Is the electoral College Outdated?

[there4eyeM]

"To all the folks who will not be bound by the dead hand of a tyranny of a rather small majority."

That is always the danger with democratic systems. All forms of government have nasty details. Anyway, it seems that happens now with the electoral system, doesn't it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is the electoral College Outdated? Pros and Cons

Presently, we have the electoral college voting for the president of the US. These votes are determined by the popular vote of each state, but it’s a “winner take all” proposition whereby if one candidate gets 51% of the vote, the other 49% of the votes are basically ignored. Is that really fair?

Some things to consider when thinking about changing to the popular vote instead of using the electoral college the way it is used today, are these:

1. If we counted the popular vote, we would ensure that ever vote of citizens were counted.

2. So called swing states would not be as important in the grand scheme, because the electoral votes would not be counted and all states would get recognized as important to the candidates instead of the barrage of attention the swing states get now, ignoring the states that each candidate feels they have conquered for themselves.

3. A third party could emerge more easily if the popular votes were counted and it wasn’t winner take all basically for Democrat or Republican, leaving out the lesser known parties.

4. Cynics may feel uncomfortable that there would be one clearing house for votes in Washington DC when incumbents were running, thinking it may be likely there would be tampering with numbers. To avoid this, each district should collect their voting numbers, report to their state which would in turn report to Washington, with audits running simultaneously.

5. Absentee ballots should be turned in one week before the day of voting so they could be counted in the day of national voting. They should be allowed to only those in the military or those who are infirmed.

6. Voter turn out may improve. Confirmed red states or blue states may not have the people in the minority parties coming out to vote in a winner take all electoral college voting scheme. Republicans in California may feel their ballot is worthless because all of the state’s electoral votes will certainly be going out to the Democrat party and think that voting is a waste of time. The same thing follows in the confirmed red states for Democrat voters.


An alternative to “winner take all” electoral votes that the parties would receive the proportional electoral votes that they received in popular vote. If the Democrat received 60% of the popular vote, they should receive 60% of the electoral votes. The other parties then would receive their comparable percentage of electoral votes to popular votes.

Any thoughts on this?

First there was the seventeenth amendment.....

.....now you want to give up federalism altogether?????


How about we scrap the word 'states" and call 'em 'distant federal agencies.'

Did you mean the 12th amendment?

17th.
Senators were chosen by the State Legislature instead of by a direct vote of the state's citizens.

Read more: How did senators enter congress before the 17th amendment was passed


The Senator was tied more closely to the interests of the state.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is the defense for the election of the president being such an exception?

Imma gonna have to ask you to translate that into English.

OK, all other representatives are elected by direct vote, even senators that were not at the beginning of the country. What is the justification for this exception?

 

[Jackson]

Although a rare occurence, it is possible to lose the election (via electoral college voting) but garner the most popular votes.

 

[Jackson]

What is the defense for the election of the president being such an exception?

Imma gonna have to ask you to translate that into English.

OK, all other representatives are elected by direct vote, even senators that were not at the beginning of the country. What is the justification for this exception?

I may be wrong, but I think it was jus an easier way to count the nations voting spread so far and wide.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is the electoral College Outdated? Pros and Cons

Presently, we have the electoral college voting for the president of the US. These votes are determined by the popular vote of each state, but it’s a “winner take all” proposition whereby if one candidate gets 51% of the vote, the other 49% of the votes are basically ignored. Is that really fair?

Some things to consider when thinking about changing to the popular vote instead of using the electoral college the way it is used today, are these:

1. If we counted the popular vote, we would ensure that ever vote of citizens were counted.

2. So called swing states would not be as important in the grand scheme, because the electoral votes would not be counted and all states would get recognized as important to the candidates instead of the barrage of attention the swing states get now, ignoring the states that each candidate feels they have conquered for themselves.

3. A third party could emerge more easily if the popular votes were counted and it wasn’t winner take all basically for Democrat or Republican, leaving out the lesser known parties.

4. Cynics may feel uncomfortable that there would be one clearing house for votes in Washington DC when incumbents were running, thinking it may be likely there would be tampering with numbers. To avoid this, each district should collect their voting numbers, report to their state which would in turn report to Washington, with audits running simultaneously.

5. Absentee ballots should be turned in one week before the day of voting so they could be counted in the day of national voting. They should be allowed to only those in the military or those who are infirmed.

6. Voter turn out may improve. Confirmed red states or blue states may not have the people in the minority parties coming out to vote in a winner take all electoral college voting scheme. Republicans in California may feel their ballot is worthless because all of the state’s electoral votes will certainly be going out to the Democrat party and think that voting is a waste of time. The same thing follows in the confirmed red states for Democrat voters.


An alternative to “winner take all” electoral votes that the parties would receive the proportional electoral votes that they received in popular vote. If the Democrat received 60% of the popular vote, they should receive 60% of the electoral votes. The other parties then would receive their comparable percentage of electoral votes to popular votes.

Any thoughts on this?

First there was the seventeenth amendment.....

.....now you want to give up federalism altogether?????


How about we scrap the word 'states" and call 'em 'distant federal agencies.'

Did you mean the 12th amendment?

1. "The great push to centralize economic decision making from the top down was a fundamental departure from the laissez-faire principles that our nation was founded on….Economic decision makers in Washington can never grasp the particular knowledge of time and place that Hayek so eloquently described in his study of prices and information- essential knowledge that is generated from the bottom up, not from the top down."
Kibbee, "Hostile Takeover," p.52.


2. We see this push toward centralization in government and the proliferation of czars, bureaucrats, agencies wanting to tell us what we can and can’t do with our lives and with our pay. At the top, a President gathering executive power, designing government outside the ken of our Founders.


3. "Laboratories of democracy is a concept that defines the system of federalism within the United States. This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of filtration of governments. Within this filtration, state and local governments act as “laboratories,” where law is created and enacted from the lowest level of the democratic system, up to the top level."
Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[IHBF]

The United States is a Republic. Not a non electoral college socialist democracy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Many of you are probably not aware of the fact that you have no Constitutional right to vote for president and up until the 1830s the people didn't vote for president. The House of Representatives did. The Electoral College was later created to throw the election to the states instead and each state determines how they award their electors. It just so happens that all 50 determine it by popular vote of their residents, but they don't have to. Any state could allow the state legislature to choose the electors if they wanted to, or by some other method, and not let the people vote in the presidential election at all, but any politician that tried such a thing today would be run straight out of town.

Nebraska and Maine actually award theirs proportionally according to who wins each Congressional district in their state and the popular vote getter wins the additional two votes that represent their two Senators. Others states have talked about also moving to such a system and others, like Maryland, have a law on the books that say their electors will go to whoever wins the national popular vote as long as at least 50% of the states sign on to the same system.

So it's basically up to the states to determine this so short of a Constitutional Amendment the direct election of the president strictly by popular vote is not legal.

 

[Jackson]

Many of you are probably not aware of the fact that you have no Constitutional right to vote for president and up until the 1830s the people didn't vote for president. The House of Representatives did. The Electoral College was later created to throw the election to the states instead and each state determines how they award their electors. It just so happens that all 50 determine it by popular vote of their residents, but they don't have to. Any state could allow the state legislature to choose the electors if they wanted to, or by some other method, and not let the people vote in the presidential election at all, but any politician that tried such a thing today would be run straight out of town.

Nebraska and Maine actually award theirs proportionally according to who wins each Congressional district in their state and the popular vote getter wins the additional two votes that represent their two Senators. Others states have talked about also moving to such a system and others, like Maryland, have a law on the books that say their electors will go to whoever wins the national popular vote as long as at least 50% of the states sign on to the same system.

So it's basically up to the states to determine this so short of a Constitutional Amendment the direct election of the president strictly by popular vote is not legal.

That's right. You know your history!

 

[SniperFire]

Well, we could just appoint a President and permit him to bypass our laws and even Congress altogether, forgetting about not only States rights but separation of powers as well.



oh wait

 

[there4eyeM]

The United States is a Republic. Not a non electoral college socialist democracy.

Another one of these?


Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term,...

 

[Liability]

The United States is a Republic. Not a non electoral college socialist democracy.

Another one of these?


Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term,...

If your point is that a Republic is a form of "democracy," that's good.

But you aren't claiming (are you?) that the United States is "socialist democracy."

 

[there4eyeM]

The United States is a Republic. Not a non electoral college socialist democracy.

Another one of these?


Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term,...

If your point is that a Republic is a form of "democracy," that's good.

But you aren't claiming (are you?) that the United States is "socialist democracy."

That was not part of my post, just an epithet interjected by the quoted one.

 

[Liability]

Another one of these?


Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term,...

If your point is that a Republic is a form of "democracy," that's good.

But you aren't claiming (are you?) that the United States is "socialist democracy."

That was not part of my post, just an epithet interjected by the quoted one.

^ More random words that kinda look like a sentence!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you went with the popular vote, wouldn't rural America be shit outta luck? The big cities would be where the voters are, and that's where the presidential candidatess will spend their time and money trying to win over the urban dwellers.

We are in a time of technology. There would be more speeches and ads on tv. I don't live in a swing state and don't see much at all. They woul;d spread their message throughout the US instead of just the swing states. Just my thought.

No they would not, they would ignore the small States and those places without large populations, the Major cities and most populous States would be all they would need.

By the way you want it to change? Get an Amendment and then get 37 States to approve it. The Small States probably would not want the new way so I doubt you could get 37 States to agree to cut their own throats.

 

[IHBF]

The United States is a Republic. Not a non electoral college socialist democracy.

Another one of these?


Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term,...

Pretty cool, man. Using wiki to tell me what a republic generally means today. Yep, you got me.

Kinda like liberal means something totally different?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The United States is a Republic. Not a non electoral college socialist democracy.

The first sentence is correct; the second, inane.

The EC is a vital part of our Republic, as the United States is not a democracy.

The problem, of course, is not the EC, but the aberration that is the Imperial Presidency. When the Executive Branch is viewed in its original context, the EC makes perfect sense.

 

[Jackson]

The United States is a Republic. Not a non electoral college socialist democracy.

The first sentence is correct; the second, inane.

The EC is a vital part of our Republic, as the United States is not a democracy.

The problem, of course, is not the EC, but the aberration that is the Imperial Presidency. When the Executive Branch is viewed in its original context, the EC makes perfect sense.

What does an "Imperial Presidency" have to do with the Electoral College?

 

[Greenbeard]

Is the electoral College Outdated?

It's clearly outdated, as it no longer serves any of the purposes it was intended for.

Some folks have come up with new rationales to try and justify it. I can't say I feel too strongly either way on whether or not to keep it.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Nobody would visit ND, MT, WY, SD, etc on the campaign trail they would just hang out in NY, CT, FL, OH, TX, CA, etc.

We don't want elections won by just winning the metro areas of the country, most of the idiots live there and vote like sheep.