[cheetos]

> Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night?

Because it turns out that has a very strong effect on the power of your vote :)

The electoral college exists to balance the voices of citizens in cities vs. "the country." It checks the power of highly dense populations who are more likely to vote for pro-city federal policies, so the needs of those in "the country" are not ignored.

I didn't support Trump and live in a super-blue city, but when the EC was explained to me this way, it made sense. I don't want to see the US further turn into a place where you can only succeed if you live in a city.

[phailhaus]

The bigger problem is that the EC is a winner-takes-all system. If California has 55 EV's, and Candidate A wins by 1%, why do they get all 55 votes? Nearly half the state voted for Candidate B! I have found that the debate on the EC has been over a false dichotomy: either have the EC, or have a popular vote. What about distributing electoral votes based on percentage?

[nerfhammer]

A state can choose to allow this on its own. A couple do: Nebraska and Maine.

[sgnelson]

but even this still has issues. Such as, what are the electors based off of, state wide popular vote? What about rounding, up or down? Each congressional district (for states with more than 1 congressional district, and how about the other 2 electoral votes? At-large, a hybrid approach, what else?), Some predetermined electoral districting? etc.

And even with that question answered, this doesn't necessarily fix the problem, as it's still quite easy to have the electoral college votes not match the popular vote. So what's the real point of the modern electoral college? It just makes for a more complex, less precise, less democratic system overall.

[phailhaus]

Perhaps there is no point to the modern electoral college. With a little research, it turns out that the point of the electoral college was to act as a check against a demagogue that could manipulate the citizenry, and to ensure that "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." Oh, the irony...The EC was meant to be un-democratic, to keep someone like Trump from getting power.

When electors are bound to their vote as they are today, the electoral college seems to exist in order to give a greater voice to more rural states, to keep them from being forgotten. But then the opposite occurs: winner-takes-all means that candidates have little incentive to campaign in "safe" states and the entire election hinges on just a few.

[throwaway729]

> The electoral college exists to balance the voices of citizens in cities vs. "the country

That is the effect of the electoral college in modern politics, but it is not at all why the college exists.

[cheetos]

I saw your other comment alluding to this and was intruiged. If you have time, can you please elaborate?

[throwaway729]

Direct election was a proposal at the time, and many founding fathers supported it, but the slave states shot it down.

The slave states are often mis-characterized as rural/not populous as compared to northern states. But that logic only holds if the color of your skin defines your humanity -- slave states weren't significantly less populous, it's just that a huge portion of their populations weren't enfranchised. In fact, the most populous state was a slave state. So IMO the thesis that the electoral college is a result of slavery is mostly accurate.

As far as the "official" reasons (since slavery was a touchy motivation, even back in the day), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68 which outlines the "official" reasons for having a college as well as all of the alternatives at the time. Most of these seem pretty irrelevant to the modern world:

* As a veto on dangerous men -- I don't see this ever happening in our modern world. * To avoid "cabal, intrigue, and corruption" as well as pandering. None of these function as arguments against a direct vote, but rather as arguments against the use of governors, congress, etc. in place of the electoral college.

[cheetos]

Thanks!

[pg314]

There's an explanation on wikipedia [1]. In the light of the current election, the following sentence from that article sounds ironic to me: 'Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified, but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity," attaining high office.'

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_Stat...

[mch82]

The Electoral College was created for two reasons as a compromise so that all of the states would sign the Constitution:

1. To balance power between states that have slaves and states that do not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0].

Addressing #1, we thankfully no longer have slaves, but the need to address population disparity still exists. In 1929 the Republican majority in congress put a cap of 435 on the number of members of the House of Representatives [1]. That has led to a ratio of 1:700,000 representation, compared to the intended 1:50,000 ratio (and the 1:30,000 ratio advocated by George Washington). This alters the effectiveness of both the Electoral College and the House by reducing effective representation as larger coalitions need to form in order to influence the vote of a single representative. In 2012, CNN indicated the UK has a 1:90,000 ratio and the government we established in Iraq 1:100,000 [2].

The procedures of the Electoral College have changed since its creation, undermining the ability of the EC to perform #2 [0]. Electors are now often uninformed and simply act a pledged voters.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_Stat... "Electoral College (United States)"

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_ap... "United States Congressional Apportionment"

[2]: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/flynn-expand-congress/ "CNN: What's wrong with Congress? It's not big enough."

[cyphax]

> 2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0].

Heheh, so the people chose Clinton, but the "people with better information" chose Trump? That just doesn't sound right. ;)