Question for those who oppose the Electoral College:

[Nye Bevan]

If Obama loses the popular vote but wins the Presidency, will you reconsider your opposition to the Electoral College?

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. No. It's an anachronistic sop to the ruling class. Wrong is wrong. n/t

[bluestate10]

30. What you stated is a favorite rightwing talking point in blogs.

Righties hate the Electoral College with a passion. I am surprised to see someone that may call themselves progressive agreeing with them.

[Pab Sungenis]

33. Fewer rightwingers hate it than you think.

Consider the sheer number of permanent red states that are over-represented in the Electoral College: Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, Montana, the Dakotas, Idaho. The only blue states you could call over-represented are New Mexico, Delaware, and Rhode Island.

The Electoral College is biased against Democrats, and we have a handicap to overcome every single election.

[Codeine]

47. Righties love the EC.

It provides disproportionate power to all those shitty little podunk states they dominate.

[Egalitarian Thug]

55. I am not a "progressive". This is a term that has been brought into fashion by liberals trying to

distance themselves from the negative connotation that the republican party has so successfully hung on it. I am an egalitarian.

Egalitarianism is the culmination of the enlightenment and the founding principle sought by a significant minority of the founders of this nation. Egalitarianism is the ideal of true equality among people. It requires cooperation among all parties since it eliminates coercion. I used to call myself a liberal, but then I learned what it is and what it has done. In short, liberalism is simply a kinder means to reinforce the existing hierarchical system of force that has plagued mankind for millennia.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. LOL

You can win the eleven most Electoral College rich states by one vote and not get a single vote in the thirty nine other states and still win the presidency.

That's absurd.

[morningfog]

13. When did that happen last?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Did I Say It Happened?

[morningfog]

17. It would take 12 and is an absurd, impossible scenario.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Yes

But there is room for more 00 scenarios. It has already happened four times in our nation's history.

[morningfog]

23. 2000 was stolen. It has happened 3 times, the last one being 1888.

[arely staircase]

54. but could not have been stolen without the ec

eom

[baldguy]

43. Go the other way: you can get an electoral majority in the smallest states w/ 46% of the population

Thats equally absurd.

[sharp_stick]

3. Nope

I'd take the "win" but I will always consider the Electoral College an idea well past it's time.

It needs to go, the sooner the better.

[cthulu2016]

4. No, of course not.

My oposition to the electoral college is a matter of basic democratic (and anti-federalist) principle.

[Proud Public Servant]

5. Under no circumstances

The EC was historically a tool to disproportionately favor the slave states; it has become a tool to disproportionately favor tiny states and states with large immigrant populations. If we can't win the popular vote, we don't deserve the presidency -- even if I'm glad our guy is POTUS.

[HopeHoops]

6. No. It's been outmoded for way too long. Popular vote is what we should have.

[reformist2]

7. Unpopular opinion: I still kind of like it. :)

[Nye Bevan]

22. Me too. For a couple of reasons.

I don't want the whole country to be recounted in the event of a close election. And in a popular vote election, there is much more scope for cheating. With the Electoral College there is no scope for cheating in the safe states, but with a popular vote election there is every incentive for cheaters to come up with a few thousand extra votes here and there deep in the heart of RedStatesVille.

Having said that, I would not object to having each state's electoral votes be proportional to that state's population.

[reformist2]

24. That is such a good point, about avoiding a nationwide recount!

After the travesty that was the Florida recount, I honestly don't think we could survive a national one.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

28. They are proportional to population...

[Nye Bevan]

34. Nope.

See http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/HouseAndElectors.phtml

For 2012, North Dakota has 3 electoral votes, based upon a population of 675,905.
California has 55 electoral votes, based on a population of 37,341,989.

So the population of California is more than 50 times that of North Dakota, but California has only 18 times as many electoral votes.

[The Wielding Truth]

29. I have the same opinion.

[tarheelsunc]

8. There is absolutely no justification for someone in Wyoming to count more than someone in California

The electoral college is outdated, as it was designed at a time when states were more powerful and independent. Now, with modern transportation and the internet and such, there aren't such drastic differences among states and due to post-Civil War legislation, the powers of the federal government are well established and states can't claim such independence anymore.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

31. Just how do you figure

that a voter on Wyoming counts for more than a voter in California?

[tarheelsunc]

35. Do the math

Population of Wyoming - 568,158
Wyoming electoral votes - 3
Population of California - 37,691,912
California electoral votes - 55

In Wyoming, each electoral vote represents 189,386 people
In California, each electoral vote represents 685,307 people.

This means that Wyoming residents have around 3-4 times more power than California residents in voting for the president because Wyoming residents represent a much higher share of determining their electoral votes.

[abumbyanyothername]

37. This is, in some ways, the core issue between the two parties

Are we Americans first and Iowans second.

Or Iowans first and Americans second.

[bemildred]

9. No. Rules don't mean squat if you don't follow them when you'd rather not.

That sort of "end justifies the means" thinking is more like how Republicans and conservatives think. They think there is only one right way, and they know it, so they are practically saving the world, saving civilization, and all means are justified.

[BainsBane]

10. It's purpose was to balance power between the big and small states

As was most everything else debated at the Constitutional Convention. A better solution would be for states to divide their electors in proportion to vote totals, rather than winner take all.

[Proud Public Servant]

16. It's other purpose was to empower the slave states

It's always worth remembering that, IMHO.

[BainsBane]

19. Yes, they were considered small states

Because they had lower populations of propertied white males. Hence the 3/5 clause.

[JackRiddler]

21. States are squares of territory, not people.

One person, one vote.

Anyway, I don't care about the EC. I'm against having one president in the first place.

[BainsBane]

27. Big vs small meant population, not square miles

Or the properties white male population, to be more exact. Slave states were larger geographically but smaller in terms of the voting population.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. And states are free to do that n/t

[jsmirman]

11. No - because it suppresses the vote in every state that doesn't matter

[Angry Dragon]

12. NO

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. No. It's still undemocratic no matter who wins.

[JackRiddler]

20. Oooh! A zinger! Pure gold!

[hrmjustin]

25. no

[still_one]

26. Wow, that sounds like something Romney would do. If something was to his advantage he is for it, if

It isn't, he is against it, and if the situation changes, so would his position

[rebuke]

32. It's a moot issue at this time...

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

[abumbyanyothername]

36. No. nt

[BeeBee]

38. No. As a resident of California,

I resent the fact that other people's votes count more than mine.

[slackmaster]

44. If you were a Republican in California, the EC ensures that your vote doesn't count at all

I am not sure I understand why a California Democrat would want to change that.

[trof]

39. EC favors land area. Popular vote favors CITIZENS.

[Nye Bevan]

40. Not really. Alaska is by far the largest state by area, but only has 3 electoral votes.

Alaska = 663,267 square miles, 3 electoral votes.
Florida = 65,755 square miles, 29 electoral votes.

[Democratopia]

41. The biggest problem with American politics is it is a two party system.

Replace the electoral college with a proportional system that gives small parties representation and our elected representatives would become less adversariel. The two-party system needs to end because these childish games played by Republicans are damaging this nation. They are dragging us backwards and we need a system that forces parties to work together.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. No, you cannot have proportional representation in one office

You could have runoff voting (either instant or multi-round), but the end result is that one president gets elected (unless you're advocating giving the vice-presidency to the person who came second in the presidential race, like they used to... do you want to elect the whole cabinet like that, perhaps?)

If you want proportional representation, you have to be working with a body with multiple representatives, like Congress.

[Tcbys]

45. Should be who ever has the most votes wins. Majority rules I thought.

[marlakay]

46. No I still think its wrong

I would only be upset if each person that wanted to vote couldn't like what they are trying to do in a bunch of states.

But I think if fairly done each persons vote should count. I think more would vote if they thought it mattered no matter where they live.

[Nevernose]

49. No

But it would suck, big time.

[craigmatic]

50. It makes no difference to me. I could see getting rid of the EC for a number of reasons but

with the way that the voting machines can be rigged today I don't think a direct popular vote would be any more honest that what we have now.

[Nye Bevan]

51. The Electoral College has a huge advantage in terms of concerns about rigged voting machines.

With the Electoral College there is no incentive whatsoever for anyone to rig voting machines in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, or any very red state. But in a popular vote election, there is every incentive to rig machines or manufacture votes in these states.

[regnaD kciN]

52. I'd think it paid off for us this time...

...but, it's kind of a moot question because, if you eliminate the electoral college in, say, 1999, then Al Gore wins the presidency the next year, and we probably never have the series of circumstances that followed -- neither the election of Barack Obama (who probably wouldn't have risen to prominence without the 2004 convention speech, which likewise would probably not been called for if we were campaigning for the re-election of an incumbent), nor the Great Recession that required Obama to run on the record of a mixed economic picture.

[arely staircase]

53. no

i will see it as a real opportunity to get rid of it. both sides will have been recently screwed by it and it maybe the best "iron is hot" moment.