The real problem with the Electoral College.

Oct 2019
19
Malabo Accra Kumasi Port Au Prince Carrefour
A super-majority Dem Congress and Dem President will increase SCOTUS to fifteen members.

FDR tried it with a strong dem Congress but failed.
The fact FDR couldn't do it with his popularity (despite him just adding air got a bubble that would burst in hindsight) is telling.

Right, and that’s disgraceful and unfair.
A popular vote system is more unfair.

The current EC requires you to move around the country and address many peoples needs who have different circumstances and live in different conditions.

A popular vote could end up like Mondale packing California with 32 million votes and only campaigning in california. Would it be fair if Mondales opponent in this scenario, went to around 45-47 states working hard, gaining all the popular vote EC wins (that's how the EC is won in most states, by popular vote) the map looks like a land slide, but only has 31 million votes.

Should we give the win to Mondale who stuffed and only campaigned in one state because he got one million more votes and left the rest of the country to rot?

No.

People really only have issues with this due to recent events, but if you look at comments by people 200 years ago on the EC, you'll see that it was designed to prevent those from stuffing states and requiring some effort into getting votes.

Recent elections aren't the only examples, there are numerous landslide elections where if the EC wasn't in place the loser could have come close or actually one if we were in a winner take all system, which would mean they could stuff more votes out of a single state.

The only real complaint I see that actually has some bases of a realistic argument is that some states with low populations get like 3-4 EC points, but then the issue becomes moot.

If you look at the last 10 elections some of these states that people say have "too much power" are states that within those last 10 elections, were considered throwaways. Some of the losers in the last 10 elections could have won if they actually campaigned in these throwaway states.

If anything I see any thing about certain states like Montana having "too much power" nothing more than an excuse for a losing strategy. You'd be surprised at how many EC maps you can look at for the last several decades and see that a person could have won if they got 2-5 throwaway states which are actually more up for grabs than you think since the other side thinks they are 100% safe and won't bother there either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cepheus

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,401
Caribbean
The fact FDR couldn't do it with his popularity.
You are getting close to the idea of stability. There is a portion of any population whose first reaction is conservative and to oppose any radical movement or idea that upsets the apple cart. I have seen examples of a radical faction getting "worked up," engineering a rule change via momentum, and then 2 or 4 years later when they no longer have the votes, getting skewered by their own rule change - and getting "worked up" yet again. But it is the nature of radicalism, imo, to be better at getting worked than they are at careful long-range planning.

IMO, the Constitutional system is a design for stability. Critics of the original system, like Hamilton, thought only monarchy was stable and democracy was temporary. While pursuing stability in the context of democracy, the Constitution also allows for emotional outburst among the masses to have an outlet every two years in House elections - and this outburst would slow down when it hit the Senate. Eventually, if it is not just an outburts and a significant movement, the change will work its way though. The EC is part of a design intending stability, that "domestic tranquility" is not consistent with government by mood swing.

How this relates to your post is the scenario in which one party gets control two branches and packs the SC with 6 more of their own stooges, creating a court of 15. Then after the country reacts to too much upsetting of the apple cart,they put the other party back in and they pack the court with 8 of their own stooges, making a court of 23. The constant cycle of revolution and counter-revolution is inconsistent with stability and "domestic tranquility." The cooler heads prevailed in the 1930s, but imo, the US is trending toward a lower political IQ and higher poltical EQ (emotional quotient).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
5,197
DC
Without talking politics, parties, policies, and politicians, has anyone seen Canada‘s results?


The Liberals’ narrow victory came despite their losing the popular vote. The Conservative vote was heavily concentrated in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and elsewhere did not convert into seats. The Liberals were heavily reliant for seats on Ontario, the populous province that includes Toronto and several other cities.
winning the popular vote but being under by 36 seats
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,605
Dispargum
Without talking politics, parties, policies, and politicians, has anyone seen Canada‘s results?
winning the popular vote but being under by 36 seats
This could happen in the US, too, both with and without the EC. This problem has to do with how districts are drawn and gerrymandering. It's a completely different problem than the EC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Picard and Futurist

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,978
India
You might as well also have a national runoff election so that no presidential candidate will ever win with only a plurality of the national popular vote, though.
United States have maintained a two parties system quite effectively. While lot many countries have a multi party democracy and era to coalition politics leads to weak government, clash of interests and slow decision making.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,978
India
Without talking politics, parties, policies, and politicians, has anyone seen Canada‘s results?



winning the popular vote but being under by 36 seats
This is possible, some candidates win by small margin, others by huge margin and second winning party ended up having the maximum number of vote share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,284
SoCal
United States have maintained a two parties system quite effectively. While lot many countries have a multi party democracy and era to coalition politics leads to weak government, clash of interests and slow decision making.
The US has a two-party system but its system lacks efficiency due to the various checks and balances that it has.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,284
SoCal
Without talking politics, parties, policies, and politicians, has anyone seen Canada‘s results?


winning the popular vote but being under by 36 seats
What are Canada's election rules? Does the party with the most seats automatically get first dibs at forming a governing coalition or can a party that doesn't have the most seats get the first shot at forming a coalition if it will get enough support from other parties for this? In Israel, the party that gets the most recommendations after the election--as opposed to the party that gets the most seats--gets first dibs at forming a governing coalition after an Israeli parliamentary election.
 

Iraq Bruin

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
5,197
DC
This could happen in the US, too, both with and without the EC. This problem has to do with how districts are drawn and gerrymandering. It's a completely different problem than the EC.
Of course, in this case one is at a district level (Canada) , the Other is at a State level (EC in the USA)
This is possible, some candidates win by small margin, others by huge margin and second winning party ended up having the maximum number of vote share.
I know, I found it very odd but it drew my attention due to its' implication as to who hold legislative advantage with such system, basically the PM and his Party (Canada)
What are Canada's election rules? Does the party with the most seats automatically get first dibs at forming a governing coalition or can a party that doesn't have the most seats get the first shot at forming a coalition if it will get enough support from other parties for this? In Israel, the party that gets the most recommendations after the election--as opposed to the party that gets the most seats--gets first dibs at forming a governing coalition after an Israeli parliamentary election.
My understanding is that the high seat count with such a large margin means they get first dibs at forming a minority government. (First past the post)

All results seem to highlight unresolved election system issues on how to handle provincial/state-wide voting that represents the middle level of states/provinces
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,401
Caribbean
The US has a two-party system but its system lacks efficiency due to the various checks and balances that it has.
I would not call it a "system." It's more of a de facto (political-corporate elitist) cartel. But I take your point about checks and balances .

There were almost 20 candidates in the last election.


And there have been others. The Communist Party used to nominate a candidate, but in the 1980's decided to endorse whoever the Democrats nominate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist