In a close contest, faith in an honest popular vote without the electoral college is naive. The only time (1876) we threw out electoral college votes was when there was evidence of massive vote fraud, only documented because of the present of federal troops as observers. To control election outcomes, violence and all forms of cheating have been used, especially when the stakes are high. To win with the present electoral college, you need to win closely contested large states, with maximum publicity, exposure and opposition. By contrast, stuffing the ballot is easiest in places where one party exerts complete control -- but this influence on the popular vote has little impact on the electoral college, which is why it is not much practiced in presidential elections. Your faith that elections would be honest contests without the electoral college is naive and ahistoric. Students of Black electoral history will know why I say this.
I'm not entirely sure what to say in response. The question of bias seems entirely secondary to the question of the optimal electoral system — especially since for most of the last hundred years slates of electors have been assigned to the winner of the popular vote in every state. I guess I simply... agree that popular votes should be counted fairly, and that everything should be done to prevent rigging and miscounting?
The best relevant question is whether you see any of the Electoral College results in the last 50, or even 150, years as stemming from errors in vote-counting (as opposed to unconstitutional suppression, which surely should be a separate discussion) that would have been different under perfect rules. You could argue 1960?
I think "should" is irrelevant. What will and has happened -- and, look around you, what is being planned? Without the electoral college, it is unclear that those who received the most validly attempted votes would have received the most recorded votes in 2000, 1960, 1948, 1916, 1888, 1884, and 1876 -- far more problematic outcomes than generated by the electoral college. [And, yes, JFK was misallocated some popular votes and probably deserved to receive fewer than Nixon but, in a popular vote rather than electoral college system, he probably would have received more popular votes than Nixon did.]
The electoral college system has been historically unbiased regarding the incumbent, the popular vote winner, and the majority party -- hard to match this record. I posted a paper on it.
Nice work! The problems are money, propaganda, GOP philosophy, much like that of the Mongol hordes, how to get the rats out of the stable, and how to keep them out of the stable,
In a close contest, faith in an honest popular vote without the electoral college is naive. The only time (1876) we threw out electoral college votes was when there was evidence of massive vote fraud, only documented because of the present of federal troops as observers. To control election outcomes, violence and all forms of cheating have been used, especially when the stakes are high. To win with the present electoral college, you need to win closely contested large states, with maximum publicity, exposure and opposition. By contrast, stuffing the ballot is easiest in places where one party exerts complete control -- but this influence on the popular vote has little impact on the electoral college, which is why it is not much practiced in presidential elections. Your faith that elections would be honest contests without the electoral college is naive and ahistoric. Students of Black electoral history will know why I say this.
Douglas:
I'm not entirely sure what to say in response. The question of bias seems entirely secondary to the question of the optimal electoral system — especially since for most of the last hundred years slates of electors have been assigned to the winner of the popular vote in every state. I guess I simply... agree that popular votes should be counted fairly, and that everything should be done to prevent rigging and miscounting?
The best relevant question is whether you see any of the Electoral College results in the last 50, or even 150, years as stemming from errors in vote-counting (as opposed to unconstitutional suppression, which surely should be a separate discussion) that would have been different under perfect rules. You could argue 1960?
The electoral college system shapes the popular vote within that system, so the effect can't measure the bias of its cause.
I think "should" is irrelevant. What will and has happened -- and, look around you, what is being planned? Without the electoral college, it is unclear that those who received the most validly attempted votes would have received the most recorded votes in 2000, 1960, 1948, 1916, 1888, 1884, and 1876 -- far more problematic outcomes than generated by the electoral college. [And, yes, JFK was misallocated some popular votes and probably deserved to receive fewer than Nixon but, in a popular vote rather than electoral college system, he probably would have received more popular votes than Nixon did.]
The electoral college system has been historically unbiased regarding the incumbent, the popular vote winner, and the majority party -- hard to match this record. I posted a paper on it.
Nice work! The problems are money, propaganda, GOP philosophy, much like that of the Mongol hordes, how to get the rats out of the stable, and how to keep them out of the stable,