Cities and large states have unfairly low representation and it causes Dems to lose

If people want liberal policies they probably won't see them for the next decade if you look at the demographics and the maps. It isn't from "gerrymandering" either, it's simply how the voters are dispersed. We have a situation where conservatives have decent leads in the suburbs and liberals have enormous leads in the cities. I'm going to simplify the situation. Lets say you have a map that's 55-45 Republican in the suburbs and 80-20 Democrat in the cities, which is not far off from how things are. Lets say there are 10 districts, 2 of which make up cities, 8 are suburbs. This is a fair representation of how things are. However, it means that Democrats have a 52-48 edge in terms of the population, will almost surely win one race, but have an uphill battle in 4 races, and actually become mathematical underdogs for their party to have the most representatives from their state. Since we don't typically break cities apart into the suburbs with our districts it's essentially impossible for the Dems to get a majority unless there's a significant change in public opinion.

The electoral college also significantly favors Republicans since small states are over represented in terms of voting power. In fact, TX is the only large solid red state while Democrats have CA, NY, PA, and IL. All of these states are underrepresented. States like WY only deserve 1 vote based on population, but get a 200% increase in the voting power, because of the 2 additional seats. Meanwhile CA gets a 3.6% increase in voting power. This essentially means that a vote in WY is worth almost 3x as much as a vote in CA. It's also interesting, because this gave Bush the election. Bush won 30 states, Gore won 20 plus DC. If each lost their 2 state votes Gore would have won 224-211 or 225-211 if you give Gore 1 vote from DC. Basically, if you want to live in a state that gives you more sway that you deserve, move to a small state and laugh at the lower amount of power those in CA and TX have when they vote for president.

 

How then do you explain how a worthless twit like Obama got elected?

 

Simple. He overcame a rigged system. But you can do the mathematics posited in the OP, can't you?

 

He won despite having the system rigged against him. It would be hard for a Democrat to get elected without the popular vote, but it's completely possible (2000) for a Republican to get elected without the popular vote the way our demographics and the electoral college are set up. The mathematics doesn't lie, equal representation favors Democrats. However, we don't, and never had equal representation. I think people should be aware of this mathematical fact. I wouldn't expect the Democrats to admit it if they had a mathematical advantage so I'm not going to expect Republicans to admit it either. Partisans will continue to be partisans.

 

I will say that it is possible for it to happen where Republicans win the popular vote and Democrats win the electoral college, Kerry actually almost did it in 2004. It's just less likely to happen. The way this happens comes from the fact that you only need to win by 1 vote in a major purple state. This could go either way and it's essentially a coin flip that favors neither party. However, the actual electoral system is heavily rigged towards Republicans.

 

If you do not like the system, you can always start up a grassroots effort to get a constitutional amendment passed that you like better. Until that happens I do not not what else can be done. The system is the system. They did not make it up last year, ten years or 50 years ago, this is how it was set up. Do something to try and change it or shut up about it. B****en about it is not helping anything.

 

Then add more seats to the house of representatives. The solution is pretty simple unless it is just the victim narrative you are going for.

 

That's a solution. However, imagine several thousand Congressmen trying to get things done. The solution for the presidency is a simple one, popular vote and if you don't get 50% there should be a runoff. This would give more power to 3rd parties, something this country desperately needs.

 

You make a mildly interesting, yet valid point about republicans deriving an advantage from the aspect of the electoral college that apportions 2 electors for every state for the 2 senators from each state. In the example you gave, republicans would gain 60 and democrats would gain 40, resulting in a net gain of 20 for republicans.

When you state that the electoral college significantly favors republicans however, you are over reaching because you have chose to only analyze one aspect of the electoral college that favors republicans. Taking into account the states that you specifically mentioned will illustrate my point.

California has 54 electoral votes, and bush won 42% of that vote. Because the electoral college rewards the winner with 100% of the electors, bush lost out on what could arguably be his rightful 23 electors

New York has 33 electoral votes and bush won 35%. One could say he lost out on 12 electors

Pennsylvania has 23 electoral votes and bush won 46% which would have yielded him another 11 electors.

Illinois has 22 electors and bush won 43% which would have yielded him another 9 electors.

Texas on the other hand has 32 electors and gore won 38% which should have yielded him another 12 electors.

If my math is correct, using your hand selected states, bush lost out on 54 electoral votes while gore lost out on 12, which is a net gain of 42 for gore, which coincidentally surpasses the loss of 20 due to states getting an electoral vote for senators.

Before you reply with some derivation of gore won the popular vote which would be the result if we apportioned electoral votes by vote totals, take a moment to absorb my point. You cannot pick and choose specific aspects of the electoral college that favors one side, while ignoring aspects that favor the other, and subsequently declare that because of the former, the system is rigged against one side. It is a complicated issue, and overly simplistic analysis only serves to muddy the water.

 

The problem is that you selectively picked my states and I only named 1 red state. I didn't mention, FL, OH, etc, that went for Bush which were close to 50-50. Even so, those small states add up into California's of their own. Algebraically, if the states have the correct number of electoral votes representing them and you take a percentage of that state you will get a number similar to the popular vote (the difference comes from what percent of the state votes). If they were distributed exactly based on the number of votes out of the state rather than the population, then it's the exact same number (assuming no rounding). In fact from Excel, using the current electoral college for 2000 with rounding, it would have been 259-258 Bush. Subtracting 2 from each state to give proper representation Gore wins 211-209 which is 48.4% to 48.0% out of 436 votes. Gore won the popular vote so 48.4% to 47.9% so you can see its accuracy even with rounding and to the nearest electoral vote and not adjusting for voting population by state. I wish I could post what I just did in Excel.

 

I believe I was rather clear to NOT reply with some derivation of gore won the popular vote and what I said would amount to a popular vote. Which is precisely how you responded. I asked you to ponder and comment on the larger point that this issue is very complex and aspects of it favor both sides. This really has nothing to do with bush gore, and is really about the potential that exists in the future for either side to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. There are a number of factors that emanate from the electoral system that favor and hinder both sides, and your overly simplistic analysis using only one of those factors,serves to cloud the issue, as opposed to providing even a modicum of clarity to the bigger picture.

 

The people who wrote the Constitution were afraid of people in less populated States getting bossed around by the people in more populated States.
Basically the same issue now as it was back then.

For one thing, there are big cultural differences. People in more populated regions generally prefer more government control.

 

Our system is a Representative system and the electoral votes are designed to specifically give some voice to the less populace states/counties, as opposed to a vote for vote system which favors the large population areas. As has been pointed out in the previous post if broken down the electoral system as a percentage would have been the same.

Wondering though why do the cities have a larger concentration of Democrats anyway, and the further you get out of the cities the less Democrats you find?

 

You're right about the large states having too large of an impact in this election without the popular vote. I was too quick to go into my point without taking the time to properly analyze your post which is a correct and a very valid point. In fact, 51.3% would have went to Gore and 48.4% would have went to Bush had they did a straight electoral college without senatorial representation. It would be illogical for me not to admit I made a critical error by dismissing this point. I make a lot of mistakes and this is just another one of them. I now have to re-look over my whole post. I thought it was complete, but it wasn't. Assuming these are the only 2 major factors (senatorial representation, winner-take all), the senatorial representation outweighed the winner-take all situation in this election, but I'd have to further analyze its effects for elections generally. Thanks for taking the time to post your responses.

 

How is it "unfair"? The system was not designed to give results proportional to the US population as a whole. It's states that are voting, not people, so the popular vote in the entire US is quite irrelevant.

 

I think it's unfair, because it gives more representation to people in some states than others. I see no reason why the presidency should not be decided by the popular vote.

 

I see little chance of 3/4 of the states approving an amendment to the Constitution changing how the President is elected from the current system to popular vote.

 

yes, it does, but that's the point of the system. The United States is united states. It's not a unitary state, it's a union of many states. It's the states which vote for the president, not the people of the entire USA.

 

You're right that people getting equal representation is not the point of the system, I'm just not a fan of the system's point. If it was about states then each state would get one vote and I wouldn't be a fan of that either.

 

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

By state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538 ). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In virtually every of the 39 states surveyed, overall support has been in the 70-80% range or higher. - in recent or past closely divided battleground states, in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote

 

Right, but your point is that it's "unfair". How is it unfair?

 

It gives less power to third parties. It locks them completely out of building a state by state strategy and denies them the ability to being king makers at some point in the electoral college IMO.