> Protecting elections may mean ending winner take all electoral college system.
I think 2016 proved that the electoral college is not supplying the adult oversight that the founders intended.
I think 2016 proved that the electoral college is not supplying the adult oversight that the founders intended.
https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy....
Is there a more accurate interpretation describing how the founding fathers believed it served the purpose of "adult oversight"? What exactly does that mean by the way?
Presently, the electoral college benefits rural voters (Wyoming and the like) by increasing vote value. Winner-take-all elections benefit urban voters by disenfranchising rural voters (every non-Democrat county in California).
Of course it does - it imbalances them all the way to zero.
Disenfranchisement !== losing, it’s being denied the ability to have your vote count the same as anyone else’s.
Under the electoral college system, 50 voters for candidate A in Wyoming get more influence than 50 voters in California for the same candidate.
No I haven’t. Let me explain a bit more below.
> Disenfranchisement !== losing, it’s being denied the ability to have your vote count the same as anyone else’s.
> for the same candidate.
Exactly!
It’s a vote for the same presidential candidate regardless of whether you live in California or Ohio. Yet a Republican vote in California is meaningless because California assigns it’s electoral votes as winner takes all based on state level results.
If 51% of voters in California vote Democrat then all 55 electoral votes go towards the Democrats. This clearly disenfranchises conservative voters.
California has the ability to assign it’s electoral votes proportionally and enfranchise millions of conservative voters.
Of course they won’t because it would hurt the Democrats chances of winning unless all the other states followed suit.
Yet if it’s a question of right and wrong then shouldn’t California do the right thing and give conservatives a voice regardless?
I guess my point is we can enfranchise significantly more people than today without moving away from the electoral college.
Yet no state is seriously considering assigning their electoral votes proportionally.
I think that shows the people calling for the removal of the electoral college are playing politics and are only interested in it if it helps their side.
It's a bit like tritely declaring that people should just opt in to pay more taxes individually if they think tax rates on the wealthy are too low.
Of course - Your collective actions don’t mirror your rhetoric.
> in reality will just tilt the unfairness further.
I thought your argument was disenfranchising voters was immoral and unfair.
Yet I’ve shown you a politically viable way to enfranchise millions more people and you are claiming that enfranchising these people makes the system less fair?
> It's a bit like tritely declaring that people should just opt in to pay more taxes
How so?
I don't think I said anything to that effect -- aside from that the current system is unfair -- but you seem to be arguing against a bit of a straw man here already, so I won't stop you from continuing.
> How so?
How not so? You could easily say (and I imagine you in particular would say): you think taxes should be higher? You should pay more voluntarily right now regardless of what the official rates are.
Your viewpoint neglects to consider that certain changes must occur uniformly, at a structural level in order to be effective.
Under your proposal, if CA adopted it and WY did not, 50 voters in Wyoming for Candidate A would get even more voting power relative to 50 voters in California for the same candidate at the federal level. That you think that is more fair makes it difficult for me to believe you're approaching this discussion in good faith. I also sense you're replaying arguments you've had before and aren't looking to change your mind. So we can probably leave it off here.
Unfair on what basis?
I did assume your basis was the belief that it’s immoral/unfair for one persons vote to be worth less than another’s simply based on which state they live in.
> You should pay more voluntarily right now regardless of what the official rates are.
Why would I say that? I don’t think a single person paying more in taxes would make a difference.
> at a structural level in order to be effective
Yes. And if done at the California state level it would enfranchise millions of people.
I’ll leave it up to you to judge whether that’s good or bad.
> 50 voters in Wyoming for Candidate A would get even more voting power relative to 50 voters in California
The distribution would change to give the minority accurate representation based on their vote count.
So a Californian minority voter would not be unfairly disadvantaged just because they live in California.
I mean it’s the same as when we enfranchised women - men’s votes were obviously diluted.
> and aren't looking to change your mind
I’m simply trying to understand your argument. If you can put forward a convincing case and prove it’s not just a political power play then I will happily change my mind.
Though I must warn you that I’m on the other end of the states vs federal debate:
I’m happy for the individual states to decide where they want their electoral votes to go - even if they don’t want to hold a vote and instead use a panel of experts to decide or even if they just want to flip a coin.