The US Electoral College

[Blumlein 88]

While the above is true in theory, it has just moved the problem into the states with all-or-nothing electorate systems. So, a party can run a candidate that is popular in urban areas and win even if those policies are destructive to rural areas and vice versa. There does tend to be a correlation in ideologies between urban and rural areas.

What has happened in the US, as an aggregate, is this division spread over multiple states depending on their urban and rural ratio. The all-or-nothing system for each state magnifies this problem by giving out-sized representation to one or the other (rural or urban) relative to other states. The assumption that this averages out over all states is not necessarily true.

Much more damaging consequence is that the all-or-nothing has enabled a way to game the system with a calculation of narrow wins in just a few states which is wholly out of touch with a fair representation in ANY metric.

Even if Electorate system is to be kept, it would be better to have a proportionate electorate system within each state where its current allocation of electorates can be split between candidates depending on their internal ratio of votes. This would bring it more in line with over-all popular vote count without penalizing any state relative to another. It would force candidates to be appealing to an even more broader spectrum rather than the current extremes divided between states. This is done in only a couple of states now.

There are other improvements that can be made such as rank-ordering candidates rather than a single choice, or allowing losing candidates to allocate their votes to one or more of the top candidates, etc.

No perfect solution, there are pros and cons to be weighed. But the current system is very far from being optimal in deciding representation.

But what you describe basically rolls back all the reasons the college isn't the same as a direct vote.

 

[Vasr]

But what you describe basically rolls back all the reasons the college isn't the same as a direct vote.

Yes and no. It brings larger population states closer to popular votes but smaller states are still protected where the two fixed electorates are a greater proportion of its share of electoral votes to give it some minimum voice individually and collectively.

The all-or-nothing system hasn't really solved the problem that was meant to be solved by the original intent but translated it into a different problem which is more relevant today than when the country was a lot less mobile, more homogeneous and not as urbanized.

The rural voters in California have more in common with the rural voters of Nebraska than they have with the rest of their state but they get very different representational power now because of the demographics of their state. The state boundaries have kind of become more arbitrary in contemporary state of affairs.

There are also hybrid solutions possible like what Maine does. Allocate some portion as winner-take-all to over-all popular vote in the state and the rest to each district based on its results. So the urban/rural conflict is much less pronounced in this case.

I am sure the tech-nerds can run various simulations to fine tune the split using relevant metrics to achieve the real goal.

 

[Deleted member 65]

Vice president has a vote in the senate to break ties.

Had the deadlock situation in SE a few decades ago, resolved by deducting one seat eventually.

”Effective from 1970 a reform of the Riksdag had been agreed upon. Though not technically part of the constitution it showed that the parties in the Riksdag were able to agree upon fundamental changes of the political system, which transformed the Riksdag from a bicameral legislature into a unicameral one.[3] This would have 350 seats, all of which would be filled by direct election.[4] However, the second general election to the unicameral Riksdag only gave the government support from 175 members, while the opposition could mobilize an equal force of 175 members, resulting in what became known as the "lottery Riksdag", in which the Speaker had to draw lots to resolve deadlocked votes.[5] In 1974 it was decided that the number of seats from 1977 were to be reduced to 349.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Riksdag

 

[phoenixdogfan]

When I saw the topic I wondered will it gloss over the influence of slave states and their threat of not ratifying the constitution if the President was elected by popular vote ? Your link is a good article. The threat also extended to another abomination the reason for the 2nd amendment.

The second amendment was there to preserve the right of slave owners to create armed slave patrols to round up runaway slaves, and the electoral college was done b/c with the 3/5 compromise, it gave greater weight to the voters choice in the slave states in order to offset the greater and faster rising population in the free states. Both measures were needed at the time to ensure ratification of the constitution.

New rationales have obviously been spawned to justify their continuance.

 

[BDWoody]

I think this thread has also run it's course
Audio anyone?