DEI for the GOP

Not of a simple majority, no. And that is by design. The same is true of all states, regardless of size, having equal representation in the Senate as well as the very concept of judicial review in the Supreme Court. A simple majority cannot have whatever it wants in this country. The better question is, then, does switching to a national popular vote reflect the will of a super majority in both Houses of the peoples’ representatives as well as the state legislatures?

 

You are correct about it requiring both houses.

Given that even presidential (and VP) candidates have expressed support for abolishing the EC, I don't think an internet user proposing it to his representatives will have as much impact as socializing the problem with a community. Maybe that can be considered 'doing something about it"?

 

In all seriousness, you must only look at our Constitution's amendments to see how we have changed our rules over that time, perhaps allowing for our democracy's endurance. From changing how senators are elected, suffrage, equal protections and term limits. The amendments reflect a commitment to democratic principles and addressing shortcomings over time. This flexibility and willingness to adapt have been crucial. I think we have succeeded not because our framework was perfect but because we have taken the opportunity to better it. There is more work to do.

 

No, actually I think both actions will have equal impact in every way.

 

Now you're just teasing me!

 

It'll never happen, but to me, the "popular" vote should be it.
Every vote counts. Democracy at its most pure.

I live in a ward which will never vote the way I vote. I will always vote but it's dumb that it counts for absolutely nothing.

 

Two things:
1) executive branch power has grown far beyond the framers’ intent. This is Congress not doing their job. The Unitary Executive Theory and Official Acts crap from SCOTUS is bad for the country. This topic of the EC would be muted if Congress actually does what the Constitution tells them to do and our representative democracy was aligned with their constituents (i.e. gerrymandering nonsense).
2. The EC has brilliance in protecting the minority party voters. The EC members determined by the state representative should be at the will of the voters; however we saw the pressure with “fake electors”. Again, state legislatures and governors are to blame (or the credit).

The tagline to me is voters need to be better informed. We are at an information inflection point — what is real and what is fake disinformation? Exactly at this point does the EC make infinitely more sense for override on voter corruption from disinformation and foreign actors.

 

Your first point is essential. It really shouldn’t matter much who ends up president, but it matters much more today. This is one reason I was so excited during the 8 seconds that Justin Amash ran for president in 2020, as he said (paraphrasing): “I am the one candidate that will work to limit my own power.” Unfortunately, he was right that he really was the only one.

I’m not as sold on your second point. If the EC does protect minority party voters, it’s doing it by accident. Nor do I see how it can help protect against disinformation. What the current EC does is distort voter power, and not toward voters in small states. Instead, it gives power to voters in swing states. Voters in Wyoming today actually have less power today than they would under a national popular vote.

Currently, the EC really just acts to deliver an arbitrary and idiosyncratic correction to the national popular vote. There is a future where the more popular party and/or the Democrats will enjoy the EC advantage, and this era will come not by design but by happenstance.

 

Wow, that is truly a batshit crazy theory. Thanks for the laughs.

 

I’ll address both your analysis of history, which I believe is flawed, as well as your larger point, which I believe is more or less that times change and the country must change with them.

The compromise about an electoral college and how the votes are allocated, etc, was not over a tension between slave states and free states as you suggest. First, because there was no such thing as a “free state” when the Constitution was ratified. All 13 states permitted slavery. The first state to come in as what we would now call a “free state” was Vermont, and other northern states implemented gradual emancipation in the decades that followed. Second, the tension at question was between small states (Delaware, Rhode Island) and large ones (Virginia, New York). The compromise you are likely referring to is the 3/5ths Compromise, which was not between slave states and free ones but rather between states with high proportions of slave populations and low ones.

As to your larger point that times change, I 100% agree. That’s why we have a procedure for amending our Constitution. The tension between slave states and free ones may be anachronistic, but the tension between large states and small ones, in terms of population, is still as relevant today as it was in 1789. You would ask the small states to give up some of the limited power they have in our system. Why should they? If those in favor of eliminating the electoral college are unwilling or unable to address the matter constitutionally, then what point is there in whining about it?

 

The Electoral College doesn't give small states "power." It benefits a small group of "swing states" that vary in size.

 

Seriously, like what kind of "power" does Rhode Island have from the EC? Much more time is being spent in PA than in Nebraska or Maine that have small EC vote counts in play rather than big ones. The thing that gives small states power is the Senate, and you can see the results of giving small states power like that, because the Senate sucks ass.

 

A fun fact to remember when debating the Electoral College is that Donald Trump got more total votes in California than in Texas or Florida.

 

Our entire system is a joke, from financing (all private bribes. . . er, contributions), to the fact we dedicate 8 months to a primary system that boxes out 1/3-1/2 of the electorate, have 50-different election processes with people literally driving in votes from remote locations. . . We could go on and on and on here. Meanwhile, England can switch governments in a matter months and the French do it in a matter of weeks. Our system was built for - and belongs in - the 19th Century.

 

18th century actually, if it had been built for the 19th century it would have been much better. We had the great misfortune of inventing ours literally a few decades before industrialization was a thing. It was obsolete before the end of the 19th century (hence the civil war, and the wave of reformist amendments after the war and into the early 20th century).

 

It's painfully obvious, especially when compared to other democratic governments. Every other system is 1000x more efficient and more protected from electoral malfeasance. Kind of off topic, but here is a great video on how Estonia built a completely-online system after the fall of the Soviet Union. It's funny, because I know I'd be the luddite pushing back on this the entire time, but what they've created makes me jealous. Everything, including voting, is so simple and easy. . . and even more secure. They've managed to cut administration costs so much they just go with a 20% flat tax now.

 

Which is why so many in California want to split the state in 3 parts.

 

I’ll contrast California with Wyoming to make the point. California has a population of roughly 40M and 54 electoral votes. Wyoming has a population of roughly 580K and 3 electoral votes. That means a presidential vote in Wyoming counts about 4 times what the same vote means in California. In the Senate this voting power is even more disproportionate. A Wyoming vote counts 69 times what a California one does. And that is, again, by design to give the less populated states not as great a power disadvantage to the more populous states. One can say, “Well, that’s not democratic,” and the accurate rejoinder is, “It’s not meant to be.”

 

And yet, Wyoming is irrelevant in presidential elections. Nobody pays any attention to it. Because the EC benefits swing states, not small states.