Electoral College. Just why?

Well, I guess you'd have to ask if you think direct election of senators was a good idea. Or if the State's electing them was better. If you think direct election of senators was the way to go, then fuck the electoral college. If you thought the States were foolish to give up that authority, then stick with it.

He said major topics, not politicians.
 
"I feel I have to vote for a politician and hope he/she represents all my beliefs"= Everything wrong with politics not only in the USA, but Worldwide.
 
Well, I guess you'd have to ask if you think direct election of senators was a good idea. Or if the State's electing them was better. If you think direct election of senators was the way to go, then fuck the electoral college. If you thought the States were foolish to give up that authority, then stick with it.

He said major topics, not politicians.

I'm directly addressing the topics. The electoral college is an expression of State power. The State legislatures used to select their electors directly. Just as they use do elect senators directly. They've given up the power to elect senators to the people. If you like the consequences of the states ceding power to the electorate, then it would make sense to continue this trend with more of the same: getting rid of the electoral college. As its an expression of state power.

If however you don't think the state ceding power to the electorate is a good idea, or you haven't liked the consequences of it so far......you may want to avoid doing more of the same by getting rid of the electoral college.

This has nothing to do with 'politicians'. But state power.
 
The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

Not much! If both goals were not met, we would have to pay for another election or three.
 
Well, I guess you'd have to ask if you think direct election of senators was a good idea. Or if the State's electing them was better. If you think direct election of senators was the way to go, then fuck the electoral college. If you thought the States were foolish to give up that authority, then stick with it.
NO POLITICIANS REPRESENT THEIR PARTY TODAY.

NUFF SAID.

Time for THE PEOPLE to speak. Then steps in , anti-Democracy barbarians that think they will get rich if they follow protocol...
when you have such a silly avatar and speak like a moron -- why do you think grown ups would listen to what you have to say?
 
The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Great post!

By now you have probably heard from the "small government" groups stating "YOU CAN'T DO THAT".

I have brought it up on many forums and the "Conservatives" don't want the people to think topic for topic.
Countries with a President elected by popular vote have their own issues. And we have 50 states with an equal say. Why would you want to break it all up? Why do you hate the Constitution? It's okay to say you hate the Constitution. We're still a free country -- until the popular vote people take it away
 
The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

Not much! If both goals were not met, we would have to pay for another election or three.

I didn't explain it thoroughly....although paying for an election is the basic tenant of a nation.

Anyway, if both requirements are not attained, the tenants of the 12 amendment kick in; just like it does now if neither candidate gets 270 EVs.
 
It does not give them more representation.
It gives them a fairer representation over the majority and gives the few a voice.

What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?

California is the one that gets extra representation. They have the highest amount of electoral votes of any other State in the Union.


Actually, in proportion to their population, California is underrepresented. Right now, CA should have 56 EV, not 55.

Illegals are not counted as citizens.


Are you fucking kidding me? Do you really, honestly think that California's population is based on illegal immigrants?

OMG, and here I kept thinking to myself that you were one of the more sane ones....
It's a schism that republicans have; their xenophobia prevents rational thought.
 
Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.
 
What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?
California is the one that gets extra representation. They have the highest amount of electoral votes of any other State in the Union.
Actually, in proportion to their population, California is underrepresented. Right now, CA should have 56 EV, not 55.
Illegals are not counted as citizens.
Are you fucking kidding me? Do you really, honestly think that California's population is based on illegal immigrants?
OMG, and here I kept thinking to myself that you were one of the more sane ones....
It's a schism that republicans have; their xenophobia prevents rational thought.
As compared to liberals, who know they can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
 
Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.

With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal and matter to the candidates. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, their polling, organizing efforts, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
Rural America voted 60% Republican.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only
15% of the population of the United States.
16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities.
They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

If big cities always controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
 
True Democracy never lasts. It always has and always will destroy countries who are true democracies.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

What we are seeing now is the wolves not caring what the lambs think and the powers that be are wanting to disarm the lambs.

NO, what we are seeing is the the lamb is becoming increasingly psychotic as it constantly gets outvoted, so it goes around threatening everyone with its gun. OH, yeah, and the Wolves are vegan. BUt don't tell that to the Lamb, he's paranoid. And he believes in Jesus!

Look, there's no good reason for the electoral college. It distorts democracy, and it's given us some of the worst presidents we've ever had.

Bush, Quincy Adams, Harrison, Hayes- NONE of these guys are considered GOOD presidents. The people had called it right, but fuck it, we've got this weird relic from the 18th century.


I think the "fly-over" country problem sometimes cited by electoral college advocates is a concern....but its not like that really helps the "fly-over" states now. ...Its the awarding of electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis that is the problem.

Well, that question is decided by each state, as it should be. It is up to the people of each state to make their state's laws reflect what they feel is best for them.


The election of a president is a nationwide concern...why should it be up to the states alone? California has way to much power because it awards electors winner-take-all, and no other state can match it for electoral count. But I would also say NY and Texas have to much power....it needs to change.

Because this is a representative republic, and one of the primary forms of representation the people have in the federal government is their state. Of the top of my head, I can't actually think of anything on a federal level that is decided directly by individuals, rather than filtering through some sort of representation. Nor can I see any reason that it should.

I don't really have a problem with more populous areas having more pull, because they are representing exponentially more people. I don't want such places completely dominating the concerns of the federal government, to the exclusion of less populous areas, and that is the issue the Electoral College exists to address. Eliminating the EC would make any such issue worse, not better.

Really, the EC does much the same thing as the House of Representatives does (which is why the number of Electors is equal to that of the number of Representatives, plus one for each Senator). I don't notice anyone making any of these arguments about Congressional representation.
 
Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
 
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
Because we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy - and thankfully so.

Because the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia).
No one ever said the EC 'makes' the United States a Constitutional Republic; the United States is a Constitutional Republic because that was the Framers' intent, to wisely eschew a direct democracy and referenda and opt for representative democracy where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...” Article VI, Section 4, US Constitution.

The EC, therefore, reflects the Framers' intent to create a Republic, where the EC is consistent with a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Wow, this is very coherent and well-stated.

Did someone hack your account?

no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.

And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?
 
The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Great post!

By now you have probably heard from the "small government" groups stating "YOU CAN'T DO THAT".

I have brought it up on many forums and the "Conservatives" don't want the people to think topic for topic.
Countries with a President elected by popular vote have their own issues. And we have 50 states with an equal say. Why would you want to break it all up? Why do you hate the Constitution? It's okay to say you hate the Constitution. We're still a free country -- until the popular vote people take it away

The 50 states do NOT have an equal say.
California has 55 electoral votes. Wyoming 3.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors.Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.
 
Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.
False premise, that the popular vote and the EC vote must both have the same winner.
The people do not elect the President, and so the total popular vote has no procedural meaning.
 
Eliminating the electoral college would mean that New York, LA, and the rest of the big cities would elect every president. The interests of the rest of the country would be ignored. This country is a lot more than big cities.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections.

Yeah, but it strips the state of control of the method of selection of electors. Something a bill couldn't do. You'd have to have a constitutional amendment to make such a change.
 
Because we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy - and thankfully so.

Because the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia).
No one ever said the EC 'makes' the United States a Constitutional Republic; the United States is a Constitutional Republic because that was the Framers' intent, to wisely eschew a direct democracy and referenda and opt for representative democracy where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...” Article VI, Section 4, US Constitution.

The EC, therefore, reflects the Framers' intent to create a Republic, where the EC is consistent with a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Wow, this is very coherent and well-stated.

Did someone hack your account?

no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.

And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?
The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
 
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia).
No one ever said the EC 'makes' the United States a Constitutional Republic; the United States is a Constitutional Republic because that was the Framers' intent, to wisely eschew a direct democracy and referenda and opt for representative democracy where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...” Article VI, Section 4, US Constitution.

The EC, therefore, reflects the Framers' intent to create a Republic, where the EC is consistent with a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Wow, this is very coherent and well-stated.

Did someone hack your account?

no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.

And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?
The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

Again, I don't think you'd be able to do that with a bill. As what you're describing with your bill is a procedural change to the constitution. And bills can't do that.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top