$35.00
Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
165 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [7] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Electoral College system - fair or unfair? [poll] rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
mb
There's probably already a thread on this but I'm way behind on my subscriptions.

I hadn't really been aware of how the voting system in the US works until the results came in. It seems very odd that the person with the most in the popular vote doesn't win.

I read somewhere (that I can't find again right now) that it would technically be possible to win the electoral college vote with just 22% of the popular vote (or was it 22% of states?).

Also that technically the electoral college could vote differently than the state majority.

It all seems very undemocratic.

Poll
How did you vote, and is the electoral college system a fair way of voting?
Trump, fair
Trump, unfair
Clinton, fair
Clinton, unfair
Other, fair
Other, unfair
      152 answers
Poll created by col_w
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
Disenfranchised, strongly opposed to Trump but was leaning to Johnson until he was revealed in interviewed as a dopey moron.

I think the EC makes rural areas matter.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
col_w wrote:
There's probably already a thread on this but I'm way behind on my subscriptions.

I hadn't really been aware of how the voting system in the US works until the results came in. It seems very odd that the person with the most in the popular vote doesn't win.

I read somewhere (that I can't find again right now) that it would technically be possible to win the electoral college vote with just 22% of the popular vote (or was it 22% of states?).

Also that technically the electoral college could vote differently than the state majority.

It all seems very undemocratic.

Poll
How did you vote, and is the electoral college system a fair way of voting?
Trump, fair
Trump, unfair
Clinton, fair
Clinton, unfair
Other, fair
Other, unfair
      152 answers
Poll created by col_w


That's because we are not a democracy.
26 
 Thumb up
0.03
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David K.
United States
Pflugerville
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
col_w wrote:
It seems very odd that the person with the most in the popular vote doesn't win.


This has only happened 5 times. 2016, 2000, and three other times in the 19th century. So this is not the normal way it happens.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
mb
In what way Moshe? Do you mean matter as much as urban areas, or matter at the expense of urban areas?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
mbmbmbmbmb
Shadowen wrote:
col_w wrote:
It seems very odd that the person with the most in the popular vote doesn't win.


This has only happened 5 times. 2016, 2000, and three other times in the 19th century. So this is not the normal way it happens.


Five times is 7%. If a roofer was 7% off, he'd still be in jail.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
mb
chrisnd wrote:
col_w wrote:
It all seems very undemocratic.


That's because we are not a democracy.


What definition are you using?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Disenfranchised, strongly opposed to Trump but was leaning to Johnson until he was revealed in interviewed as a dopey moron.

I think the EC makes rural areas matter.

What do locations have to do with anything? Why should people who live in rural areas have more political rights than people in urban areas do?
7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
col_w wrote:
In what way Moshe? Do you mean matter as much as urban areas, or matter at the expense of urban areas?

I mean that without the electoral college, presidential candidates would by the numbers need only bother with the largest metropolitan areas when looking for votes. So the rural voters across most of the US would effectively have no voice in the choice of the country's highest office. For Congress and lesser offices, districts serve the same basic function.
14 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chengkai Yang
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I thought we were supposed to like normalize the number of EC votes so that it was about the same per capita per state? Seems like we get anywhere from 1/400k to 1/100k depending on the state.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Disenfranchised, strongly opposed to Trump but was leaning to Johnson until he was revealed in interviewed as a dopey moron.

I think the EC makes rural areas matter.

What do locations have to do with anything? Why should people who live in rural areas have more political rights than people in urban areas do?

Why should cities have more rights than the non-urban areas?
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
mb
Shadowen wrote:
col_w wrote:
It seems very odd that the person with the most in the popular vote doesn't win.


This has only happened 5 times. 2016, 2000, and three other times in the 19th century. So this is not the normal way it happens.


But it's happened in 2 of the last 5 elections - is that a problem? Do you think it's a fair way to elect the president?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
col_w wrote:
In what way Moshe? Do you mean matter as much as urban areas, or matter at the expense of urban areas?

I mean that without the electoral college, presidential candidates would by the numbers need only bother with the largest metropolitan areas when looking for votes. So the rural voters across most of the US would effectively have no voice in the choice of the country's highest office. For Congress and lesser offices, districts serve the same basic function.

So you prefer a system where the presidential candidates completely ignore 75% of the country? I fail to see your logic here...
[edit] The point being, most states are firmly in the bag for Republicans or Democrats, so the presidents don't campaign there at all. Only about 10 of the states matter for the presidential election.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
whac3 wrote:
col_w wrote:
In what way Moshe? Do you mean matter as much as urban areas, or matter at the expense of urban areas?

I mean that without the electoral college, presidential candidates would by the numbers need only bother with the largest metropolitan areas when looking for votes. So the rural voters across most of the US would effectively have no voice in the choice of the country's highest office. For Congress and lesser offices, districts serve the same basic function.

So you prefer a system where the presidential candidates completely ignore 75% of the country? I fail to see your logic here...
[edit] The point being, most states are firmly in the bag for Republicans or Democrats, so the presidents don't campaign there at all. Only about 10 of the states matter for the presidential election.

You seem to have things backwards.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
Shaman
mbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
sfox wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Disenfranchised, strongly opposed to Trump but was leaning to Johnson until he was revealed in interviewed as a dopey moron.

I think the EC makes rural areas matter.

What do locations have to do with anything? Why should people who live in rural areas have more political rights than people in urban areas do?

Why should cities have more rights than the non-urban areas?


Because there are more people there? Tyranny of the minority is worse than tyranny of the majority.

The EC ends up working as Gerrymandering writ large - There's a number of scenarios it can work out, but it means, as in gerrymandering that a number of small majorities beats a massive majority in one place. It's warped.

Also, the EC links directly to the 3/5ths compromise. It was one of a number of measures used to assure the slave power. It's *designed* to give a certain segment of the population undue influence.

Thirdly, it increases the power of local voter suppression. You don't have to worry about the national vote, you just have to worry about swinging enough states.

It's a terrible antiquated rule, and the reasons for it (good and bad) are long dead.
30 
 Thumb up
1.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chengkai Yang
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sfox wrote:
whac3 wrote:
col_w wrote:
In what way Moshe? Do you mean matter as much as urban areas, or matter at the expense of urban areas?

I mean that without the electoral college, presidential candidates would by the numbers need only bother with the largest metropolitan areas when looking for votes. So the rural voters across most of the US would effectively have no voice in the choice of the country's highest office. For Congress and lesser offices, districts serve the same basic function.

So you prefer a system where the presidential candidates completely ignore 75% of the country? I fail to see your logic here...
[edit] The point being, most states are firmly in the bag for Republicans or Democrats, so the presidents don't campaign there at all. Only about 10 of the states matter for the presidential election.


Ideally I'd like to see no winner take all, at a minimum the EC votes would reflect the state's populist vote. That way it's not fully winner take all and people would actually have consider the minority party in every state because it'll actually matter.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven McKinney
United States
Kingsville
Missouri
flag msg tools
mbmb
col_w wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
col_w wrote:
It all seems very undemocratic.


That's because we are not a democracy.


What definition are you using?

We are a republic, can you think of any government that is a direct democracy?
17 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything.
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
sfox wrote:
whac3 wrote:
col_w wrote:
In what way Moshe? Do you mean matter as much as urban areas, or matter at the expense of urban areas?

I mean that without the electoral college, presidential candidates would by the numbers need only bother with the largest metropolitan areas when looking for votes. So the rural voters across most of the US would effectively have no voice in the choice of the country's highest office. For Congress and lesser offices, districts serve the same basic function.

So you prefer a system where the presidential candidates completely ignore 75% of the country? I fail to see your logic here...
[edit] The point being, most states are firmly in the bag for Republicans or Democrats, so the presidents don't campaign there at all. Only about 10 of the states matter for the presidential election.

You seem to have things backwards.


What are you talking about? Alaska, California, and Texas are the three largest states in the country and none of them were visited by either presidential candidate more than one or two times. Virtually all of Alaska is rural, most of Texas is, and so is most of California.

The current system gives zero incentive for a presidential candidate to give a shit about the people in any of these three states, regardless of it they live in cities or rural areas. How can the current system be considered fair or even reasonable?
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
The electoral college is not a perfect system but it was the compromise made between having all states equal and having the populous states get to dictate things to everyone else in the country.
16 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Disenfranchised, strongly opposed to Trump but was leaning to Johnson until he was revealed in interviewed as a dopey moron.

I think the EC makes rural areas matter.


Yup, that was the point. To ensure rural areas and low pop states didn't get railroaded
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If california was divided into states with the population of wyoming, it would become roughly 76 states. The resulting states would have 114 senators and 76 congressional representatives. This means they would have 190 electoral votes. The states would be roughly 1/3 republican and 2/3 democratic. So roughly 76 democratic senators and 52 representatives and 38 republican senators and 32 representatives.

This is how unrepresentative the electoral college is these days.

(New York would split similarly- Texas would split about 55R/45D)
18 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chengkai Yang
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
whac3 wrote:
sfox wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Disenfranchised, strongly opposed to Trump but was leaning to Johnson until he was revealed in interviewed as a dopey moron.

I think the EC makes rural areas matter.

What do locations have to do with anything? Why should people who live in rural areas have more political rights than people in urban areas do?

Why should cities have more rights than the non-urban areas?


Because there are more people there? Tyranny of the minority is worse than tyranny of the majority.

The EC ends up working as Gerrymandering writ large - There's a number of scenarios it can work out, but it means, as in gerrymandering that a number of small majorities beats a massive majority in one place. It's warped.

Also, the EC links directly to the 3/5ths compromise. It was one of a number of measures used to assure the slave power. It's *designed* to give a certain segment of the population undue influence.

Thirdly, it increases the power of local voter suppression. You don't have to worry about the national vote, you just have to worry about swinging enough states.

It's a terrible antiquated rule, and the reasons for it (good and bad) are long dead.


The EC should have no impact on the presidential in most cases, the discrepancy in the populist vs EC result is in the fact we don't have equal EC/pop coverage between states instead of a mandated fixed ratio per last census. It's the house rep and local issues thats impacted by voter suppression.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chengkai Yang
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
https://wallethub.com/edu/how-much-is-your-vote-worth/7932/

CA has like the shittiest EC representation per capita, its like 1/400k, best is like AZ followed by Iowa which I think are like 1/140k? This is why we get these stupid discrepancies.

To a large extent I'm in favor of the EC system, I'm not in favor of a winner take all EC system though that does uniform EC representation because that just means you go for CA and the other big ones and places like Iowa get no voice. A fully populist vote also suffers the same problem in that you can ignore the non metropolitan areas. Removing winner take all might alleviate some of this but I'm not sure it's enough of a compromise to achieve a more equitable result.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
"32 inches of Plexi....for your pleasure"
mbmbmbmb
col_w wrote:
There's probably already a thread on this but I'm way behind on my subscriptions.

I hadn't really been aware of how the voting system in the US works until the results came in. It seems very odd that the person with the most in the popular vote doesn't win.


We are a Constitutional Republic, and are not ruled by the majority...We are not a true Democracy.
20 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
col_w
United Kingdom
Poole
Dorset
flag msg tools
mb
steven1mac wrote:
col_w wrote:
chrisnd wrote:
col_w wrote:
It all seems very undemocratic.


That's because we are not a democracy.


What definition are you using?

We are a republic, can you think of any government that is a direct democracy?


I'd say you are both a republic and an indirect democracy. Would you disagree?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [7] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.