Talk:United States Electoral College

Spin off

Is it worth spinning-off the criticisms section to it's own separate article? I feel like it has the potential to grow a LOT and it may be worth creating a dedicated article linking back to here. Checking through the logs I don't see it ever being created (and therefore never deleted). It would certainly pass GNG. Thoughts? Giraffer (munch) 09:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Pinging SMP0328. as he is a recent contributor.

Support. AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY for the Electoral College, "Contemporary reform" is a coherent theme found in three major sections. The need is established in "Contemporary issues", the urgency is reflected in "Public opinion", and the alternatives are found in "Efforts to abolish or reform". I just can't suggest a name for the spin off, yet. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Support. A fine article dealing with proposals/ideas for reforming or abolishing the Electoral College could be made. It should not be framed a criticism article and proposal/idea must include opposition to it. Suggested name of article: Reform Efforts to United States Electoral College. SMP0328. (talk) 22:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral As long as summary points are kept in this article per wp:split, no objection from me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreeing with you all. Will create an article titled 'Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College' which (obviously) will list the various attempts. We should be careful to keep it an article and not a list.

I think it would also be good to have a background section detailing the various perceived flaws (will/will need to be careful with NPOV) but of course keeping the focus on the reform efforts. Thanks, Giraffer (munch) 15:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with this spin-off, but I see that the bulk of Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College is copied text that remains here in the parent article. Are there plans to reduce the relevant sections here to concise summaries, or add significant content to the new article? Otherwise the duplicated material cannot stand long-term per procedures described at WP:SPLIT, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SPINOFF, etc. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

voting power comparison in the lead

Here, I've changed "as much as four times [...] as" to "more [...] than" in the lead section. The wording I have changed appeared in this 2018 edit. Some of the cited supporting sources are on pay sites and I was not able to check them to see whether or not they support the assertion I have changed. I do note that it does not appear to be in agreement with what File:US 2010 Census State Population Per Electoral Vote.png shows. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Change to 4th Summary Paragraph

Hi. I propose to add a change (italicized below) to the 4th summary paragraph, as it is missing from any statements in any portion of the summary, despite being the predominant concern of most opponents of the electoral college. This is commonly referred to as direct democracy.

Opponents of the Electoral College argue that it can result in different candidates winning the popular and electoral vote (which occurred in two of the five presidential elections from 2000 to 2016); that it causes candidates to focus their campaigning disproportionately in a few "swing states"; that its allocation of Electoral College votes gives citizens in less populated states (e.g., Wyoming) as much as four times the voting power as those in more populous states (e.g., California).[11][12][13][14][15] and most significantly, that it does not represent the actual total vote-getter of the election outcome, and thus is not a direct democracy.

Please comment. Thanks. Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Stevenmitchell: My problem with your addition is that it creates a run-on sentence and just restates the point. That said, you got me thinking about the paragraph and how it conveys and could better convey the "opposition to" point of view. Here is what I've come up with:

Opponents of the Electoral College argue that it is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "one person, one vote." The system can produce an outcome where one candidate wins the popular vote but another wins the electoral vote, thus thwarting the will of the majority of the nation's voters (which has occurred five times in American history). The system also makes it easy for candidates to focus their resources disproportionately on a few "swing states", and its allocation of Electoral College votes gives citizens in less populated states (e.g., Wyoming) as much as four times the voting power as those in more populous states (e.g., California).

How does this look? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

• The initial short sentence of Drdpw's revised version summarizes a relevant controversy, and such a summary belongs in the lead section. The rest of this seems to argue one side of the controversy. The details of the controversy do not belong in the lead section, and material about it meeds to comply with WP:NPOV (particularly its WP:DUE section). It seems to me that something like that initial short sentence belongs in the lead, perhaps along with a pointer to details located elsewhere. Also, see the talk page section above re "as much as four times the voting power" vs. "more voting power". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The 3rd and 4th paragraphs could be combined for balance:

The suitability of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism, that it requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities, increases the political influence of small states, preserves the two-party system, and makes the electoral outcome appear more legitimate than that of a nationwide popular vote. Opponents argue that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "one person, one vote," in that it can thwart the will of the majority of the nation's voters by producing an outcome where one candidate wins the popular vote but another wins the electoral vote and thus the presidency, makes it easy for candidates to focus their resources disproportionately on just a few "swing states", and that it gives citizens in less populated states more voting power than those in more populous states.

Alternatively, I suppose the two paragraphs could be trimmed to: The suitability of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism. Opponents of the system argue that it is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of "one person, one vote." Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that further rewording is needed -- something like: The suitability of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate. Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism. Opponents of the system argue that the U.S. is a democracy that strives for a standard of one person, one vote, and that the system is antithetical to this.", putting the "striving" argument re chusing P & VP into the mouths of the opponents. This summary is not incompatable with detail contained in the Efforts to abolish or reform body section, I think. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"One man one vote" questioned

The final paragraph of the lead, saying: "Opponents argue that the system is antithetical to a democracy that strives for a standard of 'one person, one vote,'" seems to me to flout WP:DUE in that it gives undue weight to an implication that this standard is striven for in U.S. federal elections. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the following argues otherwise: "The inclusion of the electoral college in the Constitution, as the result of specific historical concerns, validated the collegiate principle despite its inherent numerical inequality, ...". I quoted that from the text of Gray v. Sanders -- 372 U.S. 368 (1963) and was reaffirmed, it seems to me, when requoted in Reynolds v. Sims -- 377 U.S. 533 (1964). Have I got that wrong? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence says a democracy strives for 'one person one vote' not the system, the system according the the critique does not strive for that, and that's a problem for those who hold that view. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

That phrase "a democracy that strives for a standard of 'one person, one vote'" which caused me to start this section still bothers me; it appeared in this edit. I am wondering whether it is supported by the sources cited or was original research. I don't see support in a quick look at the three cited supporting sources I can see (the other two are pay sites).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs)

@Wtmitchell: I have replaced a reference, dropping "Critics Move To Scrap The Electoral College, But It's Not Likely To Work" for "One Person One Vote? Depends on Where You Live." I hope this allays your concern. Drdpw (talk)

One person, one vote does not seem original to Wikipedia editors, nor one person one vote being related to democracy, nor both being related to the electoral college. But in writing Wikipedia we must generally write in our own words (due to among other things copyright and plagiarism), unless quoting, so I am not seeing it as original but as ordinary Wikipedia writing (or to put it another way, one person one vote, generally conveys people's vote, popular vote, etc.). At any rate, I take it you can't see the NYT article, which is one of the sources cited? It says, "To its critics, the Electoral College is a relic that violates the democratic principle of one person, one vote, and distorts the presidential campaign by encouraging candidates to campaign only in the relatively small number of contested states."[1] -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)]]

You take it correctly. The NYT has a paywall between me and that article."To its critics, ..." is not quite the same thing as "a democracy that strives for a standard of ...". I got called away as I was writing that and rushed it off when I should have postponed publishing it. On second thought, I observe that, according to that source, "a democracy that strives for a standard of 'one person, one vote,'" is a view of its critics, and the paragraph in the article seems to present that view as a more universal view. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I see your point; perhaps Opponents of the system argue that it is antithetical to the democratic principle of "one person, one vote." would be better. Drdpw (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the sentence begins "Opponents argue", but I have no particular view with respect to any other emphasis on it being their view, if someone wants to do that.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The Electoral College is weighted

The Electoral College is weighted 4:1 for the people over the states. The population-to-state ratio in 1796 was 111:28, or 4:1 a democratic-leaning formula by 400%. At the time, both Madison and Hamilton publicly declared for single-member E.C. districts to allow for in-state geographic distributions of population and their occupational industries. For 2016, that ratio was 438:100, or nearly 4.4:1.0. Only now the suffrage allowed by law is inclusive of men, women, untaxed Indians, blacks and others of color . . . wherever they are allowed to vote equally statewide by proportionate numbers of voting machines per 1000 registered, and 30-minute public transportation access four times an election day.

The Federalist Papers explain the Constitutional system as a federal mixture of national and state, state and democratic elements on 'republican principles'. As they relate the Electoral College, key 'democratic' features are: (1) the largest number of voters can elect Representatives to the House, as allowed in your state (I.2); (2) In the House, equal population representation of inhabitants by state proportion is ensured by a national decennial census (Including all those taxed directly or indirectly, men, women, and children. Initially, all citizens and Indians, and 3/5 'servants', the indentures north and slaves south.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So, it's not one-person-one-vote system. The population distribution is not exact, because it's not possible for the 435 house seats (which translate to electoral seats) to be divided exactly, then 2 more for each state is not based on population, at all. The point of the critique is that even when democracy might be one part of the formula which is sacrificed to be among several others considerations, it does not strive for the one-person-one-vote formula the critique associates with democracy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make there relates to the U.S. being, at the federal level, a union (U) of individual states (S). The collegiate principle in the design of the US EC system is reflective of that. Both of the SCOTUS decisions I mentioned point that up in the content around the snippet I quoted ([2][3]). We're not talking here about electing representatives of voters in a voting district or in an individual state; we're talking about electing federal executive officials representative of all the States in the Union -- officials to represent that Union of States monolithically to the rest of the world. My point was not to assert that one between the individual vs. collegiate voting structures is "better" in some way but that only mentioning what opponents of the US EC argue in the paragraph at issue here fails to give due weight to the other side of that argument. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article has long been structured to give the support side one paragraph and then the oppose side one paragraph, and not mix them together. At its most elemental, the debate does seem to revolve around federalism vs one-person-one-vote democracy. (Besides, in issues of due weight, it's not a matter of whether any Wikipedia editor agrees with the critique). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I backed off one step from that particular tree and had a glimpse of the forest. Quoting the immortal Emily Litella, "Never mind!" Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The existing paradigm sets up a false dichotomy that editorially steers most reasonable readers of good will to conclude the one-man-one-vote alternative is the choice to make for good governance. Here, "The debate does seem to revolve around": Either Proposition #1 federalism of neo-Confederate 'states-rights or state-party machines, of winner-take-all; against Proposition #3 an abstract ideal imagining 'one-person-one-vote' democracy, of individual free choice: However, that leaves out point-by-point, paragraph-by-paragraph, the third, middle ground in Proposition #2, a mixed system of place-and-population, wide enfranchisement with diversity-and-virtual-representation.

Critiques: #1: "Winner-take-all", whether awarding power to states-rights or party machines, violently skews Electoral College results to small states. In the modern era, the effect is to strip most urban 'metropolitan areas' of their proportionate weight, and therefore their reasonable voice in presidential selection. The echoes of 1830s Jacksonian 'unity-and-pro-slavery' national coalition giving power to local party bosses of the newly expanded 'democracy of the [white men] people', no longer applies to our contemporary populations who have the franchise by law.

- #3: Proposals for "One-man-one-vote" system do not include key elements necessary to become anything other than a sham-extension of state-party machines (sending the same unrepaired machines to the same majority Democratic precincts every general election, etc.). Proper implementation requires attaining standard practices nation-wide, especially among the largest 30 states with the most population diversity, multiple industries, and variable geography. (a) For all subdivisions statewide, working voting machines per 1000 registered voters to national paper-backup standards, rotating machines among Congressional Districts; (b) timely delivery of mail-in ballots for all registered voters who did not vote in person the last general election (usually 50% or less); (c) registering all public school citizen attendees at age 17 (using registrar staff, deputies, League of Women Voters); purging register rolls of any name not voting for six consecutive years of eligibility. Australians fine their universally registered citizens $20 for not voting in a general election for three elections, then stop.

Proposal #2: "Diversity-and-virtual representation" across populations and regions in every state can be either existing and previous Congressional District plus two at-large, or by the Founder's E.C. single-member district. While districts are (temporarily) subject to gerrymandering for state delegation count by party machines, (a) Urban areas gerrymandered by 'packed' districts will be able to vote independently of their state majority, such as Omaha, Nebraska has done in its E.C. District system. (b) Sister cities in different states lying across the same river will be able to vote independently of their state majorities. (c) Residents separated by state coastal-upland divisions with diverse populations and industry can vote independently of one another for the most part.

- (d) Voters in adjacent districts across state lines who are working for the same regional employer will have the opportunity to vote independent of their remote state majorities. (e) Interstate regions like Appalachia or the Rockies/Sierras will finally be able to effect the outcome of presidential elections. Their votes can be counted independently of states lines, not only in the districts encompassing a region, but also votes of resettled family members in adjacent districts.

Currently in the article, none of these aspects are reflected among each section, alternating among three paragraphs, due to the 'false dichotomy' paradigm. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What sources are there for this proposal? But backing up from that, why? Why do this? If it's because it better reflects the will of the voters, than that's an argument the individual one-person-one-vote is sacrificed too much, to other considerations, in the current EC system. As Madison is reported in this article to have said at the time of the EC's construction, one ideal would be popular vote. But that's not what was agreed to, so various overlays were constructed to give us the EC system which has evolved, and so your reform or evolution proposal would be to get more toward a popular vote system. (One is of course free to criticize what states have done but 1. it was the framers who gave it to the states to do what they will, and 2. if the basis for the criticism is the states obstruct the people's vote, then that argues for stripping the states of power to get in the way and get more toward popular election). And the counter is the moving away from the EC system, as argued above by WM, sacrifices in whole or in part, the federal system (something along the lines of, 'it's not a country of regions, it's a country of states'). So the poles of debate, regardless of degree is between the current EC, based at least in part in values of federalism, and a reformed system that moves the needle more toward one-person-one-vote (popular election). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of a reply, but I am afraid you have once again insisted on a False dilemma. WITHOUT tinkering with the federal system as explicitly required in the Constitution as adopted, a uniform state district system for the Electoral College would provide for ‘diversity in virtual-representation’, not a move ‘toward a popular-vote system’; my critique only mentioned how direct-vote might be fairly implemented, with prerequisite reform in place for 86% of the Electoral College, before it initially took effect (top 31 states = 85.9% E.C. vote), 100% state federal election standardization to follow within four years.

Consider the defining characteristics of E.C. Districts as existing Congressional Districts, or single-member E.C. districts as occurred in 1792-1796 for the largest state Virginia (21), and the smallest Delaware (3). (Once Massachusetts broke for ‘winner-take-all’ to take away Jefferson’s 1796 western MA vote(s), Virginia followed suit to take away Adams’ western Virginia vote(s) for the 1800 election.)

(a) Populations have an equal weight by an all-resident census count, whether persons are taxed directly by federal income or indirectly by federal retail gas tax (Patriot: 'No taxation without representation'). (b) Cultural and geographic diversity within each state is proportionately reflected by population alone (not wealth, income, real estate or property in slaves). (c) Those equal numbers are virtually represented regardless of variable turnouts by weather (sleet & snow), culture (Reservation First-Nation), or voter suppression (unconstitutional registration procedures, voting systems without auditing capability, biased voting places per 1000, biased machines per 1000, targeting unreliable machines).

- Federal election districts are to be drawn with equal population, contiguous compact boundaries, and respecting localities. That will end party gerrymandered snake-districts drawn by precinct-partisanship. And, that’s Constitutionally and Supreme Court-allowed by federal law for federal elections (plaintiff cases arguing 'my side didn't get enough' have failed). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I have never said anything is either/or, so there no false dilemma, I have said it is multi-factor - there is the people's vote and overlays on the people's vote. Beyond that, what you have described is not the current EC system, so this is probably not the place to blog about or discuss it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

All of that deserves discussion, but not here. Perhaps there ought to be a new subsection under One man, one vote#United States; perhaps named #Federal elections or #vs. electoral college.

Also, this article is very long. I'm thinking that this is a peripheral issue here and it would be better if peripheral issues were split off into other articles in summary style; perhaps all of this belongs in an article titled Criticism of the United States Electoral College, in a section #Alternatives#One man, one vote, with a {{main article}} of One man, one vote#United States.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs)

Agree, this article should be split, with the daughter article named, 'Efforts to reform the United States Electoral College' per discussion at Spin off above. ‘Great minds run in the same track.’, or something. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, not only does a simple google search for electoral college and one person, one vote have all manner of sources - what we have been talking about is already a summary (the lead is always a summary), it would be very strange to have this the main article on the E/C not examine and critique it, since examining and critiquing it has been probably going on for 230+ years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

No, Wtmitchell, you are not wrong, in a way

@Wtmitchell: Okay, I think I follow, the answer to your question is no, you are not wrong. (a) Gray v. Sanders (1963) said people are to be weighed in their populations for electing state and federal legislators, not polities as legal constructs, the cities and counties. (b) Reynolds v. Sims (1964) said in choosing members of a legislature, populations shall be proportionately represented, without weight given to polities as legal constructs, the cities and counties.

You observe that selection of executive officers who are to be the national representatives of the ‘one people of the US’, are the outwardly facing ‘heads of state’ for the international state (USA) in the international community. You note by the snippet, states are an element in selection of the president in the E.C., a ‘collegial principle, despite its inherent numerical inequality”.

So to answer your question as first posted in this section, No, you do not have it wrong, in a way. The mixed federal system in the E.C. to select the president-head-of-state. DOES include Part A: the states, and it includes Part B: the national ‘one people’ of the Declaration living in the states.

Now we come to my point(s) . BUT THE TWO PARTS are not meant to be equal factors. THE TWO PARTS ARE NOT TO BE THE SAME. States and population remain in a ratio weighted about 1:4 as intended by the designers of the E.C. skewing the results toward the ‘one people of the US’, as virtually represented by those voting in each state who weigh into the decision-making balance based on census apportionment of the House of Representatives (with six states plus DC as three-E.C.-vote as statistical outliers).

WITHOUT ADVOCATING FOR POPULAR ELECTION of US president, I observe that the diversity of populations in places across each state can more nearly reflect the actual residents of the ‘one people of the US’ if their diversity is not artificially collapsed into a monolithic winner-takes-all.

The founders sought to reflect the diversities of settlement in each state (including Euros catastrophic 100-years’ war biggies with their petty little Germanies: religion and national origin), because THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN EACH STATE ARE NOT THE SAME. As explained at Gray and Reynolds ([4][5]), in both federal and state contexts, the diversity of populations in each state are to be (a) found by voters weighted by their population count, and (b) expressed by votes proportionately represented among equal populations across the state.

That can be achieved in single-member districts. So it follows that the Electoral College cannot function as intended, with a 4:1 lean into the diverse American people without districts to reflect their voice in the same way their diverse voices are heard in a state legislature or state Congressional delegation. Their diverse voices cannot be heard when they are swallowed in a ‘majority’ legally constructed by making their answer THE INVARIABLY THE SAME AS THE STATE’S LARGEST FACTION (achieving an artificial majority in the state legislature by gerrymandering). See Federalist #10 for the evils of faction in a democratic republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Precedents in US history for districts in the E.C. vote

@Alanscottwalker and Wtmitchell: Yes here, or another sub-section here. But first, the third variation is not “my reform”: BESIDES current party machine winner-take-all that locks in the same party majority for a decade in Congressional delegations and state legislatures, from census to census, THERE CAN ALSO EXIST in the EC system, variations within a state by district, either (1) the single E.C. districts, found practiced in both VA and DE in the 1790s, then proposed nationally in the 1800s with public endorsement by Madison and Hamilton, or (2) existing District Plan in Maine and Nebraska, previously in use by MD, VA, KY, NC, and MI once.

If Alanscottwalker “never said anything is either/or, so there is no false dilemma”, then I misunderstood the following closing sentence: “ So the poles of debate, …is between [horn] (a) the current EC, … federalism, - and [horn] (b) a reformed system … more toward … (popular election).”

BUT I SAID, were an editor to imagine only (a) state-party-boss ‘federalism’, or (b) a reformed system toward ‘popular election’, THEN ONE MIGHT-COULD be blinded to my observation that the THIRD ALTERNATE to party-controlled state “winner-take-all” - CAN – be – found - WITHOUT Constitutional reform in the current Electoral College system – by using EITHER OF TWO alternative constitutionally accepted precedents.

And so you have both been distracted from my post, believing the Electoral College HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS must be editorially questionable, including one state E.C. Elector selection system currently in place, to be relegated to a ‘reform’ sideshow: (a) it’s “your reform – don’t blog about it”, or (b) they “deserves discussion, but not here”. But I will try to be more clear in the future. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Between is not usually hard to understand. Editors certainly seem capable to imagine all kinds of plans. But it's not within your competence as a Wikipedia editor to hold forth on constitutionality and on top of that your posts went on and on without RS, so that looks like blogging. The plan you have gone on about is not the current EC system, and it certainly does not matter that the changes from current you set forth are constitutional changes, statutory changes, regulatory changes, or customary changes, it is reformulation any which way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I see. I say Maine and Nebraska have a 'District Plan', E.C. electors chosen from each Congressional District, plus two at-large. Thus they can break with an Electoral College vote four ways: 4-0, 3-1, 1-3, and 0-4. You say I 'held forth' on their constitutionality without RS, so it looked liked blogging. Sorry, I thought it was common knowledge, see wp:US Electoral College # Selection process, second paragraph, citing The Electoral College - Maine and Nebraska at FairVote.org.

You say, a plan used for 50 years continuously in modern US history is not the current EC system. Rather, their selection process is, in your wp:POV view, a 'reform' apart from the existing US Constitution, a a reformulation. But that is manifestly wp:error, plain and simple. The Constitutionally mandated "mixed system" of selection envisioned and attained at 4:1 ratio with (a) people voting in their communities weighted FOUR to a weight of ONE for majorities in state legislatures. But your apparent wp:POV 'winner-take-all', UNIT-RULE enables the dominant faction in a gerrymandered majority to effect a 1:0 ratio in the selection process. That is not a 'mixed system' of federal principle. State legislature majorities are weighted ONE, to a weight of ZERO for American people each state community: the people in this application of the Constitution, A NULLITY.

At Federalist No. 68, (1) “It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president]”. (2) Electors are to be “Chosen by the people for the special purpose” to choose a president, [not give voice solely to a winner-take-all, state-only majority]. (3) “The [president] should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves," [and not entirely reliant on state majorities in a 1:0 ratio for state majorities over and above, extinguishing the diverse voices of American people living in each state].

That is NOT a federal balance between state legislature and national people: that's a one-sided allocation of power to states over people. Your insistence that the article continue to relegate the two district systems of actual American history to the list of 'proposed reforms' under consideration at one time or another, is a violation of wp:due weight. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You can stop your run-on blogging now, and also saying false things. I have not insisted on anything with respect to the content of this article, except that it should cover the sourced examinations and critiques. As for the two states, I thought it was common knowledge that they are already covered in the article and that 2 states do not make 50 (and I have not even remotely suggested relegating the article's discussion of the two states, moving the discussion of the two states, or taking the two states out of the article.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, accepted. But you did once say that both the district plans of 2016 Maine & Nebraska and those of 1792 Virginia & Delaware, were "not the Electoral College system".

- "Beyond that, what you have described is not the current EC system, so this is probably not the place to blog about or discuss it." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 9:17 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

And, btw, thanks for mentoring me (ah, rather, boxing my metaphorical ears) a decade and more ago when I first got started. I noticed the first critique you had of my post here was, once again, Where is your RS support ? - Yes, sincerely thank you. Good advice for all wp:editors, we owe you a debt for your many contributions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We have never been a one vote republic. Tom Lasswell (talk) 00:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I would argue this segment gets removed completely as it offers no facts about the EC but just opinion. Depending on the state this opinion can change dramatically and typicality does. The references are all from late 2016 when large numbers were upset about the EC. Let's go further back if we really want to discuss opinion and publish facts about how this opinion has changed throughout history. The argument that this is now somehow a bad system that's justified by everything said above in this post. Additionally saying that the populous states basically don't count and aren't counted is biased based on the weighting. Just because CA votes blue every year doesn't mean their votes are any less valuable. Swing states vary election by election and yes are typically the states with the lower populations but that's due to their voice being more abundant because they're smaller states. Saying that all of a sudden 3 states in a 50 state republic have the vote that would make all the other states not have an equal vote in our republic. Tom Lasswell (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

NOR, BURDEN, and V

This edit caught my eye. My eye was immediately drawn to the change which appeared first there, but both that change and the one lower down seem to be make substantive changes in article assertions while still citing sources which were in place supporting the changed-from versions. The changed-to assertions may be supportable, but the mechanics here seem to be flouting WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN.

The source cited there is long and complicated, though, and I don't find easy to pinpoint support in there for either version. The closest snippet I found is

Electoral college supporters defend the system on the grounds that it is a federal election rather than a national plebiscite, and further note the system has delivered “the people’s choice” in 49 of 54 elections since ratification of the Twelfth Amendment, a rate of 90.7%, as noted earlier in this report.

Looking back for changes in what the article asserts re arguments of supporters, I found this. It goes back further than that with different wording, but the assertions at that point are unsupported, so I looked for where support came in. I found that here, but in support of an assertion saying only: "Supporters of the college have made arguments on its behalf. ", without describing the arguments made. The very next edit adds: "These arguments are widely regarded as specious.", citing this page in this highly opinionated source (see the last paragraph in the page linked there).

Has all this produced anything useful? I'm not sure, but it has made me wonder about NOR and V here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

This is very helpful. I want to look into it further later on today. It is well to abandon the assertion in one of the links, that small states have four times the power as the large states. “citizens in less populated and economically unproductive rural states with as many as four times the votes as those as those in more populous and economically productive urban ones.” - BECAUSE, the Electoral College weighs population over states at a ratio of 4:1 (438:100 = 4.31:1.00, deflated to 4:1 by rounding). Small states amount to 5% of the E.C., NOT the previously purported 80% - wp:error: small at 4x the big. Very misleading, I'm happy for Wikipedia reliability that it’s gone.

At my last edit, I added some wp:common knowledge, that the eight smallest states added all together on one side have a relatively small weight in the E.C. compared to either big-state California [55] or Texas [38] alone (or, more precisely, 3 e.c. votes in small states x 8 small states = 24, then 24 e.c. votes in small states / 538 total e.c. votes = 4.46%, inflated to 5% to show their potential cumulative power all voting the same way amidst an election with 24 faithless electors – -- though nothing like that since Virginia 1836 for Vice President, and assuming the pattern of a 3D-5R party split over the last 30 years would abruptly end, they could then weigh as much as 5% all together in the balance.) The placement of the citation may be at issue, because I do not know that any references used that wp:common knowledge yet; but I will also run a search. I would appreciate more guidance from Wtmitchell in this. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much to offer in the way of guidance here. I look at a lot of articles, and all that was mostly an expression of frustration over changes in article content without regard to support which I have seen pretty widely; it just came out here because I happen to have some topical interest here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead section and proportionate voting power

INSERT: Lede, last paragraph includes: "Individual citizens in less populated states have proportionately more voting power than those in more populous states with 5% of the Electoral College." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit caught my eye. Initially, I was wondering whether the phrase re 5% ought to be set off by commas, but then I had the thought that the 5% assertion (which, offhand, seems reasonable) ought to be clarified and/or supported. I looked at the supporting source cited ([6]), and didn't find support there. Looking back, I see that it appeared as an unsupported insertion here.

Also, I'm wondering about support in the source cited for the focus here on proportionate voting power. The closest I see there is Myth #2: Rural areas would get ignored, which isn't at all the same thing.

This appears in the final para of the lead section. Taking a step back from that tree to sneak a peak at the forest, it seems to me that this para, with some reworking, would be better placed in the Contemporary issues#Criticism section than in the article lead. I haven't made an edit following on this, but thought it ought to be mentioned here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Only commenting on the last 'move paragraph' issue: presently it is one paragraph pro, and one, con. Whatever is in the lead, it will still need pro/con but I was fine with it when pro/con was combined in one paragraph. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: reply part one: The 5% assertion (which, offhand, seems reasonable) ought to be clarified and/or supported, was at first without support. Now it is supported here ([7]). I don’t think you would be alone with the seek-and-find nature of an article citation, so I added the quote to the footnote: the added quote at the citation reads, “Rural states do get a slight boost from the two electoral votes awarded to states due to their two Senate seats … And there is no legitimate reason why a rural vote should count more than an urban vote in a 21st-century national election.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I removed the "And there is no legitimate reason why a rural vote should count more than an urban vote in a 21st-century national election" portion of that quote. It seemed more than a little bit POV to me, and it was not necessary to support the content for which the source was cited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

CONCUR with redaction. It may be that we may become clean-up collaborators on this page. The POV sentence, that you pointed out and properly removed, was a direct quote from the Time Magazine wp:essay that is used as a source to justify the N-Popualar-Vote-I-C position without wp:reliable sources.

Many citations on this page are not scholarly RS, but essays, magazines, press releases, advocate websites, and popular-press books ranked 'best-sellers' in airport newsstands. These are selected, RATHER THAN, and OPPOSED TO, professional scholars in monographs by wp:peer review academic presses, and selected in scholarly journals for review. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: reply, second part.

At mention of "proportionate", I'm not sure if that’s a mixup of cites on my Word document draft, but commentator Katy Collin in the Washington Post as previously article-cited at the Intro or elsewhere, "The electoral college badly distorts the vote. And it's going to get worse". “Each state gets a minimum of three electoral votes, regardless of population, which gives low-population states a disproportionate number of electors per capita,” -- better said than my earlier effort.

- Population is not voters. The E.C. allocates votes by population from the House 435+1-DC added to 100 from the Senate+2-DC. Choosing two states to pair from our existing sources in the article Intro, I looked at CA and ND for comparison of their "voter-performance-as-states" in presidential elections. At Election Project’s “2016 November General Election Turnout Rates”, North Dakota 2016 voted 61.7% of eligible population, while California voted somewhat less at 58.2%. Their populations are comparable for "voter incidence in eligible population".

• Somehow even apparent California advantages in the Electoral College are lost from what could otherwise be a well-rounded discussion of the matter within the article scope.

- The CA-55-Electoral vote was cast regardless of any 'Act of God' interfering. In California, it is possible for spreading forest fires to effectively disenfranchise voters by displacing substantial populations on election day, as in November 2018, “150,000 wildfire refugees”. For relative scale in the 2016 elections, that number was half that of North Dakota's total vote at 349,945. (Earlier defenses of the E.C. sometimes included noted unchanging state-weight during New England snow storms.)

• ISSUE: Should voters in states with large immigrant populations be allowed to continue "virtually representing" the interests of their geographic neighbors in the Electoral College?

- The Voting Eligible Population (VEP) was the big difference between ND & CA. North Dakota voting totals excluded only 2% as alien residents over 18, while California-VEP excluded 16.4% of its total population. Without taking the time to redistribute VEP across the entire E.C. apportionment, it is likely that California gains AT LEAST nine (9) electoral votes over "voter-eligible-population". The California Electoral bonus from its “non-eligible” population, amounts to more than 21 state total Electoral vote, only eight of which are “small” as North Dakota. Observation: The nine (9) California ineligible-alien "Electoral bonus" is larger than the two (2) North Dakota "each state plus-two" "Electoral bonus".

Not to be overtly "politically correct", but I would like to see more Spanish-surnamed authorities in the "popular vote" side of the Bibliography, as the article narrative touches on (a) CA (Mexicans, Central Americans), (b) TX (Mexicans, Central Americans), (c) FL (Cubans, Central Americans, Haitians), and NYC-SMA: (d) NY (Puerto Ricans) and (e) NJ (Puerto Ricans). Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Chronological table/Psephos(Adam Carr)

Psephos/Adam Carr is not a reliable source. His electoral college maps are riddled with errors. 68.101.113.185 (talk) 05:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What errors have you observed in the table? Drdpw (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The suitability of the Electoral College system is a matter of ongoing debate

This always has been. But all references are bias liberal references. This section should be removed as it doesn't provide any real context to the EC and is opinion. Tom Lasswell (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The article contains reasons for abolishing the EC, as well as reasons for keeping it. SMP0328. (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

What are the little numbers in circles on the colored map?

The file File:Electoral map 2012-2020.svg for the colored map of the number of electoral votes for each state contains little numbers in circles: ⓵, ⓶, and ⓷ for Nebraska, and ⓵ and ⓶ for Maine.

But I haven't found any explanation for these numbers.

Did I just miss the explanation? If so, then it is far too difficult to find.

If they're important, an explanation of what they mean should be included.

And if not, the numbers really should be removed: That is, a new map without these numbers should be substituted for the one with numbers in circles.47.44.96.195 (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)