values, but my Iowa friend is a hardcore Republican.  People do bring their values with them, and I'd venture to guess that if the votes of the Californians were made in the states from which those citizens originate, that some of those middle America states flip.  Dismissing large states as not representative of the rest of America....especially California, where half of the citizens are from somewhere else...is kinda bullshit.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:Cool find, Kevin.  That's what I'm referencing.  You keep saying you don't elect the president, but you certainly do if your vote is the one vote that pushes a state election one way or another.  If Illinois is tipped to one candidate by even just one vote, then all of those electoral college votes go to that candidate.  They way you dismiss the national election, I'm surprised you bother to even vote.  

Your link is evidence that I'm not asking for us to ditch the electoral college, but only to rectify what appears to be out of whack to me.  

And yes, I suspect your bitch about gerrymandering is an even more important issue than the one I've been making.  It might be the most important issue of our time.  And if SCOTUS rules that gerrymandering is OK, and that Madigan can continue breaking up the state the way he does it, then you'll see further evidence of why I wanted to see an Obama appointee on the Court.

alohafri wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:Cool find, Kevin.  That's what I'm referencing.  You keep saying you don't elect the president, but you certainly do if your vote is the one vote that pushes a state election one way or another.  If Illinois is tipped to one candidate by even just one vote, then all of those electoral college votes go to that candidate.  They way you dismiss the national election, I'm surprised you bother to even vote.  

Your link is evidence that I'm not asking for us to ditch the electoral college, but only to rectify what appears to be out of whack to me.  

And yes, I suspect your bitch about gerrymandering is an even more important issue than the one I've been making.  It might be the most important issue of our time.  And if SCOTUS rules that gerrymandering is OK, and that Madigan can continue breaking up the state the way he does it, then you'll see further evidence of why I wanted to see an Obama appointee on the Court.

The way I look at it is this. I'm one man. I have one vote. My one vote is going to influence a local election much more than it will the national office we all "vote" in (quotes used on purpose). That's not going to change whether we keep the Electoral College as is, change it to the method depicted in the link I sent (and I looked to see if they had the same thing for other elections, but haven't been able to find it...yet), or a straight popular vote. 


And only a slight detour, this term limit talk has to end. I never hear anyone talking about term limiting their own representative or senator. It's always someone else's representative or senator. ("Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell, is the poster child for term limits." "Well, do you live where they do? Vote for someone else." "I don't, but don' think they should be in government anymore." "Maybe you should let the people in their district or state be the judge of that.")

alohafri wrote:


And only a slight detour, this term limit talk has to end. I never hear anyone talking about term limiting their own representative or senator. It's always someone else's representative or senator. ("Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell, is the poster child for term limits." "Well, do you live where they do? Vote for someone else." "I don't, but don' think they should be in government anymore." "Maybe you should let the people in their district or state be the judge of that.")

sharpy wrote:People do bring their values with them, and I'd venture to guess that if the votes of the Californians were made in the states from which those citizens originate, that some of those middle America states flip.  Dismissing large states as not representative of the rest of America....especially California, where half of the citizens are from somewhere else...is kinda bullshit.


No its not. You move from bumfuck Indiana to California and your views, desires, and personal needs change. A farmer's kid who goes to UCLA med school and becomes a plastic surgeon on Rodeo drive isn't voting like a farmer...What you felt in Indiana is not the same thing you feel in California. You aren't voting against your current life to preserve a life you left behind - that's ridiculous. Why leave then? 
I guess I'm slow, but I don't see what the gripe is about the electoral college. Not that its good, or that we shouldn't get rid of it, but what the point of the argument is. Currently, states are given electoral votes equal to their senators (2) and one each for every House member they have - so the larger more populous states already have more electoral college votes than smaller states. In addition, all but 2 states have winner take all electoral college with the other two breaking the votes up based on how the populace voted.  So your vote is actually a vote for that candidates electoral college vote - so you are indirectly voting for the president. If you would prefer the vote being split by percentage, so be it, but on the website I found, no matter how you split up the electoral vote for 2016, the GOP wins. I'm nor FOR the EC, but then again, I can see the founders point of view in that Trump, much to my dismay and disgust, won more of the country than Hilary did, so despite my hate of the final results, that asswipe should be president. Does that mean the EC shouldn't be tweaked, or altered based on population numbers, or whatever criteria you want to use, no, of course not, but then again, the EC is  not "bullshit" and the concept of the EC is not bullshit  - it makes perfect sense even  if it doesn't always give us the results we want. 

sharpy wrote:Nothing I've said in this thread was ever meant to be a knock on the EC, even thought I don't like it much, and it sounds like you don't either.

I may not be a big fan of the EC because the world has changed. People are leaving the rural life, farmers, small towns and moving more to big cities. More people are moving from Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Ohio to live in Arizone, California and Florida, so even tho the concept of having only a small number of states decide an election is not attractive to me , if that is where the vast majority of people live, then those states should decide the election.  Otherwise, it'd be like an empty prairie land having power to elect the president. That doesn't seem right either.  On the other hand, if my candidate had won the EC vote and lost the popular vote, I wouldn't have any objection to the EC - at least not now.