Is the Electoral College needed to prevent regionalism?

[Hardkill]

I just came across an article from Hillsdale college on "The Danger of the Attacks on the Electoral College" after seeing its commercial ad survey on the Electoral College on Youtube.

In that article, they mentioned a number of reasons for preserving the Electoral College system including how it prevents any presidential candidate from winning the election based on intense support from a narrow region or from big cities. They further say that "This would alter our politics in some obvious ways—shifting power toward urban centers, for example—but also in ways we cannot know in advance." This they argue could lead to a rise of splinter groups and fears of election fraud cities like Chicago or Miami.

They also say that if the winner of the presidential election was determined based on the national popular vote then that would "reward states with lax election laws—the higher the turnout, legal or not, the more power for that state" and allow state legislatures to subvert the will of the electorate.

I still don't really buy their arguments, but any of you think that these might be valid points for keeping the Electoral College?

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/danger-attacks-electoral-college/

[Tyler Robinson]

I think the electoral college needs to be done away with. It interferes with the results. 

National popular vote is the only thing that makes sense. If the voter turnout is low, it's their own karma. 

 

[Leo Gura]

The whole point is to give large urban centers more power because they have more people and more economic and cultural relevance.

There is no such thing as states with illegal voter turnout. This is nonsense.

Yes, the more people show up to vote, the more representation they will get. That's otherwise known as democracy.

I don't see how a direct popular vote can be won by a narrow region. If by "narrow region" is meant "all the major cities combined", then yes. But I wouldn't call that narrow, I'd call that broad.

What's truly narrow is how all the rural rednecks vote in unison for right-wing buffoons. The redneck in Alsaka votes the same as the redneck in Florida. So you're not exactly getting some profound diversity there.

The real question is, why should rural people get disportionate say in matters that involve global affairs? If you isolate yourself in a small town, your views will not be broad enough to properly handle global concerns, which is what going to Washington involves.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The whole point is to give large urban centers more power because they have more people and more economic and cultural relevance.

There is no such thing as states with illegal voter turnout. This is nonsense.

Yes, the more people show up to vote, the more representation they will get. That's otherwise known as democracy.

I don't see how a direct popular vote can be won by a narrow region. If by "narrow region" is meant "all the major cities combined", then yes. But I wouldn't call that narrow, I'd call that broad.

What's truly narrow is how all the rural rednecks vote in unison for right-wing buffoons. The redneck in Alsaka votes the same as the redneck in Florida. So you're not exactly getting some profound diversity there.

The real question is, why should rural people get disportionate say in matters that involve global affairs? If you isolate yourself in a small town, your views will not be broad enough to properly handle global concerns, which is what going to Washington involves.

Yeah, I don't believe in the idea of their being certain states who are more prone to illegal voter turnout than other states. If anything I would think that rural areas in red states in the south and in middle of America might be even prone to it because the election security in those parts of the US probably aren't as sophisticated and as well funded as those in blue states, particularly in comparison to big cities in blue states. 

I also do believe that the definition of democracy is that whoever gets the majority of individual votes in any election is the one who is rightfully elected.

You're right that the constituency in most rural areas and almost every red state (except for Florida) throughout the whole country are really homogenous as the Republican Party and other right-wing organizations in the US have always lacked diversity in practically every way possible. The Democratic Party and other left-wing organizations in the US, on the other hand, has always been a big tent party that has kept increasing in diversity in practically every way possible since the mid 1900s. Plus, as you said before, the Republican party has effectively become the party of minority rule, whereby they keep trying to unfairly rule over the majority of the US, when it should be the other way around. Conversely, the Democratic party since the early 2000s has always been the party of the majority.

Rural people generally not having as many resources or as much as of an understanding on how to deal with global affairs as much as urban and suburban people do in America is another really good point as to why rural voters should not get nearly as much of a say on matters that involve both domestic and foreign affairs.

But if the Electoral College actually got eliminated, then wouldn't that mean that the Democratic Party would never have to appeal to the interest of rural voters in America ever again in order to win presidential elections? If that happened, then wouldn't every rural voter in America be totally neglected and disregarded by every presidential candidate in every presidential election cycle?

Edited December 4, 2022 by Hardkill

[John Paul]

4 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

also do believe that the definition of democracy is that whoever gets the majority of individual votes in any election is the one who is rightfully elected.

Agreed- one person, one vote 

[How to be wise]

@Leo Gura States definitely should not be given power based on population. All of the smaller population states will then call for independence, since they will lose the ability to choose a leader. This is why the UK is falling apart now. 

[Leo Gura]

54 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

@Leo Gura States definitely should not be given power based on population. All of the smaller population states will then call for independence, since they will lose the ability to choose a leader. This is why the UK is falling apart now. 

The system needs to be sensitive to the agenda of rural voters, but not overly so. The US Senate is overly captive by the rural agenda.

Since most people do not live in deep rural areas, that agenda should not run the show, but it should still be respresented. This is where a parlimentary sort of system is good.

It is already the case that small states get less voting power, as they should. 

It's important to keep in mind where the economic output comes from. Areas that generate more economic value should have more voting power because they generate more tax revenue and play a bigger role in shaping world affairs.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The system needs to be sensitive to the agenda of rural voters, but not overly so.

Hmm...Then what do you think would be the best way for a presidential election to take into account rural voters, suburban voters, and urban voters in a fair and equal manner?

Edited December 5, 2022 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Hmm...Then what do you think would be the best way for a presidential election to take into account rural voters, suburban voters, and urban voters in a fair and equal manner?

A direct count of popular votes would do that I think. Every vote would count.

Maybe areas with a population below 10,000 can be given double votes to make sure their voice isn't drowned out by big cities.

And maybe campaigning must be regulated so they campaign more evenly, not just targetting big cities. For example, for every urban rally you must also host a rural rally. And you must visit at least 20 different states.

All sorts of clever regulations could help even things out.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

A direct count of popular votes would do that I think. Every vote would count.

Maybe areas with a population below 10,000 can be given double votes to make sure their voice isn't drowned out by big cities.

And maybe campaigning must be regulated so they campaigm more evenly, not just targetting big cities.

I see. 

Yeah, making one person's count as two votes for every citizen that lives in a small rural area in America, sounds much more fair compared to how much the votes of rural voters actually count in proportion to those living in the cities and suburbs. I mean, if you actually do the math and compare population-to-electoral vote ratio in a big state like California to that of Wyoming, you would see how ridiculous it is. 

 

Here's an example:

California, which is the most populous state in the country, had an estimated population of 39.37 million in 2020 and had 55 electoral votes for the Electoral College in the 2020 presidential election. If you divide 39,370,000 by 55 then you get approximately 715,818. That means that one electoral vote represented 715,818 people in California in 2020. 

Wyoming on the other hand, which is the least populated state in the country, had an estimated population of 582,328 in 2020 and had 3 electoral votes for the Electoral College in 2020. That means that one electoral vote represented 194,109 people in Wyoming in 2020.

 

Here's another example: 

Texas, which is the 2nd most populous state in the country and the most populous red state in the USA, had an estimated population of 29.36 million and had 38 electoral votes for the Electoral College in the 2020 presidential election. If you divide 29,360,000 by 38 then you get approximately 772,632. That means that one electoral vote represented 772,632 people in Texas in 2020. 

Washington D.C. on the other hand, which is such a small blue district had an estimated population of 712,816 in 2020 and had 3 electoral votes for the Electoral College in 2020. That means that one electoral vote represented 237,605 people in D.C. in 2020.

The difference in how many people are represented for one electoral vote in a small state or small district compared to how many people are represented for one electoral vote in a big state is ridiculous and the electoral votes given for each and every state are all totally out of proportion. 

 

I also think that regulating campaigns in a way that forces presidential candidates to campaign in rural, suburban, and urban areas equally sounds like another good idea. I think that would definitely help ensure that every voice is equally heard.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Hardkill

[Hardkill]

This article actually provides another idea for making the presidential election more democratic:

https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/recommendation-1-1

They say in that article that the total number of the House of Representatives in Congress should be substantially enlarged in a fair manner through federal legislation to make it and the Electoral College more representative of the nation’s population. Funny enough, I honestly just came up with this idea myself before I found this source.

I also think that the total number of Senators in Congress should be substantially enlarged in a fair manner as well through federal legislation to make it and the Electoral College even more representative of the nation’s population.

What's also good about this idea is that no new constitutional amendment would be required to make this happened. Congress could a laws or a set of laws by a majority in the House and a Supermajority in the Senate.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Hardkill