Why do I get the feeling that people support the EC college mostly out of tradition?

Imagine if we lived in a country where popular vote decided the presidency and it has always been that way. Now imagine if someone proposed an EC system. What kind of support would it get? Maybe five or ten percent of the people would support it?

Yeah I know this is just gut feeling but I thought I'd just throw it out there.

Of course you are. That's why you're a conservative. It's definition.

It all eventually equals 1 to 1, so Missouri is getting way more than what they pay in, and that has nothing to do with bureaucracy.

This I respect, though I also disagree. At least you acknowledge that the EC over represents small states rather than arguing that it's the only way for rural areas to get equal representation.

So the money is paid to the IRS, accounted for by the IRS, some project is determined in DC, the money is allocated back to Missouri by politicians and that costs $0.00? Didn't realize the federal government was that efficient! I may have to rethink my smaller government stance.

As I said initially I am not in favor of Missouri seceding and actually appreciate some of the services provided for and products provided for by the federal government. I just said Rainmaker should have picked a better state than Missouri for the "You really think you can live without their money?" big government argument.

It's not that there's no inefficiency, it's that the inefficiency is spread equally to all fifty states, thereby removing it as a factor when determining input and output.

Unless you want to argue that the federal government is so efficient in allocating money to CA that it actually reduces the costs of projects.

Illinois only gets back $0.88 for every $1 paid in.

Man, I'm gonna have to stew on this math logic for a long time.

Government spent $1.20 for every $1 received. So if your state is over that $1.20 figure, it's leeching off other states.

tarcone might be fine with getting rid of California and New York, but his state is going to need to find somewhere else to leech money from.

So you guys think federal government should have the same spending/income ratio with every state?

Dola, I just don't get the point when those ratios are brought up. If we're not arguing that they should be changed, is the point just to mock poor people and let them know their political opinion isn't as valid? It's just an odd take coming from liberals.

And it overly simplifies something that's really complex. Take a negative ratio radio state like South Dakota. Why are they such "leeches" as measured by these ratios?

As for what they put in, I'm sure they put in much less tax money than other states because there's fewer people, because they have a much smaller average household income, and because there's generally less business activity.

And why do they get more money? They have more poor people so they're getting more poor-people individual benefits, and maybe education funding. Maybe they have more national parks and military bases and veterans per capita, as most western states probably do? What other kinds of things are they getting? If there's federal spending that's split proportionally among the states, obviously that will hurt a state like South Dakota more in these ratios because they're not generating as much income tax revenue as New York. But I'm making assumptions, I can't find a lot of methodology on the liberal blogs that are yelling at them for being poor.

And obviously there's individual South Dakotans with middle class and higher jobs who are paying a higher proportion of income taxes in the state than other residents, and New England and California also have plenty of individual "leeches" who don't pay much in taxes but get benefits.

I don't think that's the point at all. It's the whole, go ahead and #CalExit, because we have different values or we don't need you or whatever. The truth is the states need one another. For lots of reasons--not just sharing tax revenue. It's not 1790 anymore.

Yeah. It was specifically related to the contention that CA can leave and MO would be fine.

Now, politically I think a back bencher Dem should push for a bill requiring an equal input/output for each state. It's a terrible idea and would never pass, but it would be useful to put a bunch of GOPers on the spot, particularly if it was joined with a tax cut of all the "savings".

I'm sure California is one of the states that generates tons of federal tax income, so those ratio comparisons would seem to be an argument that they should secede.

But I see the ratio thing argued all time, including here lots over the years. I think just to mock poor people in red states. (And googling to find the info, and to try to find the methodology, that's clearly the primary reason these ratios are tabulated in the first place, people here are usually just more polite and subtle)

No. When I've used it it's to point out the hypocrisy of the red staters that complain about blue states leeching off the government. The big blue states pay for a lot of what is consumed all across the nation.

Because there's more wealthy people in those states. That's how taxing works.

Yes, but red state folks like tarcone don't seem to get that. Telling big blue states to leave would make life demonstrably worse for states like MO. That's all that's being said.

No. Just that if some of the states that don't meet his "values" leave, his state would have to start pulling it's own weight.

It depends on what their values are. I'm sure plenty of conservatives in Missouri would be fine with taking several steps back economically to take several steps forward with other things they care about more. And fiscal conservatives would probably argue that their economy and government wouldn't look exactly the same as an independent country as they do now as a state, when they're not burdened by federal regulations.

But more than that, I just it's just odd to brag about how the rich do more for the country. I mean, they do, at least financially, but that's true of individual rich people too, and you'd never use this same rhetoric to favorably compare them to poor people. In fact, more often, the rhetoric in the far left is how rich individuals are actually what's wrong with the country.

Nobody is seriously proposing this happen!

But just for the record I would oppose a plan to remove all the rich people from the country.

It's not bragging about anything, it's being realistic about the country. I'd say the same about Texas or New York. They're incredibly important both economically and strategically. The loss of any of those major states would be a huge hit to the prosperity and security of the country.

I just don't understand how people can be so flippant about removing states like that. Especially at the huge loss it would have to so many all because they can't seem to handle two total strangers being allowed to get a marriage certificate at the local courthouse.

I knew we had had this very same discussion several times - he's one example that had nothing to do with secession.

The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 - Page 400 - Front Office Football Central

You even pitched that same legislation requiring equal input/output for each state. Edit: But I don't get how that would be the "gotcha" you think it would. I don't think a politician from South Dakota would have trouble admitting that yes, their state generates less income tax revenue for the federal government than New York does. I think we all realize that. That doesn't invalidate their opinion about how the federal government should spend money, and on what. And if that South Dakotan is as conservative as some politicians near me are, they would be perfectly happy to take in less federal spending in exchange for less federal control.

The "welfare state" thing is a liberal go-to, and it's just so odd to me. Yes, rich people contribute more tax income than poor people.

In the discussion I just linked to, you were bragging that Illinois was the reason Idaho was doing OK state-budget wise at the time. And that ratio was also the reason Illinois was struggling. It had nothing to do with policy decisions made at either state level, it had nothing to do with different political philosophies about how much states should spend v. take in, it had nothing to do with the ethics of people in government, it was all about this ratio of federal spending, and the rural poor state owed everything to the rich states. You have been big on this welfare state ratio thing for a long time.

Edit: My point here is that the welfare state thing is not only about secession. This is a tool that's pulled out in all kinds of contexts when a person in a poor conservative state expresses an opinion that isn't popular, or that somehow annoys a liberal in a more wealthy state.

Im sure a state would survive if they seceded. Missouri and Oklahoma are the size of Germany in square miles. MO has a GDP similar to Finland. And a population equal to Paraguay.

I dont see how Missouri wouldnt survive.

And we have the Busch family and ties to Wal-Mart family money. Plenty of really rich people in MO

I think federal spending should be more balanced. That really has nothing to do with what I was saying to tarcone though. His state would be hurt (well all states would be hurt) by a state like California leaving this country. Unless you have a real good reason for wanting them to leave, I think it's an irresponsible statement.

I think ultimately the EC will eventually be abolished. Probably the US Senate will go with it, as Harlan's argument in Reynolds v. Sims has no reasonable rebuttal: some Senators represent a lot more people than others.

I think these kinds of checks and balances in the system were, and are, a good thing. Competing interests mitigate the inherent instability and dangerously reactionary nature of a purely 'will of the majority' kind of system. We've already gotten rid of some of those things, and I think the rest will follow.

The point was made about the EC merely being tradition. For some it is. For others like myself, a pure democracy is not necessarily a good thing. The people always need to have recourse naturally, but having them as the only voice is hazardous.

No, it pretty much was a race issue. The South had an entire class of people who were ineligible for citizenship, let alone voting, but they wanted their human property to buttress their electoral power.

A straight popular vote doesn't accomplish that, since slaves couldn't vote.

Compromising on how population was to be counted, and then weighting the vote in each state based on that population, on the other hand, gave the South more electoral influence than it would have had otherwise; five of the first ten Presidents were from Virginia, and 7 of the first 11 were from either Virginia or Tennessee.

The desire to protect slavery was a hugely significant issue when the Constitution was drafted. You'll notice that there was a cooldown on the ability of Congress to ban the slave trade - they weren't allowed to touch the importation of slaves for 20 years after the Constitution was drafted, and it remained a major driving force in American politics for almost a century afterward.

Even the question of admitting states to the Union was, ultimately, about slavery - because Southern states didn't want to see a shift in the balance of power which might enable Northern states to end the practice.

Did population matter? Certainly! Why did it matter? Slaves and slavery. The Three Fifths Compromise and the Electoral College weren't intended to protect vague "interests" of small states. They were designed to protect one very specific interest of about a dozen agrarian states.

I think it's more important now than ever before. We're becoming a society of mob rule, where any view that doesn't immediately acquiesce with the majority is branded as some kind of evil, and the EC helps to protect against that.

The EC conversation has been talked about for years, it's not just about this election or us democrats whining. I am a democrat and voted for Clinton. But even still, I fully accept the results of the election. However, even if it went the other way I would still feel the same about the EC. Hell, Newt and Trump were both on the record against the EC until now. So were they whining then too ?

The Gore/Bush race started the dialog and with that race the closeness of the EC vote to me made it more palatable for Gore to lose. However, this race wasn't even close from a EC perspective. You have to question its use. Just because it has worked for 200 years doesn't mean it's the best system for now. Over times, things do change and we should evolve with them.

Which runs right back to the question of "what are we"?

A union of states reply means that the numbers represented by Senators does not matter, and would seem to be indicative of the framers intent.

Any other answer & the very basis for the Union no longer exists.

Exactly. It's all the "government is horrible, get out of my pockets, tear it down!" yelling from these states. You're benefiting here - so stop complaining!

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING,is worth what those blue states have inflicted upon a once-great nation.

I know. Las Vegas in particular. I know you hate that place. :)

1861-1865 wasn't meant to last forever!

Thank goodness the Republicans ended that war. The Democrats sure mucked it up.
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

People in red states are allowed to have opinions about how their government operates. And a lot of them pay plenty of taxes. And a lot of the "benefits" that those states get, beyond individual federal government benefits for poor people - are things like major interstate highways, nuclear waste storage, national parks and other land management - things we all ultimately benefit from. Hell, 60+% of my state is federally-owned and managed land, and that's not unusual in the western "leech" states.

But it's the "things we all ultimately benefit from" that is often missed. That's what government's for, but if it doesn't obviously personally benefit some people (or sometimes even when it does) they don't want to pay for it.

And I'm sure some of that stuff their elected officials lobbied for.

/waves to ghost of Senator Byrd

The more conservative people in my state want to convert a lot of those things that we all ultimately benefit from and replace them with things that will benefit the state. They want the feds to turn over a lot of that land to the state and counties so they can sell the timber and mining rights, and for other economic development. If that happened, the feds would manage less land, and would spend less money managing that land. And more individuals in the state would have jobs, receive fewer government benefits, and pay more in taxes. That would all make this state look a little better in those income/outcome lists. I sure as hell don't want that to happen though, conservation is more important to me than the state and local economies. And I imagine most liberals outside Idaho would also prefer that the fed keep that land in the west, and manage it responsibility. That means we all have a pro-leech opinion on that. And yet it's also something that's thrown at us if we have an opinion about how government should run, (or for more general poor-shaming purposes.) And proximity to those federal lands is really the main "extra benefit" I personally get from being in a leech state, if you're comparing me to someone with a similar salary in wealthy blue state. I love that about living there, but it really doesn't benefit me economically, and it might even hurt me a little.

Point is, most of those "government is horrible, get out of my pockets, tear it down!" people would be very happy if feds spend less money in their states, if it meant less federal control (the more conservative politicians are often opposed to accepting federal money for various reasons). It would suck for the environment, it would suck for a lot of poor people, but at least there would be lots of liberal smug.

I won't question any of that (and I don't want to see that land sold either), but Idaho (or the Dakotas) typically isn't the state I think of where this phenomenon is concerned. There just isn't the population base. I think of MS, AL, LA, etc. I know it's probably been linked here a million times, but: Which States Are Givers and Which Are Takers? - The Atlantic

Abolishing the EC doesn't make us a pure democracy in the same way that state governments aren't pure democracies. There are still checks and balances. And I'm fine with keeping the Senate as is.

The articles on policy were written. Readers on the left weren't engaging with them. - Quartz

I wonder if this is anything more than evidence that Hillary wasn't even drumming up interest in policy from voters on the left.

Of course. One thing at a time.

ILLEGITIMATE!