Electoral College: the disenfranchisement of Californians

[ocrenter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

we dont want equal voting power. we need to distribute more votes to smarter people, some argue.[/quote]

I would argue that a typical silicon valley engineer would be smarter than an oil drill worker in North Dakota. In fact, overwhelmingly the big cities draw in far more talent and educated than other parts of the country.

yet when it comes to representation, we decides the rural working class should have a greater voice, in fact more than 3 times our voice.

rather than a system that favors less educated, I just want equal representation.

[ocrenter]

[quote=flyer]Here’s what some are proposing:

http://fusion.net/story/368445/shervin-california-secession/

Might sound like a great idea until tech and other bubble industries burst again, and they are all out on the street, leaving the rest of us holding their bag. No thanks.[/quote]

we should support these movements just to make the rest of the country recognize our disenfranchisement. I agree with flu, independence will be a lose-lose for CA and the US. But a call for a constitutional amendment without any teeth (threat of secession) will just be brushed aside.

[ocrenter]

[quote=njtosd]

People also forget that the founding fathers did not want it to simply be one great big country. They wanted the power to be decentralized. The states were considered much more independent, separate and significant. So the electoral votes were not supposed to represent a certain number of people – they were (in part) supposed to represent the significance of statehood.. By the way, you never saw the DNC lift a finger after Gore lost in spite of having the popular vote. The pols like it this way.

And it still bugs me when Americans talk about our right to a “jury of ones peers” (Magna Carta ensuring that nobles were tried by nobles).[/quote]

I think the first time around everyone were just focused on the “hanging chads”. Now that this has happened for the second time in less than 2 decades, they’ll need to take this more seriously.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]When Brexit happen, it took the whole world market down and Britain still hasn’t recovered. Just look at where the pound is today. This is a country that’s leaving a union. They already have all of the infrastructure in place to be an autonomous country. CA doesn’t have that and would have to spend a lot of $ to get that. What would happen to the tech economy when the world goes into recession because of it? At the same time, they have to spend a lot of $ to create the infrastructure to be its own country. I don’t see most of the tech company would be around long enough to see CA be its own country. Would CA economy still be as big as it is with the tech industry the size it is today? Coming back from it won’t be easy IMHO.[/quote]

secession is not going to happen. we just need a strong secessionist voice to be the teeth to force change to the electoral college.

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu]CalExit is a non-start, don’t even bother.

First of all, CA as a state is not as “blue” as people make it to be. Yes, it’s typically deep blue near large metro areas, but if you head inland and/or remote areas, it’s pretty red.

https://www.google.com/search?q=california+electoral+map&oq=california+electoral+map

Second of all, as large CA’s economy is, a lot of the businesses in CA enjoys some of the benefits from federal government. Pretty much most of the green energy based companies are all subsidized with federal grants, and a lot of a research and development comes from federal grants.

Then there’s the issue of defense. As a standalone “nation”, we will not have the protection of a standing military, army, navy, air force, or the threat of a nuke weapon. If folks want to entertain the crazy idea of CA being separate nation, then they need to entertain the idea that CA needs a standing military. And that’s just one of many other things each state enjoys as benefit belonging to this country.[/quote]

the stronger the voice of secession, the more likely that the calls for electoral college reform and perhaps senate representation reform will be taken more seriously.

as electoral college and senate representation reforms or perhaps breakup of CA all take amendment to the constitution, ratification by the smaller states with disproportional representation would be a nonstarter. if CA shows it is serious about leaving the union, that would force the reform.

[Anonymous]

[quote=AN]Can we split up CA into two first before cessation?[/quote]

This is an interesting idea, and actually doable.

Secession has been ruled to be unconstitutional. It’s also been tried before, the outcome wasn’t so good.

Splitting a state has happened under extreme circumstances, although what we got out of it was West Virginia.

[moneymaker]

The only real way to get rid of the electoral college would probably involve a national ID system, which I think Trump would be in favor of. However there is the risk of the government carrying it too far and asking for your papers every time you want to cross a state line. I think voting from home will be in the future and would be more efficient, no more dead people getting elected.

[Anonymous]

[quote=moneymaker]The only real way to get rid of the electoral college would probably involve a national ID system, which I think Trump would be in favor of. However there is the risk of the government carrying it too far and asking for your papers every time you want to cross a state line. I think voting from home will be in the future and would be more efficient, no more dead people getting elected.[/quote]

Or you could simply have states run the elections as they do now, but report popular vote counts instead of sending electoral representatives.

Practically speaking, a popular vote system would be easier than what we have.

But it will never change. The party in power is never going to have the will to change the process that put them there.

[NotCranky]

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html

I love Mexicans and Mexican Americans but I’d rather have the checks and balances of the united states. Flu made a lot of good points too.

[pencilneck]

Am I the only one that likes our electoral college system?

Yeah, I get frustrated when it works against what I feel are my best interests or what my view is the best course for the country. But long term, by somewhat balancing the power between states, the electoral college system works pretty well to give each of our states some voice at the table. Long term, this IS in the best interest of our union.

[NotCranky]

I like it and I agree. The tensions between the states creates a more balanced country and I would say even more balances states. Its good for the citizens of every state.

[spdrun]

Smaller states already have more representation in the Senate and Congress. The Electoral College made sense … in the 1700s.

Also, it’s undemocratic, because many states don’t even bind their electors to follow the popular vote.

[Anonymous]

[quote=pencilneck]Am I the only one that likes our electoral college system?

Yeah, I get frustrated when it works against what I feel are my best interests or what my view is the best course for the country. But long term, by somewhat balancing the power between states, the electoral college system works pretty well to give each of our states some voice at the table. Long term, this IS in the best interest of our union.[/quote]

The Senate is the primary mechanism that gives smaller states influence.

But it will be interesting to see how the “states rights” advocates respond to DC’s request for statehood. There will be plenty of absurd contradictions in that short debate.

The electoral college doesn’t help small states as much as some think. It doesn’t always help rural voters either (e.g. California’s central valley) The flaw in the electoral college process as it exists today is the winner take all system that most states use.

The biggest issue with the system is that it causes the “swing state” effect and gives certain states dramatically more attention during elections, It probably has some small influence on presidential decisions as well. It doesn’t create a balance at all.

It’s really silly that a few states, especially Florida, become the center of attention every four years.

The system doesn’t accomplish what it was intended to do anymore, but it’s not going away either. We’re stuck with it.

[moneymaker]

[quote=harvey][quote=pencilneck]Am I the only one that likes our electoral college system?

Yeah, I get frustrated when it works against what I feel are my best interests or what my view is the best course for the country. But long term, by somewhat balancing the power between states, the electoral college system works pretty well to give each of our states some voice at the table. Long term, this IS in the best interest of our union.[/quote]

It probably has some small influence on presidential decisions as well.[/quote]
Yeah I’d say it had an influence on this last election. I’m not gonna say the system is rigged as everyone knew the rules and Trump won because he ran a better campaign based on those rules. But technically the electoral college system takes us farther away from being a true Democracy. As spdrun said it made perfect sense back then but not now.

[livinincali]

[quote=moneymaker]
Yeah I’d say it had an influence on this last election. I’m not gonna say the system is rigged as everyone knew the rules and Trump won because he ran a better campaign based on those rules. But technically the electoral college system takes us farther away from being a true Democracy. As spdrun said it made perfect sense back then but not now.[/quote]

We never were a true democracy. The US form of government is a constitutional republic. True democracy is actually a pretty poor government as it allows the majority to oppress the minority. A constitutional republic places a bunch of checks and balances to restrict the majority from doing exactly that.

In 2008 the majority in CA did vote to ban Gay Marriage. In true democracy that vote would still stand and we’d continue to oppress the rights of the gay minority. In took courts and interpretation of the constitution to override that majority rule.

[Author]

Posts