Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?

[Trajan]

Liberals are going to favor scrapping the Electoral College while Conservatives are going to favor keeping it. This goes beyond the understandable preference of conservatives for the Constitution as written and the Liberal willingness to change customs with the seasons.

If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential election you'll see why. There's a lot of overflow for liberal votes in urban areas but very efficient wins for conservatives in rural areas.

Not being either liberal or conservative, I have to go with the liberals on this one. The electoral college inhibits direct democracy at a high cost: one person, one vote. The original intent was to preserve Federalist designs and respect the sovereignty of states. But there are better ways to do that. Just as America went to direct elections of Senators with the 17th Amendment, another Amendment should eliminate the false +2 electoral votes given to every state.

In exchange for this, the liberals should compromise, and offer an amendment that addresses conservative concerns about Federalism. I would advise a Constitutional provision that clarifies the meaning of the Commerce Clause and overturns Wickard v. Filburn along with a host of Federal programs which should be state and local: especially including criminal statutes but also including economic programs which are more properly intrastate.






Ha ha. I'm just kidding. Liberal/Conservative compromise? In this country?

well hey, let me send st. pete a telegraph to hand out to the FF, tell them that after 230 years , due to the impending implosion both electoral and financial of the Liberalocracy and its enablers, its time to change up the paradigm.....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I really don't want people from NY, Chicago and San Francisco deciding who will be president. The reason for the electoral college is to prevent the most populated areas from deciding Presidential elections. It works.

This was the cause of all the heated debates before the constitution was signed by congress.

On June 29 the delegates from the small states lost the first battle. The convention approved a resolution establishing population as the basis for representation in the House of Representatives, thus favoring the larger states. On a subsequent small-state proposal that the states have equal representation in the Senate, the vote resulted in a tie. With large-state delegates unwilling to compromise on this issue, one member thought that the convention "was on the verge of dissolution, scarce held together by the strength of an hair."

Constitution of the United States - A History

 

[Trajan]

The funniest part of this debate is that the electoral college doesn't even do what it's proponents seem to think it does.

Having the electoral college only means that about once every 100 years, in some extremely close election, the guy who got fewer popular votes wins the electoral vote. Other than those extremely rare oddities, the popular vote guy wins.

It's a useless, irrelevant, joke of a system.

uh huh, its bitch huh?

when it all becomes clear, you've put your faith in a self interested poseur of mediocre talent and intellect. Ahh the humility that requires to swallow eh?

all of sudden, darn, these 230 year old systems, they just don't seem to work.... or, the system is just to big for one man to handle * sniff sniff*...you guys drag this shit out every time you have had your asses handed to you, and you see it coming down the pike again...the electorate gives you the boot....horror of it all..

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes, well past time. In fact the federal government needs to be more accountable to the people. Ever since the Civil war it has assumed powers that go well beyond the constitution. We need some kind of way to hold national referendums in order to keep those in the Federal government honest.

Because we're a republic, and not a democracy.

And holding national referendums or popularly electing the President would not change that fact either.

 

[California Girl]

1 person 1 vote

The EC is as about as unconstitutional as you can get.

The idea of a state handing out all thier "points" to the popular vote getter is just as dumb.

We live in a computerised age. And besides, the election is in Nov but the winner isn't seated until Jan, so it's not like there's a big hurry.

Except it's in the constitution. You do realize that, yes?

The Electoral College consists of the electors appointed by each state who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors in each presidential election.[1] Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution specifies how many electors each state is entitled to have and that each state's legislature decides how its electors are to be chosen. U.S. territories are not represented in the Electoral College. The Electoral College is an example of an indirect election, as opposed to a direct election by United States citizens.

Our founding fathers are smarter than pretty much every politician we have today, and created this check and balance against mob rule or domination by only a few states by population.

The instant you start going strictly by a popular vote, you eliminate the influence of smaller states by allowing the population of more populous states to set the agenda by the overflow of how big a state goes for one candidate or another. It's a brilliant tool.

If you want this nation to be strictly dominated by urban areas, go ahead, get rid of the electoral college who can post victory margins greater than the entire populations of more rural states. You want this nation ruled by the state concerns of the urban areas of CA, TX, FL, OH, PA, IL and NY while the rest of the US is told to stick it?

That is the danger. That is the reason it's been checked.

Yes, I know it's in the Constitution starting int he 12th Amendment.

7 pages and you're the fist to notice.

But I still disagree with it. 1 man 1 vote. I'll be like that to the day I die.

1 man, 1 vote kind of democracy would not work in the US of 2011. Which, I suspect, was why the Founders opted for a Republic.

Frankly, I prefer the rule of law to the rule of the mob. Thanks. If you honestly believe that Americans are sufficiently engaged and knowledgeable about politics to have a full democracy then you are either dumb, naive or just don't know your fellow Americans at all. I suspect it is the third.... you just haven't really considered the impact of such a ridiculous idea.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The funniest part of this debate is that the electoral college doesn't even do what it's proponents seem to think it does.

Having the electoral college only means that about once every 100 years, in some extremely close election, the guy who got fewer popular votes wins the electoral vote. Other than those extremely rare oddities, the popular vote guy wins.

It's a useless, irrelevant, joke of a system.

uh huh, its bitch huh?

when it all becomes clear, you've put your faith in a self interested poseur of mediocre talent and intellect. Ahh the humility that requires to swallow eh?

all of sudden, darn, these 230 year old systems, they just don't seem to work.... or, the system is just to big for one man to handle * sniff sniff*...you guys drag this shit out every time you have had your asses handed to you, and you see it coming down the pike again...the electorate gives you the boot....horror of it all..

What in the name of the baby Jesus are you talking about? The guy I voted for won the last presidential election.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberals are going to favor scrapping the Electoral College while Conservatives are going to favor keeping it. This goes beyond the understandable preference of conservatives for the Constitution as written and the Liberal willingness to change customs with the seasons.

If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential election you'll see why. There's a lot of overflow for liberal votes in urban areas but very efficient wins for conservatives in rural areas.

Not being either liberal or conservative, I have to go with the liberals on this one. The electoral college inhibits direct democracy at a high cost: one person, one vote. The original intent was to preserve Federalist designs and respect the sovereignty of states. But there are better ways to do that. Just as America went to direct elections of Senators with the 17th Amendment, another Amendment should eliminate the false +2 electoral votes given to every state.

In exchange for this, the liberals should compromise, and offer an amendment that addresses conservative concerns about Federalism. I would advise a Constitutional provision that clarifies the meaning of the Commerce Clause and overturns Wickard v. Filburn along with a host of Federal programs which should be state and local: especially including criminal statutes but also including economic programs which are more properly intrastate.






Ha ha. I'm just kidding. Liberal/Conservative compromise? In this country?

What's the difference? Electoral or popular vote? The results are the same 98% of the time.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh sure... let's let NYC, L.A. & Chicago decide who we get as President.

^
Wants to marginalize the urban vote.

I remember I was defending the idea that DC might get a representative in Congress. You know, no taxation without representation, etc. I was told, "Its their fault they live there."

*shakes head*

Marginalize the urban vote? Nope...

And yes, I think D.C. residents should have representation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As I've said before...we are a federal government system, as in a federation of states.

The Electoral College protects smaller states voices from being drowned out by the larger more populous states.

No it doesn't. The popular vote winner wins almost every time anyway. When has the electoral college really helped the smaller states?

Name all the elections where that happened.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This, for once is not about minorities, it's about population. Not fair the biggest and most populous cities get to decide elections.

Well, I believe one person, one vote is fair. The electoral college circumvents that.

We are not a fucking democracy, idiot. We are a Republic.

We are a democracy, retard. Democratic republics are democracies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As I've said before...we are a federal government system, as in a federation of states.

The Electoral College protects smaller states voices from being drowned out by the larger more populous states.

How, specifically, in detail, does the Electoral College help the following small states?

Vermont, Rhode Island, Hawaii.

 

[elvis]

As I've said before...we are a federal government system, as in a federation of states.

The Electoral College protects smaller states voices from being drowned out by the larger more populous states.

No it doesn't. The popular vote winner wins almost every time anyway. When has the electoral college really helped the smaller states?

Name all the elections where that happened.

You've missed the point entirely.... as usual.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, I believe one person, one vote is fair. The electoral college circumvents that.

We are not a fucking democracy, idiot. We are a Republic.

We are a democracy, retard. Democratic republics are democracies.

In a constitutional republic we have rule of law. You don't have that in anything else.

 

[code1211]

Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.

It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.

California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.

Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?

I thought that's how it works in most states. Was it Colorado that recently decided to award electors to all candidates based on the % of the vote received?

The method of selection emphasises that the union is comprised of States. You might have gleened that from the name of the USA.

Electing the president is not the result of the popular vote. It is the result of the division of the states. This why we are a Republic.

 

[freedombecki]

Liberals are going to favor scrapping the Electoral College while Conservatives are going to favor keeping it. This goes beyond the understandable preference of conservatives for the Constitution as written and the Liberal willingness to change customs with the seasons.

If you look at a county-by-county map of the 2008 Presidential election you'll see why. There's a lot of overflow for liberal votes in urban areas but very efficient wins for conservatives in rural areas.

Not being either liberal or conservative, I have to go with the liberals on this one. The electoral college inhibits direct democracy at a high cost: one person, one vote. The original intent was to preserve Federalist designs and respect the sovereignty of states. But there are better ways to do that. Just as America went to direct elections of Senators with the 17th Amendment, another Amendment should eliminate the false +2 electoral votes given to every state.

In exchange for this, the liberals should compromise, and offer an amendment that addresses conservative concerns about Federalism. I would advise a Constitutional provision that clarifies the meaning of the Commerce Clause and overturns Wickard v. Filburn along with a host of Federal programs which should be state and local: especially including criminal statutes but also including economic programs which are more properly intrastate.

Ha ha. I'm just kidding. Liberal/Conservative compromise? In this country?

Why, sure I'll compromise, Kuros. Only you're not goin' to like it.

For every acre of land you own, you get one and only one vote. Wanna look at that map again?

Sure ya do:

GOP is lookin' large. Now what were you saying something about the electoral college dismissal and replacement with compromise?
​

 

[Trajan]

The funniest part of this debate is that the electoral college doesn't even do what it's proponents seem to think it does.

Having the electoral college only means that about once every 100 years, in some extremely close election, the guy who got fewer popular votes wins the electoral vote. Other than those extremely rare oddities, the popular vote guy wins.

It's a useless, irrelevant, joke of a system.

uh huh, its bitch huh?

when it all becomes clear, you've put your faith in a self interested poseur of mediocre talent and intellect. Ahh the humility that requires to swallow eh?

all of sudden, darn, these 230 year old systems, they just don't seem to work.... or, the system is just to big for one man to handle * sniff sniff*...you guys drag this shit out every time you have had your asses handed to you, and you see it coming down the pike again...the electorate gives you the boot....horror of it all..

What in the name of the baby Jesus are you talking about? The guy I voted for won the last presidential election.

oh please, the only time the system ever needs to change is when things go south, you had it all, lost the house, the senate is looking iffy and the pres, well, he's heading for an iceberg.

the media has surfaced this crap and here, you ride right along , this isn't the only thread were in you have made comments that the system is screwed; the evil TP has "taken over" prevented the system ( well really YOUR party ) from doing exactly what it wants, so its time to drag out the shibboleth, the system needs to change, it sux when the worm turns, and exploring a change up in the elec. college, crying about filibusterers, advise and consent confirmations, the supreme court....etc etc ...its all part and parcel of the same whine.

 

[Immanuel]

How? How are minority rights protected by the Electoral College in Presidential Elections?

This, for once is not about minorities, it's about population. Not fair the biggest and most populous cities get to decide elections.

Well, I believe one person, one vote is fair. The electoral college circumvents that.

If you believe that and the EC were eliminated the only states that would get any governmental support would be California and New York. The rest of the states would be political fodder.

For some reason, I think many liberals like that idea.

Immie

 

[Missourian]

As I've said before...we are a federal government system, as in a federation of states.

The Electoral College protects smaller states voices from being drowned out by the larger more populous states.

No it doesn't. The popular vote winner wins almost every time anyway. When has the electoral college really helped the smaller states?

Name all the elections where that happened.

Every election.

The winner of the electoral college has the broadest base of support nationwide.

look at the facts...the 2004 election as an example because it is clear cut.

Bush only had 3 million more votes than Kerry...a 2.5% difference.

BUT...Bush received 286 Electoral Votes compared to Kerry's 251.

Look at the map...Bush had the much wider base of support nationwide.

​

.
.
.
.
.
.

Now let's look at an election where the winner of the electoral college is not the winner of the popular vote...the 2000 election.


Al Gore won the popular vote by 450,000 votes over Bush...a difference of .5%.

But Bush had a significantly wider base of support.

Bush won 30 states, Gore 20 + DC.

Look at the map:

​

.
.
.
.
..
.
And there you have it.

That is how the electoral college protects the smaller less populated states from being overwhelmed by the larger more populated states in the Federal system.

Checks and balances.

 

[Immanuel]

As I've said before...we are a federal government system, as in a federation of states.

The Electoral College protects smaller states voices from being drowned out by the larger more populous states.

No it doesn't. The popular vote winner wins almost every time anyway. When has the electoral college really helped the smaller states?

Name all the elections where that happened.

Every election.

The winner of the electoral college has the broadest base of support nationwide.

look at the facts...the 2004 election as an example because it is clear cut.

Bush only had 3 million more votes than Kerry...a 2.5% difference.

BUT...Bush received 286 Electoral Votes compared to Kerry's 251.

Look at the map...Bush had the much wider base of support nationwide.

​

.
.
.
.
.
.

Now let's look at an election where the winner of the electoral college is not the winner of the popular vote...the 2000 election.


Al Gore one the popular vote by 450,000 votes over Bush...a difference of .5%.

But Bush had a significantly wider base of support.

Bush won 30 states, Gore 20 + DC.

Look at the map:

​

.
.
.
.
..
.
And there you have it.

That is how the electoral college protects the smaller less populated states from being overwhelmed by the larger more populated states in the Federal system.

Checks and balances.

This is also why today's Obama supporters want to eliminate the EC. They think it is going to be hard to win the red states and figure they are likely to loose a few of the blue states, but by damned if they can get the popular vote and not have to worry about Florida, Ohio and Texas, they might just be able to steal another election right out from under the countries nose.

Immie

 

[bripat9643]

Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.

It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.

California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.

Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?

That isn't why the electoral college exists. All the boot licking statist toadies have been trying to do away with it for 200 years. Their efforts only demonstrate why it is needed now more than ever.