jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (8 posts)

Electoral College Count

  1. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 15 months ago

    Do you think the current electoral college is fair?
    Why does CA get apportioned 55 electoral votes?
    The current electoral apportionment is based on the census taken every 10 years as dictated by our Constitution. However, I don't think the census is an accurate count of the people of this country. For one, it includes undocumented immigrants which we don't even have a good estimate of how many that are here. Some estimates are as high as 20 million???

    Here is what I have an issue with. If only citizens are allowed to vote, why are electoral votes not based on the population of citizens only?
    It would not be a problem if the number of undocumented is low. However, if that number is high, it distorts the distribution and apportionment of electoral counts as we see with California and a few other border states.
    Therefore, at election time, the net effect is that we end up with the potential results that we see in recent elections. The results are distorted because of the electoral count.
    Imagine if the electoral map is based on citizens only. That will change the apportionment and produce a more fair election of both electoral and popular count.
    What do you think?

    1. lions44 profile image98
      lions44posted 15 months agoin reply to this

      To answer the obvious question: I would like to keep the electoral college. It does give smaller states a role in the elections.  As for CA, it is so populous that I don't think the undocumented make that much of a difference. 

      But Jack, take heart. CA is regulating itself out of population and business, which means its significance will eventually drop.  May take a few years.  They have created a system of  very rich and working poor.  Middle class families are fleeing.  I can see it here in the Seattle area as well. The Seattle Times did a whole feature on families moving to Texas from my area.  It has become a city of upper middle/rich while working families are forced further out.  Liberal states have two classes now: the investor class and the servant class. 

      So count me in on the Electoral College.  Note, I am not a Trump supporter.

      1. jackclee lm profile image81
        jackclee lmposted 15 months agoin reply to this

        I hear you. I don't want to get rid of the electoral college, just to change how they are apportioned. If that is corrected, I think you will see a more competitive election and perhaps a better corollation between electoral count and popular vote count.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

          We now have the technology to do a reasonable popular vote.  If that's what you want - electors assigned strictly on the basis of population - why not just do away with it?

          1. jackclee lm profile image81
            jackclee lmposted 15 months agoin reply to this

            The reason we don't want a strict popular vote is to avoid one or a few states dominate elections. The electoral college was designed to give smaller populated states some advantage. If we count strictly by popular vote, the candidates,will only campaign in a few large states like Calif. Texas and NY and they could win without states like Rhode Island and North Dakoda...

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 15 months agoin reply to this

              ??  But if electors are assigned solely on the population of the states, isn't that the same as a popular vote?  I understood that that was what you are proposing.

              As far as I'm concerned, candidates could be sequestered away from any human contact except the media.  All the rallies and such are nothing more than a method of gaining votes without ever giving out any hard information on issues or beliefs.  They are a massive "feel good" get together wherein fans slap each on the back and cheer themselves on without regard to the actual stance of their chose candidate.

              1. jackclee lm profile image81
                jackclee lmposted 15 months agoin reply to this

                You misunderstand the genius of the electoral college. It is not the same as relying solely on popular votes. It is a way to divide the votes among various states, large and small. The aportioning of electoral votes will allow bigger population states to get larger numbers of votes. However, the small states will also have the same apportionment based on their population. If all else being equal, the candidates with the majority of the popular vote should get the majority of the electoral votes. However, lets say you have an extreme case where one state (for argument sake, like CA) that has a large population and 80% voted for a candidate over the other. They still only get the 50% of the electoral votes. In this scenario, it is possible for some candidate to win the electoral votes by a small margin and yet loose the popular vote. ( that is they win by 51% in most states, but looses by 20/80% in a large state.)
                This was designed on purpose by the Founders so that a few states cannot dominate the election. They were ingenious in coming up with this compromise.

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image81
    Kathleen Cochranposted 15 months ago

    "It does give smaller states a role in the elections."  People keep saying this, but I don't see how.  Candidates spend their time in the states with the most electors.  How is that any more fair to small states than just having a popular vote?