Electoral College

My opinions here have nothing to do with the recent presidential election, as I've felt this way for a while now. Also I'm going to talk about the general election not the primaries. I know that most of my followers are probably democrats, but I want to try to keep this as neutral as possible. The TL;DR is that the electoral college still has some use but a popular vote is better, however probably not by enough to be changed.


For those saying that we need to use a popular vote because it is the most fair; it's not. Every system will favor a particular group. There isn't really a completely "fair" system as you can easily argue an alternate system would have benefited someone. Such as a popular vote can squash a minority's voice. What makes something "fair" is partly based on what is agreed to. So a system is only really fair if everyone feels that there is a balance. It's why a judicial system is supposed to be "blind" and a jury are made of your "peers". If this perception of fairness is not being upheld by the general population, then many will view the system as unfair and even corrupt. That being said, I can't really tell if people are upset of the system or just the election result.

There is an aspect of fairness can be discussed tho. Imagine we think of the election of a 300 million player game. Yes, this is game theory now. Each person can make a single vote, and based on the 300 million dimension outcome, there is a single "payout". We can model most human decision based on game theory like this. The problem is that game theory makes two fundamental assumptions on the players. One, that everyone knows the rules; and two, that everyone is rational. Obviously, humans are often not rational at all, but that is often just because the game maker did not properly set the payouts. Such as the emotional reward etc. That aside, most people are pretty rational (believe it or not), it is just that they may not have the same set of desires and circumstance that we expect. The other assumption is the important one tho: They know the rules. The biggest problem of the electoral college is not "Is it representative?", but "Do people understand it?". And very often, they do not.


So let's move away from the aspect of fairness for now. A big advantage (or disadvantage) of the electoral college is that it gives small states more power in the federal government. There's that if states had votes based on their population (such as a popular vote), than smaller states' voice would not be heard. I think part of the issue is that there's a bit of a disconnect between when America was founded and today. In its infancy, the United States was just that, a union of states. There was (and still is) a strong then that while there is a union, it is still a collection of individual states or ruling bodies. (In the confederacy before the constitution, states had a lot more power and individuality, and this obviously can back during the Civil War.) It's similar to how the UN or the EU has representatives (not necessarily equal votes) of each nation and not a total popular vote.

So in that sense, that is a main reason the electoral college was established. But the question is, should that still apply today? These days, many citizens of the US consider themselves an American first before their State. Does this mean that the entire principle of the states is breaking down? Maybe a little. I would say that this is probably in part happening, especially with increased trade, communication, and war in the last century. But no, the states are definitely an important element, even if some people question it. People in different regions feel differently about how specific smaller local issues should be handled. States are way to break up the government so that these more local issues can be handled.

There is a fear that with smaller states won't have a proper voice. But something that should be mentioned is that the people in these states still have a voice for most issues in their state government. People often give more credit to the federal government than it really has. The federal government is supposed to essentially take care of Domestic and Foreign security and interactions. Meaning that in terms of states, it handles how the different states should interact. Pretty much everything else is to be handled by the state governments. If you are curious what the exact list of what the fed can do, it's in the constitution. Obviously, the constitution is very vague about many things, which is the purpose of the Supreme Court. Can congress pass various laws enforcing social issues in states? It really depends on the particular topic and what the supreme court says. This tug-o-war between state and federal government is older than the nation itself. But the entire constitution is built upon this battle and is maintained by the balance of powers. That being said, the federal government has a lot more power than is defined in the constitution, and whether it's for better or worse is an endless debate.

Which gets to a key point. Changing the electoral college would require an amendment to the constitution. In the US, it is particularly hard to add amendments (requiring 2/3 vote in the Senate). It is something that wouldn't happen unless a strong majority of the country feel that the system needs changing. And if people are only making this outcry on account of the election result, then obviously there would never be enough of a support in congress for the amendment since only half the country voted for. So if you really feel that the current system is an issue, you have to think about this problem more fundamentally and not whether your particular voice was louder.

I also want to mention a could other potential election systems that I've come across. One is that everyone gets multiple votes (the same number). This way people can vote for multiple candidates, or one candidate strongly. The problem is that in the outcome, your have a some number of votes for the winner and some against and your actual vote is just the difference. So if you split your vote then you didn't vote at all. In terms of game theory, the "best" vote will always be all for one person. This kind of system only makes the process more complicated and possibly hurts the voice of voters who do not understand it.

Another alternative is to do a popular vote but each person's vote has a bias based on the number of delegates their state would have. Essentially it is a hybrid of the popular vote and the electoral college. Everyone will have a proper voice even in a "red" or "blue" state but still give the small states their edge. The major downside of this is the extra complexity and that many will feel that it is not "fair" that some people have more of a vote. But once again fairness is perception. In the current system, people in the swing states have the most important votes.

So my opinion? As someone who lives in a extremely blue state, I have felt that my vote has absolutely no impact at all. Because of this and the additional simplicity of the system, I feel that a popular vote overall would be a better system than the electoral college. However I don't think it is better by a large margin. And because of this, I don't think it is likely to change soon but I do support the idea. The weighted popular vote may be a compromise that people might consider, but I doubt it.