Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College? | The Tylt

FINAL RESULTS
Politics
Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?
A festive crown for the winner
#NoElectoralCollege
#ThatsDemocracy

For the fifth time in presidential election history a candidate won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. Clinton's supporters are very unhappy and are calling to get rid of the Electoral College. They argue it's outdated and gives too much power to a handful of states. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it's a core piece of American democracy and that the founding fathers were right to distrust direct democracy. What do you think? Vote now. 

Dataviz
Real-time Voting
Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?
#NoElectoralCollege
#ThatsDemocracy
#ThatsDemocracy

The Electoral College has been a central piece of American democracy and has worked for as long as America has existed. It's worked this long, so why change things now? 

The product of the Founders’ compromise has been well balanced and enduring, and we would be wise to leave it intact.

Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
#ThatsDemocracy

The main critique of the Electoral College is actually easily fixed. The problem is that states choose a winner-take-all situation. The Electoral College doesn't mandate it. 

As the 2000 election reminded us, the Electoral College does make it possible for a candidate to win the popular vote and still not become president. But that is less a product of the Electoral College and more a product of the way states apportion electors. In every state but Maine and Nebraska, electors are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. So if a candidate wins a state by even a narrow margin, he or she wins all of the state’s electoral votes. The winner-take-all system is not federally mandated; states are free to allocate their electoral votes as they wish.
#NoElectoralCollege

The problem is that demographic shifts could make this happen more frequently. From the article: 

  1. Gaining ground in safe Democratic states: Barack Obama won the 2012 election around a coalition of minorities and young voters. An overwhelming percentage of these groups voted for Obama the last time around with strong turnout. But those groups, specifically Latinos and Asians, are concentrated in safe Democratic and safe Republican states like California, Texas, and New York. She gained ground in all those states compared to Obama in 2012, but that doesn’t help with electoral math.
  2. Gaining ground in safe Republican states: The other factor is that Democrats gained ground from 2012 in states that are usually safe Republican states — places like Texas, Georgia, Utah, and Idaho. (Check out this great New York Times map, which shows how the votes shifted from 2012.) It may put these states into play in future elections, but for this one it increased Clinton’s popular vote margin while not helping her with the electoral math.
  3. Losing a little ground with minorities and young people in swing states: Meanwhile, Clinton lost ground in swing states, and early exit poll analysis indicates that turnout among the minorities and young people was lower, and that Clinton won a smaller ratio of those groups than Obama. This is important because, when it comes to the popular vote, these swing states are decided by a few hundred thousand votes — and the Electoral College doesn’t let you make them up with gains in the safe states.
#NoElectoralCollege
The Electoral College does not serve any legitimate purpose that could justify its anti-democratic aspects. The frequent argument that it ensures that attention will be paid to small states is absurd. In reality, it means that campaigns will ignore both most small and smallish states (neither campaign, for example, seriously contested Wisconsin) and large states where the outcome is not in doubt, like New York, California, and Texas. There is no democratic value to largely confining presidential campaigns to a relatively small number of large states where the outcome is perennially in some doubt. And white rural states, which are already massively overrepresented in the Senate, hardly need further overrepresentation when choosing the president.
#NoElectoralCollege

Here are some perspectives on why the Electoral College should be a thing of the past. 

#ThatsDemocracy

Here are perspectives on why the Electoral College should be retained. 

FINAL RESULTS
Politics
Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?
A festive crown for the winner
#NoElectoralCollege
#ThatsDemocracy