Plan B Forum

I've been seeing a lot of discussion going on all over the innerwebs about the purpose and the relevance of the Electoral College, more than two centuries after the messy compromise that brought it into existence, so I thought I'd start a thread for that discussion here.

Maybe a good starting point might be the thoughts of this particular well-known gentleman...

The point is that a president has to be reasonably popular across a host of states, as opposed to being hugely popular in a few states. It is a rational approach, but so is going by a strict majority vote. One problem with the Electoral College is that it provides extra weighting to the vote in small states, just like the Senate and the House allow over-representation for such states based on relative population. None of this will likely ever change because the smaller states would have to agree.

Yes, it would take a Constitutional Amendment, which would need 38 States to approve if it DID make it through both Houses of congress. Since the Electoral College only helps the winner, there's no urgency by the winners to change it, and few consider it when it hasn't screwed up the election.

Small States, such as Wyoming, have more "power per person" than Large States in the Senate and in the Electoral College. The power per person in the House of Representatives is fairly close, though somewhat more powerful

There is, however, and alternative that would balance things out. It is significantly less difficult, although still unlikely.

You would first need to increase the number of electors. The current number of electors is the same as the number of congresspersons, plus 3 (for the District of Columbia), which is 538 (435 representatives, 100 senators, plus 3 for DC). You could do this by increasing the number of representatives- currently set at 435 by the Apportionment Act of 1911, the Reapportionment Act of 1929, and the Apportionment act of 1941 (which makes apportionment automatic). It would not need a constitutional amendment to do so. Changing the number of electors in any other way would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Lets say we decide to change the number of Representatives to an aggregate 10x the number of States- 500, adding 65 electors. That would increase the number of electors to 603.

The additional 65 representatives/electors would go to:

California(7) Texas(5) New York(4) Florida(3) Illinois(3) Pennsylvania(3) Ohio(3) Michigan(2) Georgia(2) North Carolina(2) New Jersey(2) Virginia(2) Washington(1) Massachusetts(2) Indiana(2) Arizona(1) Tennessee(1) Missouri(2) Maryland(1) Wisconsin(1) Minnesota(1) Colorado(1) Alabama(1) South Carolina(1) Louisiana(1) Kentucky(1) Oregon(1) Oklahoma(1) Connecticut(1) Iowa(1) Mississippi(1) Arkansas(1) Kansas(1) Idaho(1) Montana (1) Delaware (1). The other states (Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and the District Of Columbia wouldn't gain any. None would lose any.

That wouldn't change much, though. In fact, it would have given Trump a bigger margin of victory, 344 to 259.

The next step is to break up some of the High Population, Large Land Area States, particularly those with divergent philosophies. California is a good example- you can easily break it up into 5 major regions with somewhat differing ways of life.

Northern California, essentially everything North of San Francisco Bay, east, including Sacramento
San Francisco, basically the SF Peninsula, and the South and East Bay counties
Los Angeles, basically LA, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Orange Counties
San Diego, including SD county, Imperial County, and Riverside County
And pretty much all of the rest of central and eastern California.

So I ran the numbers, made 5 States out of 1 using the 2010 census data, kept my 500-member House of Representatives and... stole one electoral vote from Indiana (the calculator did that, it wasn't intentional). I gained a net total of 8 more electoral votes due to adding 8 Senators, still not enough to have helped Clinton and it's quite possible 2 of those new States would have voted Republican anyway, making an even bigger swing.


So, that wasn't working. I put California back together, and still with my 500-person House of Reps I added a 51st State- Puerto Rico. PR's population is in between Oklahoma and Connecticut, which would make it the 29th most populous State- giving it 6 Representatives right out of the box. Those 6 had to come from somewhere, and in my 500-member HR they came from Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Massachusetts, Indiana, and South Carolina. Yeah I can see 5 of those States not wanting Puerto Rico coming in. PR leans heavily Liberal (though it's divided almost equally between Statehood and Status Quo), so that would have been 7 extra Hillary electors and 5 less Trump ones. Putting PR into our current 435-member Congress, it would have had 5 Reps, so the 5 States that would have lost them would be California, Texas, Florida, Washington, and Minnesota. Not great- only 2 Trump electors lost, and 4 Hillary ones gained.

What all this proves to me is that the Electoral College system sucks. Makes for fun playing with stats though. Wish I could get paid for doing this sort of thing, I love playing with numbers.

A somewhat fairer system would be to delegate 435 of the Electors by congressional district rather than by State, with the remaining 103 going by each State's (and DCs) Popular Vote. I have of course no idea how that would work out, that's way more data than I have the ability to mine. The biggest problem with that is the ridiculous amount of gerrymandering that goes into creating congressional districts.

Perhaps the Electors should renew confidence in the electoral system and its founding purpose by electing the candidate who won the popular vote by a significant margin, rather than the one that just appointed a white supremacist nationalist to be his most senior advisor and who wants his children to have top security clearances so they can be his "volunteer' national security advisors, while simultaneously running the family company which has vast holdings across the globe - holdings with interests that may be very contrary to those of the American people and our national security.

Yeah, I think that's what the Electoral College should do next.

While I would like that outcome, that process and precedent would scare the hell out of me.

There is no need for a constitutional amendment to move to a de facto election based on the popular vote. All it would take is for a number of states with at least 270 EVs between them to agree that their electors would cast their votes based on the national popular vote - see National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

As I have said before, this is not a big state vs. small state issue. This is a battleground state vs. every other state issue, because under the current system, only a handful of states with a reasonable prospect of changing hands are given all the attention in a presidential race. Presidential candidates would have to address the concerns of a far broader range of states to get elected by popular vote.

The problem with the National Popular Vote InterState Compact is that every State that has approved it has been at the losing side of elections where the popular vote differed from the outcome of the electoral college. 2 States that went for Trump are "considering" it, and yes they are swing states, but would not have been enough to have swung the vote. You have to convince States that typically vote Republican to do so- and they won't, because it removes their power to influence the election. And those swing states? They LOVE the power and money that comes in because of the attention they get, again another reason not to lose their current situation.

Any elector who votes for Trump should have his/her name and address published.

Shame can be powerful.

yrs,
rubato

• datsunaholic wrote:The problem with the National Popular Vote InterState Compact is that every State that has approved it has been at the losing side of elections where the popular vote differed from the outcome of the electoral college. 2 States that went for Trump are "considering" it, and yes they are swing states, but would not have been enough to have swung the vote. You have to convince States that typically vote Republican to do so- and they won't, because it removes their power to influence the election. And those swing states? They LOVE the power and money that comes in because of the attention they get, again another reason not to lose their current situation.

That's the problem with the process of adopting the National Popular Vote InterState Compact, not the problem with using the plan itself. On the plus side, it would give every voter more of a sense that his or her own vote really counted—even the Democrats in Texas or Georgia, and the Republicans in Illinois or California—and so would probably increase voter participation and interest. And it would give the candidates more of an incentive to campaign for every vote everywhere, without taking whole states for granted as either an assured victory or a lost cause.

Yeah, it's probably a hard sell with the rulers in states that feel they benefit from the current system, but the voters themselves—in every state—ought to be able to see the clear advantages. The discrepancy between the electoral and popular victory has only happened 4 times in the entire 228-year history of the republic (twice in the last 16 years) and as you can see from the tweets from 2012 pictured in the opening post, Republicans have on occasion gotten just as upset as the Democrats are now.

And let's not lose sight of the fact that the Electoral College was a compromise, and the division it was designed to bridge was not between the large states and the small states, nor between the rural states and the urbanized states, but between the southern (i.e. slave) states and the northern states. The Constitutional provision to count slaves as only ⅗ of a person (in order to increase both the number of Representatives and the number of Electors from the slave states) was another part of that compromise, and we've long since discarded that part. Election of the President and Vice President by popular vote was indeed considered at the Constitutional Convention, and the fact that the slave states would never have gone along with it was the main reason it was rejected.

Big RR wrote:While I would like that outcome, that process and precedent would scare the hell out of me.

Exactly. Check your ballot selfies, we vote for electors to select certain candidates. As much as it pains me to say so, we need to hold them to that promise (just a week ago people were screaming when that WA state elector said we wouldn't vote for HRC). Can't have it both ways, and regardless, we should do what the Constitution requires.

rubato wrote:Any elector who votes for Trump should have his/her name and address published.

Shame can be powerful.

yrs,
rubato

Are you forgetting that *ALL* such electors live in states where the majority of the electorate voted for Trump? (And that the majority of those Trump voters are probably armed?)

Guin — I agree with you regarding trying to change the electoral vote for this election...but I stand by my argument in favor of adopting the National Popular Vote InterState Compact going forward.

How sure can we be that Hilary did win the popular vote? While the presidency was being decided the count was, I imagine , being watched carefully but now that trump is president I would think trump’s supporters have would more interesting things to do. Remember that people do lie, cheat and steal and sometimes that is done by people that would otherwise be considered good people.

Another question is how will the democrat party change: Will they stop looking down on people who work with their hands?

Econoline wrote:
Are you forgetting that *ALL* such electors live in states where the majority of the electorate voted for Trump? (And that the majority of those Trump voters are probably armed?)

... "

I cannot see how it is possible that I am not aware of that.

But being shamed by the half of the population who voted against Trump and are educated professionals as opposed to the drooling mob who voted for him would have an effect just the same.

Owning guns does not make anyone scary nor economically or socially powerful. If it did, people who own lots of guns would not be the pathetic feckless hicks they actually are.

yrs,
rubato

It may not be in all states, but I do think electors names are generally available to the public through a certification filed after the election. Likewise, state by state electoral vote tallies are available, and any elector not voting for the candidate to which (s)he is pledged would be publicized (I recall a few elections back hearing about such a defection in Michigan or Minnesota). But face it, if someone agrees to act as an elector for Trump and their name is available, we know who the voters for him are.

Econoline wrote:Are you forgetting that *ALL* such electors live in states where the majority of the electorate voted for Trump? (And that the majority of those Trump voters are probably armed?)

Here's a thought ... after they realize just how badly Trump's policies are going to screw them — and not just those illegal border-jumpers, Muslim terrorists, gang-bangin' coloreds, Godless queers, and the gay-lovin', gun-hatin', tree-huggin' liberals who support them — maybe one of those armed Trump supporters will decide to conduct a recall of his own.

-"BB"-

Big RR wrote:It may not be in all states, but I do think electors names are generally available to the public through a certification filed after the election. Likewise, state by state electoral vote tallies are available, and any elector not voting for the candidate to which (s)he is pledged would be publicized (I recall a few elections back hearing about such a defection in Michigan or Minnesota). But face it, if someone agrees to act as an elector for Trump and their name is available, we know who the voters for him are.

Pretty sure the lists are available (I know I'm seen them making the round in the last week). There are some states that do have penalties for "faithless" electors, but we are talking party faithful here, and they don't typically jump ship.

Guinevere wrote:

Big RR wrote:It may not be in all states, but I do think electors names are generally available to the public through a certification filed after the election. Likewise, state by state electoral vote tallies are available, and any elector not voting for the candidate to which (s)he is pledged would be publicized (I recall a few elections back hearing about such a defection in Michigan or Minnesota). But face it, if someone agrees to act as an elector for Trump and their name is available, we know who the voters for him are.

Pretty sure the lists are available (I know I'm seen them making the round in the last week). There are some states that do have penalties for "faithless" electors, but we are talking party faithful here, and they don't typically jump ship.

They having been been as thoroughly and permanently emasculated as John McCain was.

No, they agreed to do a job and they will carry it out. It is not their job to second guess the electorate.

rubato wrote:

Econoline wrote:
Are you forgetting that *ALL* such electors live in states where the majority of the electorate voted for Trump? (And that the majority of those Trump voters are probably armed?)

... "

I cannot see how it is possible that I am not aware of that.

But being shamed by the half of the population who voted against Trump and are educated professionals as opposed to the drooling mob who voted for him would have an effect just the same.

Owning guns does not make anyone scary nor economically or socially powerful. If it did, people who own lots of guns would not be the pathetic feckless hicks they actually are.

Oh, really? Do you really think the red state electors give a flying fuck about what the blue state voters think of them--as opposed to the voters that surround them in the communities they live in? I can't imagine an elector in, say, Missouri, being ashamed because the people in, say, New York, disapprove of what he's done. If anything he'd probably consider it a badge of honor.

And I can well imagine one of those "feckless hicks"--who now, finally, feels like a *W*I*N*N*E*R*!!!!! for once--having a "2nd Amendment solution" for an elector who decides to take that away from him.

Guinevere wrote:

Big RR wrote:While I would like that outcome, that process and precedent would scare the hell out of me.

Exactly. Check your ballot selfies, we vote for electors to select certain candidates. As much as it pains me to say so, we need to hold them to that promise (just a week ago people were screaming when that WA state elector said we wouldn't vote for HRC). Can't have it both ways, and regardless, we should do what the Constitution requires.

I missed this one earlier. Well said, Big RR and Guin. It's a crap result (Trump) and there may be a large need for future protest (even current opposition to the racist he's tapped as a key man) but (econo) whatever the history may be, I don't want the system to be altered.