Could we be headed for another Electoral College debacle in 2020?

[LongTomH]

Sorry gang; but, it's all too possible. From CNN: We could be headed for another Electoral College mess"

(CNN)Could it happen again? In 2016, Donald Trump became the sixth president to win the office while losing the national popular vote and the second one to do so in the last five presidential contests. In spite of his low public approval, a second term for Trump is wholly attainable, and it winds through the Electoral College process. Indeed, a Trump re-election in 2020 would most likely mimic his 2016 victory where he won the Electoral College, but lost the popular vote.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton won 48% of the popular vote to Trump's 46%. Nearly 3 million more Americans voted for Clinton over Trump. Yet Trump captured 57% of the Electoral College vote to Clinton's 42%.

Here are the scary facts:

Norman Ornstein regularly points out that "by 2040 or so, 70% of Americans will live in 15 states. Meaning 30% will choose 70 senators. And the 30% will be older, whiter, more rural, more male than 70%."

These older, rural, white, and male voters have largely stood by President Trump and are concentrated in a majority of states -- most of which are among the least populated in the country. Because all states are given two votes in the Electoral College (based on the Senate) in addition to the votes they receive based on their respective populations, citizens in these states have disproportionate weight in the institution. For instance, in 2016 an electoral vote in Wyoming represented just under 200,000 citizens, while an electoral vote in California represented over 700,000 citizens.

Here's the "well, duh" moment for us is 2016:

Not one state holding three electoral votes received a single visit from the presidential or vice-presidential candidates from the major parties during the final months of the 2016 campaign. After winning their respective nominations, Trump and Pence failed to step foot in 26 states, while the Clinton-Kaine ticket neglected nearly three-fourths of the country. Instead, 94% of all campaigning occurred in 12 states and nearly 70% of all campaign events were held in just six states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan).

As for our beloved 'Founding Fathers," this guy got a fucking musical named after him!!

In Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton suggested that "if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent" when he introduced the Electoral College. In truth, conflict over the institution has led to nearly 800 congressional proposals to amend or abolish it -- perhaps more than any other feature in the Constitution.

[bearsfootball516]

1. It could be, but I don't see him winning Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania again

His approvals in those states are deeply underwater and even a decent Democratic candidate probably wins them back.

[NewJeffCT]

3. I also think that with the right candidate

states like Georgia, Texas and/or Arizona could be in play as well.

Arizona (11) would offset Wisconsin (10); Georgia(16) would offset Michigan(16) and TX (38) offsets OH (20) and Michigan (16) together

[unblock]

2. the electoral college is fundamentally the result of an agreement among the *states*

rhetoric and preamble aside, the constitution was drafted and signed and ratified by representatives of the *states*, not of the people.

the democracy implied by the house and that portion of the electoral college is a nod to the people, but the senate and the corresponding portion of the electoral college reflects the reality that it was an agreement among the states.

there are many solutions, perhaps the most applicable is simply for states to merge into bigger states. we don't really have 50 hugely different cultures and economies in this country, and if we merged down to a dozen or so states, it would drastically reduce the anti-democratic effects of the electoral college without need of a constitutional amendment (which is a real challenge given that any amendment needs support of some of the small states who would be losing power).

electoral college implications aside, larger states would simplify commerce and regulations.

[customerserviceguy]

8. Name any period in US history

where two states merged. New states came out of territory claimed by existing ones.

We'd see the EC done away with by an amendment before we see any two states ever merging. I can't imagine the people here in SC going for a merger even with NC (becoming too liberal for their tastes). And imagine the difficulty of this: When I lived in WA state, I found it quite similar in many respects to neighboring Oregon, but one taxes sales, the other taxes incomes, resolving that would be messy, if not impossible.

Commerce already takes place freely among the states, limited only by transportation costs. And regulations are usually pretty uniform, some national bar association comes up with a Uniform Commercial Code, that most states adopt more or less intact.

[unblock]

11. nearly any modification to the electoral college is a pipe dream.

it's really a politically intractable problem.

any constitutional amendment is extremely challenging as needing 3/4th of the states means needing support from a good number of the small states that would lose influence based on the amendment.

merging states is definitely unlikely, and yeah, it's never happened, though it keeps coming up for discussion, most recently north and south dakota. there too, they lose influence (going from a combined 4 senators down to 2) and losing similarly in the electoral college, not that anyone campaigns there either way. but other factors might make it appealing enough to do. there's really zero upside for small states in the constitutional amendment approach.

commerce in general is certainly pretty good between states, but there's still plenty of overhead crossing state borders, including more complicated income taxes and legal issues licensing and so on.

[NewJeffCT]

4. The Senate could be a problem in the future

However, there are some small blue states as well - Rhode Island, Connecticut, Hawaii, Vermont, Delaware, New Mexico and purple states like New Hampshire, Nevada.

That said, if the EC is not dumped eventually, it should be retooled to be fairer to large states.

[Generic Other]

5. I really hate the electoral college

It diminishes our democratic foundations.

[Andy823]

6. Yes, anything could happen

But we have to remember that in 2016 46 percent of registered voters, [92,077,433] did not vote. I would think that by now they have seen the error of their ways, and most of them "will" vote in 2020. I also think that the die hard base that trump is catering to, DID get out and vote, so any of those who will get out in 2020 that didn't in 2016, would not be voting for trump. At least this give me hope things won't be so great for trump if he is running in 2020, which I hope never happens because he will be remove from office before then.

[bearsfootball516]

7. Also keep in mind that it's unlikely Trump reaches the same raw vote total he did in 2016.

He benefitted from the fact that his base came out, and he got a lot of "Well I normally wouldn't vote for him, but I really don't trust Hillary, so here goes" votes, and he's unlikely to get nearly as many this time. Meanwhile, he's done nothing to expand his base.

[customerserviceguy]

9. Not necessarily

I'm sure there were a lot of Trump voters out there who believed the polling, and just said, "Why bother?" Next time, they'll be energized. Trump's fights with Schumer and Pelosi are about just that.

[Andy823]

10. I disagree

The die hard trump cult followers were "all" out to vote for him, they didn't stay home, they were energized by his bullshit lies, and his racial overtones, and most still are. They "DID" turnout, and the ones that still drink the kool aid will turn out again, but they will be a minority of the voters, not enough for trump. The only way trump might win again, is if Russia gets involved, again.