Trump and the Electoral College

[Cam77]

There seems to be a consensus that Biden is going to win the popular vote against Trump. For this not to happen, the polls would have to be incredibly wrong - much more so than in any recent election or referendum (he is currently averaging an 8 point lead, with around 40% people already voted). At this stage, Clinton was just 3 points ahead in the polls - and she won the popular vote by 2%.

And yet Trump could conceivably lose the popular vote by as much as 3 or 4 million and STILL win the election. This would be the third time in 20 years that a Republican would have been elected after losing the popular vote.

I know no system is perfect, but I just reconcile this election system with the word “democracy”. It’s less equal representation for each individual and more stitch up, giving the population of smaller right leaning states more power than they should have in electing government. I could accept it for a referendum but not a GE.

(btw I don’t hate Trump as much as some, but I hope he loses for three reasons: his views and actions on climate change, his views and actions toward African Americans, and watching his meltdown on being kicked out the WH).

If you are saying that the electoral college is a bad system, YANBU. However, much like our own FPTP system, the will to change it will never come as long as the right (who benefit in both) keep winning power.

It's a terrible system, and it's bad the American territories don't have any electoral votes like Guam for example

America is not a true democracy

Also you extremely confused about how this whole thing works. Smaller right qing states do not have more power. They have equal power

@Leaannb
I’m not confused - but you’re right that statement wasn’t correct.... It just seems a poor system.

[quote Cam77]@Leaannb
I’m not confused - but you’re right that statement wasn’t correct.... It just seems a poor system.[/quote]
You are extremely confused or flat out ignorant. I was going with confused. America is not a true democracy. Its a Constitutional Republic. The Electoral College was created so smaller states have equal representation. The numbers of Electoral College votes is a mirror image of that states representation in Congress. For instance my state has 15 Congressional staff. 2 US Senators and 13 House of Represenatives so we have 15 Wlectoral College votes. Every State has 2 US Senators but their population determines how many Represenatives they have in the House. As far the issue with our territories not voting in the General Election is no different than why your territories don't vote in your General Election.

The smaller states have more electoral college votes per capita than the larger more populous states (congressional districts plus 2) so it is unfair.
I don't understand how if Nebraska and Maine can divide up their ECs, why others can't too?
The senate situation is even more outrageous to be honest, given how power they have to and how they can thwart popular will (the ABC confirmation a case in point)

You are extremely confused or flat out ignorant.

Whereas you are just flat out rude. There is no need to be. And it is arguable whether the US is a constitutional republic - whilst it is a republic, it shares more characteristics with representative democracies.

Well do people ALWAYS drop in the 'actuallyits a republic' thing. Yes we know, but its run along democratic lines.

I don't understand how if Nebraska and Maine can divide up their ECs, why others can't too?

They can, they choose not to. How electoral college votes are divided up is decided by the states, same with voting districts. States controlling voting districts has caused some dodgy things that eventually have been overturned, but they keep happening with both major parties (which are both right wing, Democrats may be more centre most of the time, but they're both authoritarian right).

It's kinda like devolved topics: if something isn't federal, its state level (and at the state level, some things are district level or county level or even city level. It can get real confusing when in a city that's decided to go differently to the county around it. I lived in a city once that for half the year was in a different time zone to the rest of area).

The flip of the population unfair argument is that more populated areas already have more economic and other social powers and ignore the needs of smaller groups when not outright abusing and sucking them dry of resources the small groups could use. In the US, concurrent majority is meant to allow minorities to prevent "tyranny of majority" from overriding smaller groups but as with any system - especially one that has gotten so entrenched as US where we've two large groups that have conglomerated power and pushed out everyone else -- there is a lot that could be improved on, but it would need to keep in mind that California and Texas can't be expected (or trusted) to not fuck over less populated states. Cali has never been great about caring about other states even before it started proposing that they should be allowed to punish people who leave their state by continuing to monitor and tax them (though if they go ahead and it gets ruled unconstitutional as some think it will, that could be very interesting...).

@BiBabbles
"The flip of the population unfair argument is that more populated areas already have more economic and other social powers and ignore the needs of smaller groups when not outright abusing and sucking them dry of resources the small groups could use"

Except ironically it's the "whiter" states which have benefitted so it's contibuted to teh existing disenfranchisement of the minorities who really have been discriminated against, particularly African Americans.

I agree with the point about potential gerrymandering if EC votes were split up. The Republicans would probably find a way to manage to cheat to work it to their advantage as they have done with congressional districts. It's really shocking what they've done.

Whereas you are just flat out rude. There is no need to be. And it is arguable whether the US is a constitutional republic - whilst it is a republic, it shares more characteristics with representative democracies.*

Thanks for that! I never understand why some people assume it is acceptable to be flat out rude, or adopt an unnecessarily aggressive tone in debate or discussion online - something which would be completely socially unacceptable in face to face discussion. Once online, some people are just unable to tread the line between forceful arguing your point and rudeness/personal insults ... or else simply do not care about that line under the cloak of online anonymity,

@Moondust001 ^

In the UK it is possible to win a parliamentary seat with less than 25% of the votes cast
(Belfast South in 2015)

The Electoral college is neither here nor there.

What is disgraceful in the USA are the gerrymandering and voter suppression.
Some states have moved to independent electoral commissions who set boundaries and manage the electoral roll.
All states should match that standard.

@Leaannb
lessig.medium.com/the-united-states-is-not-a-democracy-it-is-a-republic-54e8036c781c

Check this out!
Plenty of detail, but this part made me laugh:
“So can you guys (and it’s almost ALWAYS guys) please just give up on this silly “I’m-so-much-smarter-than-you high school debater’s quibble”.

It's kinda like devolved topics: if something isn't federal, its state level (and at the state level, some things are district level or county level or even city level. It can get real confusing when in a city that's decided to go differently to the county around it. I lived in a city once that for half the year was in a different time zone to the rest of area).

Very few people in the UK really grasp the federal nature of the US. Which is a shame, because if they did, they'd realise that very little that works for the US, would work in the UK.