Electoral College

[Matador]

I attended a fascinating lecture of a group of computer scientists who were using machine learning to inform redistricting efforts and to help draw alternate congressional districts which are the subject of intense gerrymandering scrutiny.  The supreme court basically said it wasn't able to rule without a definitive method to understand which districts were 'fair', and this group is trying to discover what that looks like.  The work is based on this original research:

http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/news/story/blue_waters_supercomputer_used_to_develop_a_standard_for_partisan_gerrymand

Which used distributed computing to generate millions of potential congressional maps.

A side issue was related to the electoral college and proportionality vote tallying methods:  essentially altering how states apportion votes based on individual and state-wide results.  Interestingly enough, a state-level proportional vote would have placed Clinton and Trump nearly neck and neck, which is much closer as the national popular vote predicts (and Clinton ended up winning).

They make the interesting point that for the presidency, you can swap the electorate into different geographical places and get wildly different results, which doesn't make much sense from the point of view that the presidency is a national Federal election, and (in theory) the President is supposed to represent the interests of the entire country (again, in theory).  As a case in point, you could have all Republican votes trade living arrangements with all Democratic voters, and with the exact same vote tallies get the opposite result (Clinton winning 308 electoral votes), which again isn't sensical for a national election.

They also reminded me of the fact that John Kerry came very close to beating George Bush despite Bush having nearly 3 million more votes nationally.  If John Kerry has won about 50,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won the EC despite losing the popular vote.  I'm wondering if the rhetoric might have been different had that happened.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is a pretty well explored topic...  Of course the city mice want to abolish the electoral college so they can ignore the country mice....  8)

Fine... just pass a constitutional amendment.  : Harder than it looks because you have to get the country mice to agree. (super majority +, 27 amendments took hundreds of years).

A little bizarre that governor of CO signed a law to honor just the popular vote, but maybe he was high... 

JR 

PS: I am repeating myself but good reading on the general subject is "The Federalist Papers" by multiple authors (founding fathers)...

 

[Matador]

What is new (an interesting IMO) is the use of machine learning in this space.  Essentially what is being done, on a county by county basis, is redrawing hundreds of millions of congressional districts in certain states, and seeing how each party is favored in each one.  In North Carolina, for example, you can swing over 7 Congressional seats of the current 13 just by where the lines are placed.  Currently in NC, Democrats are short 5 seats compared to their vote share in the state.  The argument is that the Electoral College is essentially the same issue, just on a national versus congressional district scale. 

The Federalist Papers is an interesting sidebar:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
...
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
...
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

Can you honestly say that the EC, in its current form, is still serving this original purpose?

 

[pucho812]

The Federalist Papers is an interesting sidebar:
Can you honestly say that the EC, in its current form, is still serving this original purpose?

I would say so,  last election was 37 states for one and 13  states for the other.. the middle/fly over states got their say as equally as the over populated states.

what I find interesting is the current trend of states wanting to change how they allocate EC votes to go with the popular vote of the country and not the state. I see it as cutting your nose off in spite of ones face.  Is that even legal to do?  If the end goal is to be more fair then it already is,  divide the ec votes in a state so it is not winner take all. Maine does that. Each EC vote goes by district and  winning a district gets those votes.  but then again those pushing hard for the change would not like the end results as places like california would be much different then the predictable 50 EC votes going to the same party all the time.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am pretty confident that simple democracy would shift power to densely populated CA and NY/NJ and away from the sparsely populated fly over voters.  NY and CA local governance does not look like anything I would like to see expanded across the entire nation.

Our founders were brilliant people and the most remarkable thing is how well the government they crafted has survived for this long. Leaders of their caliber, are very few and very far between. 

We already have the mechanism built-in to tweak this government's design (by amendment). There have been multiple calls for a constitutional assembly, but nothing with enough support to do much (IMO). I have changes I would like to see, but again none with wide support.

These attacks on EC are classic team politics trying to secure some political advantage, nothing new, but yes modern technology is also being widely used for political maneuvering. I worry that targeted personalized social media will allow politicians to have even more than two faces.  : A possible outcome from pandering to the masses has been explored in science fiction.

Our entire government design is about protecting individual rights and freedoms, not rubber stamping the emotional response of the masses.

FWIW the house of representatives is mainly about filtering and vetting modern popular sentiment, before submitting to the senate for more thoughtful investigation.  Prior to the 17th amendment, senators were appointed by state legislatures giving the states more say in federal matters. Dissolving the EC would further reduce state influence over federal government.

JR

 

[Matador]

I would say so,  last election was 37 states for one and 13  states for the other.. the middle/fly over states got their say as equally as the over populated states.

This is a consequence of the 'winner take all' system (not part of the Constitution), and not a statement about the original intentions of the Electoral College.  If the electoral college apportioned vote by popular vote margins in each state, the results would have been Trump 267 and Clinton 265 (due to third party candidates), which means Trump would have (likely) won based on the House apportionment.

I frequently hear the 'but the flyover states won't have a say' argument, which falls apart for two main reasons:

1) Today, presidential candidates already ignore large swaths of the electorate, focusing solely on 'swing states', the top 12 of which receive nearly 95% of all campaign spending and campaign events.  The bottom 26 states didn't receive a single visit from any presidential candidate in 2016.
2) Of the top 12 swing states,  only Ohio and Michigan aren't on the east coast.

Someone has yet to explain to me why the current 12 swing states is the 'most fair' system, after arguing that all states should get a say.  Any EC system is going to make it fair for one set of the electorate and unfair for the other, which is why national popular votes seems to make more sense.  The states are made equal via the Senate, and representation is by population in the House, and the President is (supposed to) represent everyone in the US.  I don't see how the current EC system makes the last statement true.

 

[pucho812]

you missed or ignored my point of what I would consider the most fair system.  As mentioned previously I consider how Maine distributes it's EC votes as fair as it can be. It's not winner take all. Each EC vote is divided up districts, no different then how they do representatives.  From there a candidate must win the district in order to get 1 x EC vote.  so it will usually divide EC votes. I can't think of it being any more fair then that. However if  you do that,  then California no longer gives 50 EC votes to one party.  Which defeats the purpose of  those wanting to remove the EC.  While I understand one side wanting to get rid of a system because their candidate lost, they sure didn't mind  how it worked for over 200 years. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the answer.

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is a consequence of the 'winner take all' system (not part of the Constitution), and not a statement about the original intentions of the Electoral College.  If the electoral college apportioned vote by popular vote margins in each state, the results would have been Trump 267 and Clinton 265 (due to third party candidates), which means Trump would have (likely) won based on the House apportionment.

I frequently hear the 'but the flyover states won't have a say' argument, which falls apart for two main reasons:

1) Today, presidential candidates already ignore large swaths of the electorate, focusing solely on 'swing states', the top 12 of which receive nearly 95% of all campaign spending and campaign events.  The bottom 26 states didn't receive a single visit from any presidential candidate in 2016.
2) Of the top 12 swing states,  only Ohio and Michigan aren't on the east coast.

Someone has yet to explain to me why the current 12 swing states is the 'most fair' system, after arguing that all states should get a say.  Any EC system is going to make it fair for one set of the electorate and unfair for the other, which is why national popular votes seems to make more sense.  The states are made equal via the Senate, and representation is by population in the House, and the President is (supposed to) represent everyone in the US.  I don't see how the current EC system makes the last statement true.

Because the "swing" states ebb and flow with voter sentiment...

All the rich people moving to FL to escape NY/NJ taxes will probably shift that state to the left...

I agree that AI and computers will game this even harder in the future

JR

 

[john12ax7]

One false assumption often made is that the popular vote would remain the same without the EC.. Its very existence  changes how some people vote,  or vote at all.

It's a problem though when a large percentage of people are basically ignored.  A lot of entrenched states,  both red and blue,  are only 60 / 40., the non-majority in those states have no say.

Not sure that a popular vote is needed,  though I'm not opposed to it.  But something like proportional votes in every state makes a lot of sense.

 

[Matador]

It's not winner take all. Each EC vote is divided up districts, no different then how they do representatives.  From there a candidate must win the district in order to get 1 x EC vote.  so it will usually divide EC votes. I can't think of it being any more fair then that. However if  you do that,  then California no longer gives 50 EC votes to one party.

I don't see how that is any more fair, as it's just winner-take-all on a congressional district level.  Any district with a 51-49 split would still go to the majority winner.  Since districts are all about 750k people in size, this means 375k people's votes are 'thrown away' in any district that is even remotely close.

Splitting the votes based on state popular vote would make much more sense (and like I said above, Trump would still have won through the House, but would not have won the EC).

Which defeats the purpose of  those wanting to remove the EC.  While I understand one side wanting to get rid of a system because their candidate lost, they sure didn't mind  how it worked for over 200 years. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the answer.

I would grant you this point could you show any case where a Democratic president had won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.  Since that has never happened, and with only a few exceptions, all presidential winners have won both the EC and the popular vote, I'm not sure what Democrats would have to complain about, as almost none of the results would have been any different (and the ones that were different all fell in favor of Republicans).  I understand one side wanting to keep the system because their candidate won, right?

Because the "swing" states ebb and flow with voter sentiment...

They swing, but only in a generational way - Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, have been 'swing' states since before I was born.  I will grant the founders had some smart ideas, but they also thought leeches and bloodletting cured fevers.  8)

I am pretty confident that simple democracy would shift power to densely populated CA and NY/NJ and away from the sparsely populated fly over voters.  NY and CA local governance does not look like anything I would like to see expanded across the entire nation.

Nor does MO or TN to me, but here we are.

 

[JohnRoberts]

One false assumption often made is that the popular vote would remain the same without the EC.. Its very existence  changes how some people vote,  or vote at all.

It's a problem though when a large percentage of people are basically ignored.  A lot of entrenched states,  both red and blue,  are only 60 / 40., the non-majority in those states have no say.

Not sure that a popular vote is needed,  though I'm not opposed to it.  But something like proportional votes in every state makes a lot of sense.

Not to state the obvious but the EC is not secret, so politicians campaign for best outcome based on the rules in effect. If we used a straight popular vote the candidates would campaign "where the voters are". That is pretty much the problem that the EC  mitigates.

Perhaps less obvious the government was crafted by everybody in the room at the time, including the smaller states, thus the sensitivity to favor broad representation.

JR

 

[craigmorris74]

  NY and CA local governance does not look like anything I would like to see expanded across the entire nation.

Right.  We need to be governed like a great red state such is Mississippi.  Or better yet my state,  Kentucky, who can't even pay their bills (but could before the state shifted hard right).

A lot of power is going to a bunch of people who think some dude put two of every animal on the planet on a boat and rode out a great deluge.

What's going to happen when the voice of the majority is continually not heard?

 

[Matador]

If we used a straight popular vote the candidates would campaign "where the voters are". That is pretty much the problem that the EC  mitigates.

But can you not see how patently absurd such a system is, taken at face value? Where the defining feature is that the president campaigns someplace else than where the voters are?

 

[pucho812]

I don't see how that is any more fair, as it's just winner-take-all on a congressional district level.  Any district with a 51-49 split would still go to the majority winner.  Since districts are all about 750k people in size, this means 375k people's votes are 'thrown away' in any district that is even remotely close.

Splitting the votes based on state popular vote would make much more sense (and like I said above, Trump would still have won through the House, but would not have won the EC).
I would grant you this point could you show any case where a Democratic president had won the electoral college but lost the popular vote.  Since that has never happened, and with only a few exceptions, all presidential winners have won both the EC and the popular vote, I'm not sure what Democrats would have to complain about, as almost none of the results would have been any different (and the ones that were different all fell in favor of Republicans).  I understand one side wanting to keep the system because their candidate won, right?
They swing, but only in a generational way - Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, have been 'swing' states since before I was born.  I will grant the founders had some smart ideas, but they also thought leeches and bloodletting cured fevers.  8)
Nor does MO or TN to me, but here we are.

Here how it is more fair.  Take California, We both live here. If you go away from the Bay Area and get out of L.A. county you will find a much different picture and voting base. There is a whole lot of red in-between both places.  Do you think they want to continually give 50 EC votes to one party? I don't. By breaking it up such as Maine does, you have a more equal representation of the make up of the state.  Plus you eliminate the need to focus on certain states because now states like California would not give all 50 away each election.

What's going to happen when the voice of the majority is continually not heard?

Define majority. about half didn't vote and the half that did was basically a 50/50 split.  so about 25% of the entire population voted one side and 25% voted the other side, hardly majority.  But to answer your question look to the history books, the masses have been unhappy before, the masses took care of it as well.  It's how this country was formed, separated and rejoined in the course of  about 100 years. While I don't think it will come to that extreme again who knows.

 

[craigmorris74]

Define majority.

Agree about the pathetic voter participation rate in our country.

I would say winning 6 out of the last 7 popular votes for president shows where the country the majority of the country stands in the modern era.

 

[pucho812]

Agree about the pathetic voter participation rate in our country.

I would say winning 6 out of the last 7 popular votes for president shows where the country the majority of the country stands in the modern era.

I don't, mainly because the numbers are so dismal.

 

[Spiritworks]

Voter turnout in the United States, for local as well as national, elections is a shameful and sad state of affairs. In many other countries, people risk their lives to vote. Some lose their lives. As a military power, we claim to take steps to "help" other countries gain the right to vote, yet our own citizens are largely apathetic to the process. Until they don't get what they demand. Then, like spoiled children, they'll rant and rave about not getting this or that, and place the blame on everyone else but themselves.
Some countries make election day a national holiday. The United States should do the same, but go even farther. You want your tax refund? Prove you voted. You want your benefits? Prove you voted. Your state wants its federal dollars? Prove that the majority of eligible voters actually voted. Etc, etc.....
Problem is, most people don't vote with anything in mind other than what is behind their own noses: "What can I get for me, rather than what can be gotten for the greater good of my city/state/county/govt..?"
IMHO, the electoral college, as flawed as it may seem, is the only thing keeping the United States from sinking into complete anarchy. But, we're getting close to that anyway...………………………...

 

[living sounds]

This is a pretty well explored topic...  Of course the city mice want to abolish the electoral college so they can ignore the country mice....  8)

That may sound like a convincing narrative, but what the US electoral system actually does is give disproportionate power to the swing states (and swing districts in other elections). It means everyone else's votes are practically meaningless (especially in states like Wyoming or California) - a great receipe for voter apathy and surely part of the comparably low level of voter participation in the US. On top of this, due to the concentration of "relvant" voters in certain areas, special interests have disproportionate influence at these rather smaller levers.

Thus elminiating the electoral college would be a step in the right direction.

 

[JohnRoberts]

That may sound like a convincing narrative, but what the US electoral system actually does is give disproportionate power to the swing states (and swing districts in other elections). It means everyone else's votes are practically meaningless (especially in states like Wyoming or California) - a great receipe for voter apathy and surely part of the comparably low level of voter participation in the US. On top of this, due to the concentration of "relvant" voters in certain areas, special interests have disproportionate influence at these rather smaller levers.

Thus elminiating the electoral college would be a step in the right direction.

I thought this was well explored but apparently not.

For the Nth time we are not a simple democracy, more like a representative democracy or constitutional democracy. The framers not only wanted to prevent the federal government from gaining too much power over individual states, but to also protect individuals from the tyranny of the masses. 

Progressives calling to lower the voting age to 16 YO is not to seek out thoughtful, informed, voters, but to expand the pool of easily manipulated low information voters.

Arguments that an individual's vote doesn't matter are raised by both sides (apparently pretty successfully) to discourage voters with opposing views.  The "swing state" straw man is a new argument against the EC. There would still be swing states with simple democracy just with swing state lines drawn closer and relative to the population centers. For another "my one vote doesn't matter" argument, why would a CA voter still vote, if the election outcome has already been settled by states voting a few time zones earlier? A problem that did not exist a couple centuries ago. Of course there are relatively simple remedies for this too. 

The actual argument our founders debated is how a simple democracy would consolidate power in the most populous states  (at the time NY, VA,  MA, and PA because CA wasn't a state yet ) and disempower the smaller states (DE, GA, KY, and VT) reducing their influence over federal government decisions.

I can imagine improvements to our constitution to better deal with modern distortions that allow some sectors undue influence, but most of them have remedies already in the constitution if we just follow it honestly. Amendments are difficult but possible for any real changes needed.

I expect more silly arguments as both political parties jockey for power leading into 2020.

JR

PS: With a population of a few hundred million souls, it is hard to argue that any one vote matters, but this is all about citizenship and investing people with some ownership in their country.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Right.  We need to be governed like a great red state such is Mississippi.  Or better yet my state,  Kentucky, who can't even pay their bills (but could before the state shifted hard right).

KY needs to be governed by KY, and MS by MS, this is not about imposing our ideas on others, but preventing them from imposing their ideas on us.

I grew up in a suburb of NYC and I am saddened to see what Mayor De Blasio is doing up there, but he is not much different from other large liberal cities. For some perspective just 12% of eligible voters turned out for the last NYC mayoral election.  I'd say votes there matter more than most.

A lot of power is going to a bunch of people who think some dude put two of every animal on the planet on a boat and rode out a great deluge.

more identity politics?

What's going to happen when the voice of the majority is continually not heard?

The voice of the majority is not being reflected in modern media.

Political involvement helps, but first stop listening to people who say your vote doesn't matter.

JR

PS: I am actually encouraged by discussion about governance instead of politics.