[Debate] Can someone explain the electoral college to me?

I've read many debates about it and they all seem to devolve into one side saying, "Why should votes from people in small states matter less than votes from people in big states?", and the other side saying, "Why should votes from people in big states matter less than votes from people in small states".

Is there a way of untangling this?

It's our version of the Eurovision Song Contest.

The real reason is actually quite simple:

Slavery skewed the overall population of the South. So, instead of not counting slaves at all, the Northern states compromised with the Southern states on counting slaves as 3/5 of a person.

It's basically a compromise that was a stepping stone to the Civil War.

Since the Civil War it's been a good thing and a bad thing, depending on your perspective.

Bluntly, because the United States is a republic, not a democracy.

It's the same reason the United States has a Senate with two members from each state and a House with population-based representatives from each state. The founders were keenly aware that direct democracy was a dangerously unstable system, and thus sought to build a republic with safeguards against majoritarian tyranny. The electoral college is expressly designed to tilt elections towards state-by-state results instead of the popular vote, just as the Senate is designed to ensure that each state is represented equally, and that legislation requires the agreement of the majority of the states as well as the people to have a chance of passing.

Consider this: without the electoral college, why would any Presidential candidate ever bother to campaign outside of the twenty most populous states? Together, they have over 75% of the population - why court a handful of voters in Montana when you can talk to ten times as many people in California? Do you really want Presidential policy to only reflect the wishes of California, Texas, and Florida? As it stands, the system favors more populous states but keeps the smaller states somewhat relevant.

Unfortunately, the republican defenses against direct democracy have been slowly undermined for a long time, and the electoral college is no exception - indeed, it's pretty much the last defense of the republican form of government in the United States. The 17th amendment made the state legislatures irrelevant at the federal level, and the federal courts have been steadily eroding state checks on federal power (often with good reason, especially in the South). If the push to convert the electoral college to match the popular vote succeeds, it could be argued that the United States is no longer a republic.

Aetius wrote:

Consider this: without the electoral college, why would any Presidential candidate ever bother to campaign outside of the twenty most populous states? Together, they have over 75% of the population - why court a handful of voters in Montana when you can talk to ten times as many people in California? Do you really want Presidential policy to only reflect the wishes of California, Texas, and Florida? As it stands, the system favors more populous states but keeps the smaller states somewhat relevant.

As someone who lives in Iowa I am very tuned in to this. Basically if we had a popular vote system a candidate could lose every single vote in my state and just need to get the suburbs of Los Angeles.

As you pointed out, what would the logic be for trying to care about anyone but CA, NY, TX, and FL? It would be a waste of effort.

Of course the flip side is that people in those densely populated have their vote's effect diluted. It doesn't matter if all of CA votes against a candidate if they can carry a few less populated states. So the large urban areas matter less.

That also seems a bit unfair.

The Popular Vote idea in larger part has only gained steam because the Democrats have lost two recent elections in which they won the popular vote. Changing to popular vote may have far reaching consequences, so those in support better be prepared for future backlash.

Admittedly, abolishing the 17th Amendment would do wonders for people to get more involved in their state's politics.

Of course the founding fathers in their holy and infinite wisdom God rest their souls! had a great idea of having a house of representatives where population would be taken into account so huge cities etc. would be more accurately represented.

Then we limited the size of the House in 1929 which sort of screwed that all up.

It today's world, where every voter can see every commercial or debate or piece of media with all the candidates isn't it a bit silly to make a candidate VISIT a state to make it seem like they care? Why don't the ISSUES speak to the people vice showing their face? It just seems silly today.

Aetius wrote:

Consider this: without the electoral college, why would any Presidential candidate ever bother to campaign outside of the twenty most populous states? Together, they have over 75% of the population - why court a handful of voters in Montana when you can talk to ten times as many people in California? Do you really want Presidential policy to only reflect the wishes of California, Texas, and Florida? As it stands, the system favors more populous states but keeps the smaller states somewhat relevant.

The counterpoint to this is that no Presidential candidate under any system would be attempting to court 100% of the population anyway, and particularly so in a two-party system. Trump wasn't holding rallies in downtown San Francisco, was he?

Exactly like a popular vote, the electoral college encourages a candidate to target the voters they think they can get. It just implies a geographically different set of voters.

The population effect on electors should be nominally baked in with more populous states having more electors. I think it is safe to say that the winner takes all approach in most states that is more of a problem.

karmajay wrote:

It today's world, where every voter can see every commercial or debate or piece of media with all the candidates isn't it a bit silly to make a candidate VISIT a state to make it seem like they care? Why don't the ISSUES speak to the people vice showing their face? It just seems silly today.

I think this has more to do with human nature. People feel like a candidate cares about them more and it more in tune with their issues if they see them in person.

Aetius wrote:

Consider this: without the electoral college, why would any Presidential candidate ever bother to campaign outside of the twenty most populous states? Together, they have over 75% of the population - why court a handful of voters in Montana when you can talk to ten times as many people in California? Do you really want Presidential policy to only reflect the wishes of California, Texas, and Florida? As it stands, the system favors more populous states but keeps the smaller states somewhat relevant.

Considering the demographic makeup of those larger states not to mention their extremely large and exceptionally diverse economies, yes, I would love Presidential races and public policy to favor the most populous states. They are the states paying the national bills and, demographically speaking, they are literally the future of the country.

What do the million virtually all white Montanans add to the national conversation that isn't already covered by larger states? Do 40 million Californians not care about the environment or public lands like Montanans do? At this point the only thing Montana might add to the national conversation is white nationalism and that sh*t needs to go away.

Those small, lily white, and mostly rural states already have an outsized role in our political process: the primaries. Because they do everything to ensure they're always the among the first to hold their primaries, they act as gatekeepers that filter out more moderate and diverse political candidates. In the 21st century states like Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't be the one setting the tone for our elections. Neither their populations nor their economies look like the rest of the country.

How often have candidates visited Montana anyway? There is already an imbalance in how voters are courted.

So let's invent a fictional state called Sunnyshire. Sunnyshire has a population of 40 million. The majority of people in Sunnyshire want Tim to be president. So 37 million people vote Tim and only 3 million people vote Bob. In this case it only takes 3 million and one votes to translate into Sunnyshire casting 1 vote towards Tim being president. Is that right?

Jonman wrote:

Exactly like a popular vote, the electoral college encourages a candidate to target the voters they think they can get. It just implies a geographically different set of voters.

Which is precisely the point.

farley3k wrote:

I think this has more to do with human nature. People feel like a candidate cares about them more and it more in tune with their issues if they see them in person.

This is a great point - and conversely, when people feel that they don't have any significant input to the political process and the candidates just don't care about them, bad things typically follow.

OG_slinger wrote:

What do the million virtually all white Montanans add to the national conversation that isn't already covered by larger states?

It doesn't matter. They are a state, and they are entitled to relevant participation in the political process just like Hawaii or Alabama. This is the essence of being a republic - population size is not the sole determinant of political power.

OG_slinger wrote:

Those small, lily white, and mostly rural states already have an outsized role in our political process: the primaries. Because they do everything to ensure they're always the among the first to hold their primaries, they act as gatekeepers that filter out more moderate and diverse political candidates. In the 21st century states like Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't be the one setting the tone for our elections. Neither their populations nor their economies look like the rest of the country.

I agree, but that's directly the fault of the parties, not the system being a republic (though the two-party system itself is a "feature" of first-past-the-post voting). If a party desires a more moderate or diverse candidate, then it should change how it selects candidates. The fact that neither party has done so is rather telling.

strangederby wrote:

So let's invent a fictional state called Sunnyshire. Sunnyshire has a population of 40 million. The majority of people in Sunnyshire want Tim to be president. So 37 million people vote Tim and only 3 million people vote Bob. In this case it only takes 3 million and one votes to translate into Sunnyshire casting 1 vote towards Tim being president. Is that right?

As long as the majority of people in Sunnyshire want Tim to be President, he'll (in most states) get all of Sunnyshire's electoral votes. That's actually one of the big arguments you'll hear--this winner take all system means the election comes down to a few "swing states."

I imagine the other big, related issue you're hearing about is how many electoral votes those states get. They don't just get electoral votes based on population.

Maybe that's what's confusing? Like, if Sunnyshire has 40 million people, and Darkford* has 4 million people, one would think Sunnyshire should get ten times the number of electoral votes as Darkford.

They don't! Each state gets two electoral votes just for being a state.** Sunnyshire would get 82 electoral votes, and Darkford would get 10.*** Here's a real world example:

The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age. (The map above shows the population 18 years and older per electoral vote by state.) The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote.
.
In other words, one Wyoming voter has roughly the same vote power as four New York voters.

That might not be a big deal if the Sunnyshires and Darkfords weren't ideologically split. The Darkfords tend to be conservative states, while the Sunnyshires tend to be liberal. So conservative voters punch above their weight in the Electoral College.

(edit) oh, and the Sunnyshires and Darkfords aren't numerically split, either: there's one Sunnyshire, while almost half the country is Darkford size or smaller--even Darkford would rank in the middle for state population size. All those "2 electoral votes regardless of how small the state is" add up because there are just so many mini-Darkfords. And they tend to vote in blocks. Like Eurovision!

* formerly Lower Uncton
** technically because each state gets two Senators
*** going with a rough 500,000 = 1 electoral vote for clarity's sake.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
strangederby wrote:

So let's invent a fictional state called Sunnyshire. Sunnyshire has a population of 40 million. The majority of people in Sunnyshire want Tim to be president. So 37 million people vote Tim and only 3 million people vote Bob. In this case it only takes 3 million and one votes to translate into Sunnyshire casting 1 vote towards Tim being president. Is that right?

As long as the majority of people in Sunnyshire want Tim to be President, he'll (in most states) get all of Sunnyshire's electoral votes. That's actually one of the big arguments you'll hear--this winner take all system means the election comes down to a few "swing states."

I imagine the other big, related issue you're hearing about is how many electoral votes those states get. They don't just get electoral votes based on population.

Maybe that's what's confusing? Like, if Sunnyshire has 40 million people, and Darkford* has 4 million people, one would think Sunnyshire should get ten times the number of electoral votes as Darkford.

They don't! Each state gets two electoral votes just for being a state.** Sunnyshire would get 82 electoral votes, and Darkford would get 10.*** Here's a real world example:

The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age. (The map above shows the population 18 years and older per electoral vote by state.) The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote.
.
In other words, one Wyoming voter has roughly the same vote power as four New York voters.

That might not be a big deal if the Sunnyshires and Darkfords weren't ideologically split. The Darkfords tend to be conservative states, while the Sunnyshires tend to be liberal. So conservative voters punch above their weight in the Electoral College.

(edit) oh, and the Sunnyshires and Darkfords aren't numerically split, either--there's one Sunnyshire, while almost half the country is Darkford size or smaller. All those "2 electoral votes regardless of how small the state is" add up because there are just so many Darkfords. And even Darkford at 4 million would be a middle-size state.

* formerly Lower Uncton
** technically because each state gets two Senators
*** going with a rough 500,000 = 1 electoral vote for clarity's sake.

So does that mean that in the Sunnyshire example the votes for Tim stop having any power once there are more of them than for Bob?

strangederby wrote:

So does that mean that in the Sunnyshire example the votes for Tim stop having any power once there are more of them than for Bob?

Technically yes, in the same way that any vote for Bob in Sunnyshire is a wasted vote. The problem, of course, is that you don't know how many votes either of them are going to get ahead of time, and so you want as many as you can get. So-called safe states have flipped before.

strangederby wrote:

So does that mean that in the Sunnyshire example the votes for Tim stop having any power once there are more of them than for Bob?

In almost all cases, yes. It's like any other first past the post system, I think.

There are a few states that split their electoral votes. There are also a bunch of states have passed legislation that will give their electoral votes to whomever wins the nationwide popular vote *if* enough other states pass the same legislation.

I belive Nebraska and Maine proportion after a fashion, where electors are voted by congressional district with two at large electors for the electoral votes for the senators for the state.

It does seem unfair that in the above example millions of votes end up not counting.

Aetius wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Exactly like a popular vote, the electoral college encourages a candidate to target the voters they think they can get. It just implies a geographically different set of voters.

Which is precisely the point. :)

Thanks for conceding that your original point was bogus.

Aetius wrote:

Consider this: without the electoral college, why would any Presidential candidate ever bother to campaign outside of the twenty most populous states? Together, they have over 75% of the population - why court a handful of voters in Montana when you can talk to ten times as many people in California? Do you really want Presidential policy to only reflect the wishes of California, Texas, and Florida? As it stands, the system favors more populous states but keeps the smaller states somewhat relevant.

Jonman wrote:

Thanks for conceding that your original point was bogus. :)

I didn't? In the electoral college scenario, the candidate is able to target different voters by geography. In the non-electoral college scenario, the candidate is unable to do so. That is indeed the point of the electoral college. Am I missing something?

Aetius wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Thanks for conceding that your original point was bogus. :)

I didn't? In the electoral college scenario, the candidate is able to target different voters by geography. In the non-electoral college scenario, the candidate is unable to do so. That is indeed the point of the electoral college. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are.

In either system, the candidate's choices of which voters are most efficient to target are constrained. They're just constrained differently.

To paraphrase your words, do you really want Presidential policy to only reflect voters in Iowa and New Hampshire? As it stands, the system favors less populous states but keeps the larger states somewhat relevant.

Jonman wrote:

In either system, the candidate's choices of which voters are most efficient to target are constrained. They're just constrained differently.

Yes, but the systems aren't equally constrained. The electoral college doesn't make smaller states more powerful than larger ones, it just reduces the gap and leaves a narrow window for state-by-state to ... trump the popular vote. Thus a candidate can either win by focusing on a few large states with high elector counts, or more numerous smaller states with lower counts. In a system with no electoral college, there is only focusing on the large states - it's impossible for the small states to be relevant.

To paraphrase your words, do you really want Presidential policy to only reflect voters in Iowa and New Hampshire? As it stands, the system favors less populous states but keeps the larger states somewhat relevant.

The system that provides Iowa and New Hampshire with their current outsized influence on candidates isn't the electoral college - it's the party primary system.

Aetius wrote:

In a system with no electoral college, there is only focusing on the large states - it's impossible for the small states to be relevant.

Without the electoral college, states cease to be relevant. The unit of electoral success becomes voters, and which state they happen to live in becomes irrelevant.

Let's face facts, no state is politically homogenous, yet the electoral college pretends that they are. Up to just-under-half of any given state's voters get their vote zeroed out under the electoral college.

Aetius wrote:
To paraphrase your words, do you really want Presidential policy to only reflect voters in Iowa and New Hampshire? As it stands, the system favors less populous states but keeps the larger states somewhat relevant.

The system that provides Iowa and New Hampshire with their current outsized influence on candidates isn't the electoral college - it's the party primary system.

Good point. My bad.

Aetius wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Thanks for conceding that your original point was bogus. :)

I didn't? In the electoral college scenario, the candidate is able to target different voters by geography. In the non-electoral college scenario, the candidate is unable to do so. That is indeed the point of the electoral college. Am I missing something?

You can still target different voters by geography without the electoral college--California, Texas, New York, and Florida are all quite different and disparate geographically.

You can target voters from sea to shining sea to BP oil spill drenched sea!

I was looking into why Iowa goes first and found these 2 interesting pieces:

Why Does Iowa Vote First, Anyway?

From 2012:
Why Iowa gets to go first, and other facts about tonight’s caucus

Jonman wrote:

Without the electoral college, states cease to be relevant. The unit of electoral success becomes voters, and which state they happen to live in becomes irrelevant.

They would only be irrelevant if there were no aggregate-scale cultural or political differences between geographical regions (roughly, states). Unfortunately, there are HUGE differences along a variety of major cultural faultlines, with one of the major faultlines being the urban/rural divide. And in a system where only numbers count, the people on the rural side of that line are going to be ignored.

Up to just-under-half of any given state's voters get their vote zeroed out under the electoral college.

In a Presidential election based on popular vote, up to just-under-half of all voters get their vote zeroed out. The electoral college gives a candidate a (very) slim chance to counteract that.

Aetius wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Without the electoral college, states cease to be relevant. The unit of electoral success becomes voters, and which state they happen to live in becomes irrelevant.

They would only be irrelevant if there were no aggregate-scale cultural or political differences between geographical regions (roughly, states). Unfortunately, there are HUGE differences along a variety of major cultural faultlines, with one of the major faultlines being the urban/rural divide. And in a system where only numbers count, the people on the rural side of that line are going to be ignored.

States are actually a really *bad* proxy for cultural and political differences.

So just to be clear, we're moving on from big states vs. little states and all that stuff about being a republic, and we've moved on to rural vs. urban (edit: and even that is not accurate)? Because what really makes the Montana-like states' votes important is that Texas and California vote the opposite way from each other, and Florida sometimes swings. If Florida and Texas and California all start voting the same way, the electoral college is no respite for Montana-like states.