re: What is the argument for the electoral college instead of a popular vote?

Do you want NYC, LA, and Chicago to determine your president for you?

quote:

---

Without the electoral college, conservatism would be dead. The heavy population states would dominate the political process, and small town American values would be forgotten.

---

You people are just making this up though.

The popular vote has gone in line with electoral college every election for 130 years but one.

States like California that people in the South think are all Democrat, are really not. California registered voters are only 4/3 ratio of Dem/GOP.



I think the electoral college votes should reflect the ratio of popular votes per state. That allows the smaller states to keep their strength (more EC votes per capita), but also better reflects the individual.

Just IMO.

quote:

---

It would make more sense to allow one EV per congressional district with the elected congressperson acting as that district's elector - winner take all.

---

I think that would be great in theory. Though with the current congressional redistricting method, where whoever controls the house gets full control of drawing the districts, that would need to change. There needs to be a bipartisan commission to do it. Gerrymandering is a major problem.

quote:

---

You can win the EC count without winning popular vote. It's meant to give a voice to all states instead of just the few with the highest population centers.

---

I'm not so sure this math checks out these days. CA & NY have 18% of the population (2014 #s), and 16% of the electoral votes. That's pretty close - and instead of taking 18% of the country's population and having it split up amongst a true representative picture (let's conservatively say 2/1, or 12% D and 6% R), you instead will have 16% of the votes going to D and 0% R.

If this is supposed to give more of a voice to the other 48 states, I think it does the opposite. The rest of us have to overcome a 16-point deficit, as opposed to only being 6 points in the hole with my 2/1 estimate.

quote:

---

But those states with higher populations get more EC votes anyway.

---

Not nearly enough more to balance the scales. One voter in, say, Wyoming has as much impact on who wins the Presidency as something like six voters in California. Not only does adding the two extra electoral votes per state drastically imbalance the election in favor of smaller states, but there is huge imbalance in the number of people per congressional district in different states, so even discounting the two electoral votes per state from the senate seats, a state with, say, five times the population of another state usually does not have five times as many seats in the House or five times as many electoral votes. The people of the smaller states, having enjoyed this unfair advantage for a long time, don't want to give it up.

It's even more unbalanced on state-by-state things like ratifying constitutional amendments. A constitutional amendment must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states, or 38 out of the current 50. That means it only takes 13 states to defeat a constitutional amendment. The combined population of the smallest 13 states is roughly 14 million people, according to 2013 estimates. If those states went by popular referendum to decide whether to ratify an amendment, it would take only about 7 million people in those 13 states (or just 2.2% of the U.S. population) to block a constitutional amendment.

It's stupid, it's ridiculous, it's unfair, but the smaller states are never going to let it change, so there's no point even discussing it.