Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Introduction paragraph #3: Proponent paragraph

At the copy edit here, the Edit summary is, “Introduction - E.C. proponent paragraph, please enter Talk discussion before editing.” There are three elements addressed in the edit. (1) a run-on sentence for half of the length of the paragraph;

(2) Intro text representing ‘Advocates’ to more nearly equal text representing ‘Opponents’ as a matter of wp:due weight and wp:balance, and placing the arguments in order of importance as expressed by advocates, rather than by another sequencing.

(3) added explanatory Notes for reverting editor(s) with their respective direct quote, external link and reliable source previously accepted on this page.

- Item #1: Great variance from one-man-one-vote is found within large states awarding presidential votes by winner-take-all. These disenfranchise as many as 40% of the voters in Illinois and California.

- Item #2: All residents including voters, the unregistered, non-citizens and transients are counted for Electoral College apportionment.

---

---

Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Responses

It's not just the largest state's who do winner-take-all. And unless the claim is that all plurality voting systems violate one-person-one-vote, it is hard to make sense of a claim that when voting for an office (here the office of elector or group of electors) all the people who voted for the non-winning elector(s) somehow were did not get a vote (they just lost an election, where they did get a vote). I'm not sure what the population point is, the college demands a population apportionment (always uneven as at least 153 electors are not based on population, and rounding will always make the rest somewhat uneven), so that is baked into the electoral college system, if you did not have any apportionment at all, every qualified voter would count the same. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The points above do not accurately represent the “advocates” of the Electoral College, so they cannot be used to censor or suppress the stated positions of the “advocates” enumerated in the “advocates paragraph”, as cited in wp:reliable sources, even where a contributing editor holds POV opinions at variance with the sourced subject of the narrative topic.

The presidential election is for an election to national office. A state legislature with winner-take-all-electors violates one-man-one vote. They are disenfranchised by the party majority in the state legislature, not in the Electoral College per se, as explained in the Note with a direct quote from the author, and further explicated at the article found online at the external link.

The largest states are singled out in the RS because they suppress the largest numbers of voters. An editor imagining another argument for mid-sized states does not justify suppressing the RS view for two enumerated large states. The six million minority in 2016 California amount to the total vote of both parties in the smallest twelve states. The 2016 Maine total numbers (4) cannot cancel out the 55 California electors from its winner-take-all. It’s hard to argue that it does.

The population point. Without apportionment by population, all non-voters will be stripped of any weight in the presidential selection: those who are (1) unregistered, (2) not citizens, (3) under 18, and (4) transients. In California, that differential pads the apportioned number by 16% of its 55 total electoral vote. That's equal to about the nine electoral votes found in Alaska, Wyoming, and North Dakota, the apportioned weight allows California voters to “virtually represent” their immigrant populations.

Every “qualified” voter is not the same nationally until voter registration, polling, and vote count is “the same”, nationally. Unpack just the polling process on election day. (1) States are not required to uniformly administer elections to national standards. Worse, locality variations potentially effect election-day outcomes, such as the ballot audit option in Virginia. (2) The number of voting machines with audit trail and comparable security are not standard, nor is maintenance and replacement. (3) They are not proportionately distributed by per-capita or square-mile to a national maximum standard for federal elections. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No, You are misrepresenting your single source in violation of V/NPOV and NOR policy. You also misrepresented me (you did not even respond to the plurality voting point or the non-population tied allocation point which should have clued you in to your misrepresentation, although your post went on and on). The source you point to does not and cannot say that people with a vote are disenfranchised, that claim you invented is an oxymoron and it misrepresents the source's author. (Also, no need for run-on long posts and your underlining/shouting/with bolding etc. Also, I'll leave you with your virtual representation fiction, as nothing you said makes that fiction different for California as a whole with allocation, or the nation as a whole without allocation.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Let’s unpack the misleading post.

(1) posted: “your single source”. No, not ‘my’ source, it is one found in the pre-existing Introduction accepted by editor consensus here before I arrived. The author is a scholar at an accredited university, and he has been sourced in this article to citations in the "left center" Washingon Post, and "moderate right center" National Affairs, both with "high" rating for factual reporting by Media Bias Fact Check. The article footnotes by this RS are not in violation of npov, and sourcing them is not editor pov.

(2) posted: “misrepresenting source”. No, direct verifiable quotes in links to live external websites will show no “misrepresenting” by every editor of wp:good faith. None can be found to quote from my post or from my Introduction contribution, so there is none posted here. --- (3) posted: “you also misrepresented me”. No, no quote misrepresenting any one here has been made by me, so there is no quote from my post offered to show a misrepresentation here. --- (4) posted: “no response to the plurality voting point”. No, underlined for editor convenience is the response in the paragraph titled, “The presidential election is for an election to national office.” There is no rebuttal here asserting that the presidency is not a national office. Hard to argue that, so it is not.

(5) posted: “the source cannot say people with a vote are disqualified”. No, the source does say, "A far more likely candidate for judicial scrutiny under the 'one man, one vote' rule would be the states themselves." The Supreme Court at “one man, one vote” ruled that outcomes must "represent people, not trees or acres”, in districts of all residents in nearly equal numbers. Even the half-way concurring justices at Reynolds admitted that place-schemes were “egregiously undemocratic and clearly violative of equal protection” (see also, Virginia's 1933-1935 at-large district for nine Representatives).

(6) posted: “Also, ..... Where is a summary quote? My wp:good faith rephrasing is, "California residents, now with 55 allocated votes in the electoral college, will have the same 10% weight in choosing a president with direct popular election." But the smallest thirty states (a) have higher population percents registered, fewer non-citizen residents, fewer children, and fewer migrant workers than allocated California. And (b) California wild fires in September-October 2019 displaced more voters than Wyoming in 2016; several times more were displaced in September-October 2020.

(7) Nothing to answer my post but wp:ad hominem attack: (a) no reason to remove RS statements from an advocate arguing advantages for the Electoral College; (b) nothing to admit violation of one-man-one-vote is made by state legislation, not inherently in the Electoral College; (c) nothing to justify winner-take-all in California until direct election; (d) nothing to explain how all votes cast for president “would count the same” without prior federal elections standards in place for registration, voting at the polls, vote counting, and recounts. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Intro para#3: 'revert' edit - 'reword' edit

Following the discussion exchanged in this Talk section, the Introduction (Top) edit here removes an element of the #3 ‘Advocates’ paragraph to redact the disenfranchising effects of bad state election law. Winner-take-all in presidential electoral law disenfranchises the voter in the outvoted minority numbering 6 millions in California and 3 million in Illinois alone.

- To frame the various ways that "disenfranchise" is used in connected with "wasted" minority votes in a geographic place (polity) for sustained periods of time, we see the contemporary usage found in scholarly political science think tanks, community-interest webpages, and professional psychologists who study voter behavior: (1) the Center for American Progress “Democracy and Government” on the The Impact of Partisan Gerrymandering, “The inescapable conclusion is that gerrymandering is effectively disenfranchising millions of Americans.”;

- (2) The Grassroots North Shore, “the Progressive voice of Milwaukee’s North Shore communities”, “Democracy in America, part 1”, explains that gerrymandering “operates so as to disenfranchise voters, [who cast irrelevant ballots to no effect, a decade at a time]; (3) the APA “Judicial Notebook” refers to state legislation with a “disenfranchising effect” that “extends to all voters”. Voters for the losing party can believe “they are being punished for how they vote.”

- Nevertheless, it is clear that editors can fear the general reader cannot understand the legal and political science uses of the word. To try to answer that concern, at the edit [1], the paragraph now includes a sentence giving an example of the harm done in a democracy by the state-made winner-take-all electoral law to choose a president:

"In California and Illinois 40% of the voters can have no say in the presidential election, together as many as nine million citizens in those two states alone." I hope this can be found to be a better terminology for the general reader and for those unacquainted with redistricting court cases and the field of political science generally. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Undue and misleading: the sources make clear that system of winner take all is not unique to California, nor Illinois; and the logic of the argument is that 49.99% can lose in a plurality award, not 40%, in every plurality jurisdiction. (The issue of gerrymandering in United States political science deals with drawing districts, the states do not draw districts in whole state voting, so a claim of alleged disenfranchisement (which at any rate is not used in the source, so is not supported) arising from gerrymandering makes no sense in a whole state context, assuming your argument is not that the defining of a whole state by the United States Congress when the state was admitted is itself gerrymandering). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That edit was reverted here. Please discuss further here before re-adding it again. Note: I'm not the reverting editor. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the vandalism that presumed to justify the unsourced censorship of the RS article example using California and Illinois by characterizing it as "undue and misleading: the sources make clear that system of winner take all is not unique to California, nor Illinois; and the logic of the argument is that 49.99% can lose in a plurality award, not 40% in every plurality jurisdiction" The citation was not to unnamed "sources" opposed to the Electoral College, it was to one source supporting the Electoral College.

A reliable source disagreeing with an editor POV is not "undue and misleading". The RS used the examples of California an Illinois to advocate for the Electoral College. Opponents use examples of Wyoming and North Dakota. The revert is vandalism because it stifles the expression of a responsible observation by the RS who is published in both

Both Madison and Hamilton at the time they were political enemies reported the intent of the Convention was single districts, both supported that state system after 1800 for Virginia and New York respectively. The logic of equitable districting allows voting results in a state to reflect the diverse political communities among its residents, geographically, socially, and politically. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

No vandalism, and it remains undue, misleading, and without consensus. The source being discussed is one of the sources that supports the facts that states have full plenary power to appoint their electors however they see fit even using popular elections, and that all in some form use a statewide popular vote. The note with the quotes is already there, and the heavy but poor attempt to again talk about it in the text of the lead renders it undue and misleading for the reasons already stated, above. Also, nowhere in the lead is Wyoming, nor North Dakota mentioned. And the source does not even discuss any EC district method. Nor does the source discuss Madison nor Hamilton on the district method. The POV is yours causing you to mangle the source. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

((edit conflict) and outdenting this to my original indent level) I asked for discussion here to head off development into an edit war, not because I wanted to weigh in. Without getting down in the weeds of the discussion, I'll comment that I find the article to be hard to follow here. the assertion, "Great variance ..." is followed not by a supporting cite but by a link to a footnote. The footnote says, re Illinois, "Clinton won that state’s popular vote 3.1 million to 2.1 million. That 40.4% ...", citing a source. The source doesn't mention 40.4%, but 3.1+2.1 is 5.2, and 2.1 is 40.4% of 5.2, and that is Trump's share (not Clinton's) if I understand the source here. It seems to me that the footnote should say, "Clinton's 59.6% share here" instead of "That 40.4%".

Getting a bit into the weeds without thinking much about their taxonomy, it seems to me that WP:DUE might come into play here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It is much to much in the weeds for the lead (undue, and not actually representing the source, since in the source its not an affirmative argument, its a rebuttal argument in the source); if the point is some scholar affirmatively supports a district method, have a scholarly source that says exactly that -- this one does not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a new day and, seeing no refutation here re my identification above of an apparent error re the 40.2% figure, I've changed the footnote to use the 59.6% figure instead. No further comment re the rest just now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell:, regrets, my personal life intervened for ten hours committed to family and sleep. I like your edit, and publicly thanked you there. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Thanks & Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

About the Guelzo source article

@Alanscottwalker: The article is titled, "In defense of the Electoral College". It is written in a scholarly style, without editor sarcasm: you apparently have misunderstood it as parody. --- Therefore your mis-characterization of the RS as "not an affirmative argument [for the Electoral College]" is POV applied here by your reverting a scholarly statement with which you happen to disagree over as a personal matter. That arbitrary and unsourced suppression of the pro-Electoral College side of the argument is what I object to, and it rises to an issue of behavior, not of sources.

In national collegiate debate competition, it is common for the "Affirmative" side to assume an "Alternate" case to answer the most vulnerable elements of the status quo that would otherwise leave the "Affirmative" open to attack. Guelzo signals his line of thought along those same lines, with the introduction, "it is worthwhile to deal directly with three popular arguments against the Electoral College."

Rather than defend discrepancies between the Electoral College vote and the aggregated multi-state popular votes, Guelzo builds an "Alternate" case pointing to the state election laws for winner-take-all. They waste the presidential choice of as much as 40% of their voters. The culprit violating "one man one vote" in presidential elections are especially the big states, such as California and Illinois, which Guelzo calls out by name. (Recall that the nine million voters disenfranchised in California and Illinois amount to the total votes in the smallest 18 Electoral votes cast, 17 states and the District of Columbia.)

Guelzo establishes that the "one-man-one-vote" problem belongs to the states, not the Electoral College. It is not for Wikipedia editors to censor the RS because he only defended the Electoral College by deprecating big-state winner-take-all electoral law. Guelzo, National Affairs editors, nor AEI publishers need not first meet the POV test from ANTI-Electoral College wiki-editors that first want to see a proposal and defense of some district plan before a defense of the Electoral College is admitted to a Wikipedia article.

It is of some current interest that were the Maine District plan adopted, the 2020 Electoral College vote for the largest states would be That amounts to MDP Trump-88 to Biden-140, and the Electoral College votes would more closely mirror both the popular vote in each state for "mandate" and the new House of Representatives for "governance". in the Sunbelt = Florida Trump-18, Biden-11; Texas T-25, B-13; California T-11, B-44; at the blue wall Pennsylvania T-9, B-11; Michigan T-7, B-9; Wisconsin T-5, B-5; Minnesota T-5, B-5; in biggest Northern states New York T-3, B-18; Illinois T-5, B-15. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

So are you writing bad parody now, or have you just not read what the source has written, nor what I have written. No where does the source even mention the district plan, so your entire personal Wikipedia editor POV-pushing is plain. Also evident in your continued false claims, no edit of mine has censored anything written by Guelzo. Your writings on the other hand, misrepresent the source and try to badly jam in your personal POV repeatedly. That Guelzo is writing in rebuttal on this section of his article is also plain. Guelzo's approach to one-person-one vote is summed up in his rebuttal final sentence, "Those who complain that the Electoral College subverts the "one man, one vote" principle should also object to the way the system operates within the states." The system he is talking about is the Electoral College system which is constitutionally designed to give state's the authority, but it's not him that thinks "one-person-one-vote" is relevant because it's not in the Constitution, it is "those" others that think it relevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

((ec)) Comment: I read in the ONE MAN, ONE VOTE? section of the source: "it is worth remembering that the phrase 'one man, one vote' occurs nowhere in the Constitution." and "Those who complain that the Electoral College subverts the 'one man, one vote' principle should also object to the way the system operates within the states." Summarizing many votes in a one-vote representation ignores those in the many who voted contrarily to the summary representation, regardless of how it is done. The source mentions that summarization by county is more fair to individuals than summarization by state; summarization by district would generally fall somewhere in between, and no summarization would be entirely faithful to a representation on the granularity of individual voters. In the end, there is a summarization on a national level into a single choice.

The EC is a compromise between (a) individual equality and (b) union of states, and not a particularly good compromise once party politics are added in and the intended role of electors subverted by pledges to party-level slates of candidates -- summarization by political party is no more fair than summarization by states, district, or county. The EC is not a good compromise, especially viewed from a POV of party politics which does not consider either (a) or (b), but it is the compromise we have and a constitutional amendment would be needed to change that (add "arguably" in there in light of the proposed NPVIC). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Guelzo does not discuss a district system at any level. Guelzo's argument is that in maintaining the constitutional system that gives authorities to states, admission of whole new states would address what he sees as his proposal for "those" others' about "one person one vote" (which he does not see as relevant anyway, because it's not in the constitution). And admission of new states does not require amending the constitution. Of course, you are right that on any level with at an least three person electorate and there is a choice to make among them, one person is potentially to be out-voted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, we are agreed Guelzo says of the Electoral College apportionment among states, ”This may not be quite equal or, some would argue, quite just.” But the issue of “quite equal” as one-man-one-vote “occurs nowhere in the Constitution”. That argument admits presidential selection without “one man, one vote”, whether by state winner-take-all, or by a state Congressional-district-plan.

Therefore, goes the Guelzo argument, “A far more likely candidate for judicial scrutiny under the ‘one man, one vote’ rule would be the states themselves [using a winner-take-all system]”. Two winner-take-all systems Guelzo points to by name are California, and “the disparity in Illinois was even more dramatic”. Guelzo, the defender of the Electoral College concludes, Those who complain that the Electoral College subverts the "one man, one vote" principle should also object to the way the system operates within the states. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Aside: I agree with your logic and its conclusion, to the extent that the “granularity of individual voters” is an ideal in terms of one-man-one-vote. Philosophical reservations to direct popular vote, and the anticipated administrative difficulties would all be swept away were there uniform federal election laws for the qualification and administration of registration, polling, recounting and certification consistently applied to all US states and territories for US citizens. That would be especially true, were the criteria effectively enforced nationwide in the Congressional election prior to its implementation for electing a president.

- But lacking that, it is also true that the doctrine of “one-man-one-vote” as it was handed down by the Supreme Court is applied to political communities for nearly equal populations. Equitable political communities to select US Representatives have previously been described across several Congresses (but only for a few sessions at a time, and never enforced), including equal population (1911), contiguity (1842), and compactness (1872). Modern reformers would also respect existing locality boundaries, shaving off only a few adjacent precincts on one side of the line or another to meet population requirements. And then, these communities might best serve to select a president, sooner than later. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I've started to ramble re the EC, and that is out of place here. I'm going to try to do less of that. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Guelzo asks, “Is the best solution to such inequity, then, to break up the Electoral College?”. Or would it be easier, to break up California into two states?” Dividing California north and south would add to Republican Senators and Representatives to current totals from a newly created North California, “which is why it is unlikely that this particular inequity will be corrected any time soon.”

- The author essentially admits the inequity from state-made election law persists within the Constitution’s Electoral College. Observing the impulse for the minority northern California population to form its own state for the last 80 years, such a petition from the California legislature to Congress might ease the problem in California among those living north of the San Francisco-San Mateo SMA sooner than abolishing the Electoral College. I hope this review of the author’s words helps. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

So, "essentially", means not. He does not admit the Electoral College is inequitable nor unjust. He points to "some" others that "may" think that. Elsewhere in the piece, he praises the Electoral College for producing large Electoral College elector numbers. Large numbers in the Electoral College do not match the popular votes in the states, nor in the nation. Regardless of whatever inequality some may think, such large numbers of electoral-college-electors produce claimed legitimacy for him, (So, not matching popular vote percentage is not what matters and the only way to get such large votes in the College is for states to award their electoral votes that way, which is due to their constitutionally designed power). And as WtMitchell indicated, having a losing side in elections is in no way unique. Nonetheless for Guezlo a clear vote in the College is what really matters, although it does not match popular vote.

Anyway, I still see no good rationale for lengthening the lead -- yet another sentence on Guezlo in the lead is plainly undue and bloats the lead. Nor should we mislead readers in Wikipedia's voice that in summary lead, winner-take-all in states is unique, nor should we mislead them by focusing on 40% and 2016, because nothing about those is summary information across elections, and Guelzo's logic is the nearer to just-less-than-50%, the more 'dramatic' it becomes (in 2016, there were large states substantially nearer). Readers are free to read Guezlo in the note (they don't need another sentence), and most importantly, there in the note, it is in text attributed to Guezlo, which we must do for such arguments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I suppose in generous good faith. Guelzo clearly labels lopsided state returns that fail to represent 40% of the state voters as an "inequity", as in “Is the best solution to such inequity.... I post here with the hope you can focus on Guelzo's words, rather than bring preconceived rhetorical straw men to the discussion. Earlier you made a false rhetorical flourish to deny that Guelso defends the Electoral College, though the article title is in verifiable fact, "In Defense of the Electoral College". Guelzo is a defender of the E.C., and belongs in the Intro para #3 for 'Supporters'.

- As an opponent of the Electoral College, you just made up a spurious charge, that large E.C. numbers is the "claimed legitimacy for him". But in your eagerness to knock down a straw man, you misstate the defense rationale. The "legitimacy" for defenders of the Electoral College is found in the Federalist Papers defending it as proposed in the Constitution in weekly newspapers to be read by the public and by convention delegates as a debate manual. Legitimacy of every element of the new republic is to be grounded in the "suffrages of the people" in the states, but not in the states themselves. Legitimacy of government including the Electoral College is grounded in the sovereign people of the United States, unlike, and opposed to, the Articles of Confederation of united thirteen States' delegates in Congress.

- States are subject to party influence in their legislatures, therefore the selection of the President is not to be by the states, that proposal was voted down in Convention, both for state legislatures AND for state governors. The E.C. is a temporary gathering of representative electors in the state chosen by the voters there that the state legislature allows (at the time, including propertied women and propertied free blacks in New Jersey, but not elsewhere. How to phrase it to include variances among all thirteen states?).

- Guelzo has clearly stated his purpose: "it is worthwhile to deal directly with three popular arguments against the Electoral College." One (1) Anti-E.C. argument conflates the ill effects of state-party legislation with the Constitutionally established Electoral College. By winner-take-all elector selection, states harm the practice of democracy. Unlike ASWs purported 'E.C. virtue in large numbers', the Guelzo view is to the contrary. In California and Illinois, the winner-take-all electoral law in those big states mades them subject to judicial scrutiny under the "one man, one vote" rule because of the manifest voter disenfranchisement in the millions each presidential election every four years.

- Guelzo is not praising the winner-take-all practice as ASW falsely asserts for rhetorical effect. "This inequity" by states state practice that is perpetrated against 40% of their voters in the Electoral College system is "such inequity" in the E.C. results, but the inequity as a disparity from the national popular vote is not to be found in the Electoral College as Constitutionally established. "Those who complain that the Electoral College subverts the 'one man, one vote' principle should also object to the way the system operates within the states", or, as ASW says, be found by some to be hypocritical opportunists. Guelzo raises an interesting point, Could some be raising public contributions under false pretenses by hiding behind 'pro-democratic' messaging without consistently applying their advertised "principles" to both federal and state electoral systems? - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

No. I am sure, I do not misunderstand, Guelzo certainly praises large electoral votes in the college and clear electoral votes, unrelated to matching population votes. At any rate, I think we have gone on as far as we can, (although I have gone along with many of your additions and wordings, it hardly seems incumbent that you insist up and down and at length that we all go along with each of your additions in this article, and rather robust compromise to go without these particular words) -- I still oppose another proposed sentence, based on policy/guideline and what's good for this article and its readers, and you'll forgive me if I not make this talk page any longer, and I'm sure you will not interpret my not lengthening this discussion as assent, nor consensus. (Similarly, your latest false claims about what I have argued and done are denied as they were earlier, and I rather think you should be ashamed for making them, but let's leave it.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous apology. Accepted, we can leave it. I'll not press on your three-revert violation to my previous edit. You did good work in the copyedits trimming the Introduction paragraph #4 dedicated to the 'Critics'. As well as your improvements previously for two of my earlier edits. Thank you for your contributions here. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:07, 16 November 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)

Those are districts, search for Maine and Nebraska in the article which explains that the vote in those states is tied to districts for some electors, and feel free to improve the caption if you think it needs it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I added the explanation. Indicating the numbers of the districts does not seem to make sense though, more relevant would be to put 2 for the statewide popular vote, and the number of districts, like putting "2+2" and "2+3". - Patrick (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Before seeing this talk page section I changed the caption to say that the numbers in the circles indicate district numbers. This seems sensible to me for states using the district method even after reading the above, but I don't have a strong POV re this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The current map (the top one) is certainly confusing/misleading). Either make the statewide vote 2, or do the 2+2/2+3 as indicated above. The 2020 map caption could also point out the CD votes in ME and NE indicated there, which would also help readers understand. 18:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the small circles in the result map are positioned corresponding to the location of the district with the result deviating from the statewide result (district #2 in both cases). This would mean the locations and numbers of the districts on the first map are useful after all. - Patrick (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I think Nebraska and Maine could be misleading, and we need to consider changing it. Prcc27 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Text Under 2020 election Map

These are uncertified results, and are currently being actively contested. I believe that this text should be modified to read: "In the 2020 presidential election, the total number of electoral votes was 538, of which Joe Biden, in unofficial projections, has received 306" The qualifier ", in unofficial projections, " is the recommended addition. Votes will not be officially certified until at least December 14, and are currently being hotly contested in various Court cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.142.113.192 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The Electoral College has not cast any votes yet, so this entire section is actually false as written. There are projections yes, but the way it is written makes it seem a statement of fact. Posting clearly false information calls into validity everything else on this post.InfinityzeN (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticism Section Undemocratic System.

This highly important fact should be stated in the article as one persons vote in California is worth less than 1/3 than a vote (55 votes for 40 million, 1.375 votes per million), Than in states with 3 votes , Al 730K, Del 1M, Col 690K, Mon 1.07M etc! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#:~:text=Each%20state%20appoints%20electors%20according,the%20president%20and%20vice%20president.

With this uneven allocation of how is the electoral college votes per states calculated (I cant see it in the article) it should be in the article!

What federal law (constitution section) says California gets to be under represented? This all should be in the article--Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

This talk page is intended for discussion of improvements to the article[ see WP:TPG. I don't see a suggestion for improving the article there, but the answer to your question is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. constitution. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes But what dictates "equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress" this is not in the article and it should be. so you can see the 2 senators for each states makes the smaller states votes worth 3 times that of a vote of in California! Which is highly undemocratic.

Why is it a "may" they may not be entitled to the total number of senators and representatives? It should it be worded "are" since its set and they are entitled to that many. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynthia BrownSmyth (talk • contribs) 09:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

7 Contemporary issues

I suggest editing this section

from:

"Arguments between proponents and opponents of the current electoral system include four separate but related topics: indirect election, disproportionate voting power by some states, the winner-takes-all distribution method (as chosen by 48 of the 50 states, and the District of Columbia), and federalism. Arguments against the Electoral College in common discussion focus mostly on the allocation of the voting power among the states. Gary Bugh's research of congressional debates over proposed constitutional amendments to abolish the Electoral College reveals reform opponents have often appealed to a traditional republican version of representation, whereas reform advocates have tended to reference a more democratic view."

I cleaned up and reworded it making it easier to read and fixed a few grammar issues errors.

To:

"Arguments between proponents and opponents of the current electoral system include four separate but related topics: indirect election, disproportionate voting power by some states, the winner-takes-all distribution method (as chosen by 48 of the 50 states and the District of Columbia), and federalism. Arguments against the Electoral College in common discussion focus mostly on allocating voting power among the states. Gary Bugh's research of congressional debates over proposed constitutional amendments to abolish the Electoral College reveals reform opponents have often appealed to a traditional republican version of representation. In contrast, reform advocates have tended to reference a more democratic view."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cougra (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Indicator of highest amount of electors from each state

The article United States congressional apportionment has an indicator of the largest amount of representatives each state has had. This is done in bold on the box(es) containing those numbers. I think the same thing should be done here, to indicate the largest amount of electors each state has had. Lexikhan310 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This caught my interest, and led to me doing some work in that other article (see the Past apportionments section there and this edit) which may be related here.

1. Info in that section in that other article looks relevant and useful here, but (a) the table there wouldn't work directly here because it concerns numbers of representatives, not electors, and (b) the table is too large and complicated to maintain separate versions and expect them to stay in sync.
2. This is a small point here; adding a table like this here would probably be overkill.
3. However, the mention of "number of electors in each state" in the lead (and possibly elsewhere) here could be linked to an entry in the Notes section here saying that the number of electors in a state is two more than the number of representatives, and info about that can be found in the section in that other article wikilinked from that note.

So, I'll suggest that we do that. Before doing that, however, I also suggest that consensus for this be obtained on the talk page of that other article, since this presumes that section there will remain stable in a form that is useful here. Also, both that edit there and this suggestion here are very recent and, at this point, neither has consensus.

Barring objection or the emergence of discussion here, and depending on what emerges in that other article re the edit mentioned above, I will probably go forward with this. Before doing that, I welcome discussion. I will place a notice on the talk page there that this discussion is in progress here. (update: see that notice here) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I didn't see any discussion, so I started to add that note and quickly saw what I should have seen previously -- that there's a table in the Chronological table section of this article tracking (hopefully -- I have not checked entry-by-entry) the similar table of number of representatives in the United States congressional apportionment . article mentioned above. If anyone wants to update the table here to indicate maximums similarly to the table there, feel free. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I'll do it then. Lexikhan310 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Source of 2020 election documents

Following on this revert, I did some digging. Documents related to the 2020 election can currently be found onli8ne in files named similarly to https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/vote-wyoming.pdf abd https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/2020/ascertainment-wyoming.pdf. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, Hi. See https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020 second table. First col: "State" is the ascertainment, and second col, 'number of votes' is the vote certificate -- all 51 in pdf Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. That's easier to deal with than what I found. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)