The Electorial College

[LuckyDan]

if that were the case then 2000 would have turned out differently. no?

2000 was an irreparable farce. The EC couldn't fix it, but I think it prevented it from getting a lot worse.

how did it keep it from getting worse when the person who won the popular vote didn't get the presidency and the supreme court appointed the other guy... in a total and complete departure from all federal law at the time...with a decision that for the first time ever was specifically held to have no value as precedent.

Because the presidency doesn't go to the candidate with the highest popular vote. It never did. That's what we're talking about.

That, and the Florida Supremes were total fuck-ups.

 

[The T]

Has nothing to do with distrusting "the people." The EC keeps one or two regions from dominating the entire electorate and helps build a national consensus.

That it kept that crazy son of a bitch Al Gore out of the White House was just gravy.

100% Correct. It staves off a PURE Democracy, which can be summed up as mob RULE, and a step or two away from pure anarchy.

The EC ensures this never happens, and the PEOPLE have a voice from far and wide, and not one of just a FEW elect taint the process to the point where THEY solely RULE.

Right. So the 3 and 4 votes in Alaska and Hawaii are gonna really empower those folks in those states compared the 55 votes California has....

READ

What is the Electoral College?
The electoral college is a system set up by the framers of the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment.

It assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state (and Washington, D.C.) for the purpose of determining presidential elections. The number of assigned electorates equals the number of congressmen where one vote is given for each House member and two votes for two Senators.

Why the Electoral College?
To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place. Notice that the country is named the "United States", not the "United People".
Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land. They had their own independent governments. They had militaries which defended their borders. They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.

Going back to the American Revolution, at that time, there were 13 colonies under British control. These 13 colonies did not want to remain under the control of the King of England, so they basically "teamed up" and declared their independence from England. A war ensued and their defeat of England won their independence outright. But the colonial governments knew that this was not permanent. They knew that England would one day come to regain control over the rich, fertile colonies in the New World. The colonies knew that the only way to thwart such an attack in the future was to start building strong alliances with each other in the present. Over the next 10+ years after the war, the colonies explored different ways of strong unions that would not only guard against future invasions by Mexico, France, and England, but would be strong enough to discourage those invasions in the first place. Hence, the conclusion was that a permanent union needed to be formed, a union of independent sovereign states with a centralized limited government that could call on the states to defend each other in the future when necessary. Legal documents would be needed to establish such a union, something that required the leaders of all states to sign and be bound to. The Constitution was born and so was the United States.

Shouldn't a presidential election be determined by a popular vote in a democracy?
Yes. But we don't live in a democracy. We live in a federation/republic. The best example of this is the U.S. Congress. The Congress is divided into two houses. The House of Representatives was created as a representation of the will of the people, giving each equally populated block of citizens a single representation with equal power. The Senate, on the other hand, which is more powerful, is not a representation of the people, but a representation of the states (state governments, if you will). In the Senate, each state has exactly two representatives, giving EVERY state equal power. The Senate was created to encourage those very small states to enter the Union. Otherwise, it would not be logical for states with tiny populations (relative to the U.S. population) to enter into a true representative Union as they would be relinquishing their own sovereign power over themselves by doing so.

When thinking about government decisions, it sometimes helps to relate them to your own personal situation. Think about moving into a new apartment versus living alone. Let's assume that you have lived alone for several years and have somewhat enjoyed the freedom with running your apartment the way you see fit. Now let's assume that you have agreed to move into a 5-bedroom apartment with four of your friends. Is the new apartment going to be run exactly the way you see fit? Are you going to get the shower for as long as you want anytime you wanted as you did when living alone? Of course not. But there is the security factor. Most of us feel much more secure when living with others than living alone. This is very similar to a state's decision to enter the United States. They have much more power as an independent nation that they would relinquish when joining the Union, but the Union offers a certain level of security that they could not have had otherwise. But that security could also be emulated by simple alliances with the United States (i.e. Puerto Rico, Guam), and if such security could be achieved without acceding the United States, it would be very foolish to join. This is exactly why Puerto Rico and Guam are not U.S. states. They CHOOSE not to be. This is very confusing to those American citizens who've been brainwashed into believing that the United States is a perfect union that no sensible nation could resist. Puerto Ricans aren't stupid. They like their independence. Now they have managed to do the genius thing of maintaining independence while creating an alliance with the most powerful nation on Earth that would certainly defend you if you have run into any problems. In Puerto Rico's case, they are having their cake and eating it too.

So then the question arises as to why any state would ever join the United States in the first place. The answer is in the Senate and Electoral College. A state with 1/100 of the population of the United States would actually have a voice greater than 1/100 of Congress. The two equal-power Senators are the ONLY way to encourage newcomers into joining the U.S. Similarly, the Electoral College which is framed exactly the same as the U.S. Congress gives that necessary extra voice to the small states.

_______________________

SOURCE

 

[jillian]

2000 was an irreparable farce. The EC couldn't fix it, but I think it prevented it from getting a lot worse.

how did it keep it from getting worse when the person who won the popular vote didn't get the presidency and the supreme court appointed the other guy... in a total and complete departure from all federal law at the time...with a decision that for the first time ever was specifically held to have no value as precedent.

Because the presidency doesn't go to the candidate with the highest popular vote. It never did. That's what we're talking about.

That, and the Florida Supremes were total fuck-ups.

again that doesn't fit with what you say if the EC can pervert the electorate. still doesn't explain how the EC kept it from getting worse. Just shows the EC result was what you wanted it to be.

as for being a mess... as were the U.S. Supremes. Sandra Day O'Connor said she regretted her decision terribly. me, too.

especially when it violated all federal law which came before it.

 

[jillian]

how did it keep it from getting worse when the person who won the popular vote didn't get the presidency and the supreme court appointed the other guy... in a total and complete departure from all federal law at the time...with a decision that for the first time ever was specifically held to have no value as precedent.

Oh fer chrissake. Let me explain it to you. Person-A won big states by a large popular vote margin, person-B won more states by a close margin. If you add up the popular votes and the electoral votes, person-B won more electoral votes and won the election. Yet person-A had more popular votes.

You see, you add up two tallys per state, the EVs and the popular votes. Only the EVs matter. Thats the way it always was, and the way it will be.

I don't need you to explain anything to me. Thanks, though.

And there was a USSC court decision that perverted the EC's.

 

[Dr Grump]

100% Correct. It staves off a PURE Democracy, which can be summed up as mob RULE, and a step or two away from pure anarchy.

The EC ensures this never happens, and the PEOPLE have a voice from far and wide, and not one of just a FEW elect taint the process to the point where THEY solely RULE.

Right. So the 3 and 4 votes in Alaska and Hawaii are gonna really empower those folks in those states compared the 55 votes California has....

READ

What is the Electoral College?
The electoral college is a system set up by the framers of the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment.

It assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state (and Washington, D.C.) for the purpose of determining presidential elections. The number of assigned electorates equals the number of congressmen where one vote is given for each House member and two votes for two Senators.

Why the Electoral College?
To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place. Notice that the country is named the "United States", not the "United People".
Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land. They had their own independent governments. They had militaries which defended their borders. They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.

Going back to the American Revolution, at that time, there were 13 colonies under British control. These 13 colonies did not want to remain under the control of the King of England, so they basically "teamed up" and declared their independence from England. A war ensued and their defeat of England won their independence outright. But the colonial governments knew that this was not permanent. They knew that England would one day come to regain control over the rich, fertile colonies in the New World. The colonies knew that the only way to thwart such an attack in the future was to start building strong alliances with each other in the present. Over the next 10+ years after the war, the colonies explored different ways of strong unions that would not only guard against future invasions by Mexico, France, and England, but would be strong enough to discourage those invasions in the first place. Hence, the conclusion was that a permanent union needed to be formed, a union of independent sovereign states with a centralized limited government that could call on the states to defend each other in the future when necessary. Legal documents would be needed to establish such a union, something that required the leaders of all states to sign and be bound to. The Constitution was born and so was the United States.

Shouldn't a presidential election be determined by a popular vote in a democracy?
Yes. But we don't live in a democracy. We live in a federation/republic. The best example of this is the U.S. Congress. The Congress is divided into two houses. The House of Representatives was created as a representation of the will of the people, giving each equally populated block of citizens a single representation with equal power. The Senate, on the other hand, which is more powerful, is not a representation of the people, but a representation of the states (state governments, if you will). In the Senate, each state has exactly two representatives, giving EVERY state equal power. The Senate was created to encourage those very small states to enter the Union. Otherwise, it would not be logical for states with tiny populations (relative to the U.S. population) to enter into a true representative Union as they would be relinquishing their own sovereign power over themselves by doing so.

When thinking about government decisions, it sometimes helps to relate them to your own personal situation. Think about moving into a new apartment versus living alone. Let's assume that you have lived alone for several years and have somewhat enjoyed the freedom with running your apartment the way you see fit. Now let's assume that you have agreed to move into a 5-bedroom apartment with four of your friends. Is the new apartment going to be run exactly the way you see fit? Are you going to get the shower for as long as you want anytime you wanted as you did when living alone? Of course not. But there is the security factor. Most of us feel much more secure when living with others than living alone. This is very similar to a state's decision to enter the United States. They have much more power as an independent nation that they would relinquish when joining the Union, but the Union offers a certain level of security that they could not have had otherwise. But that security could also be emulated by simple alliances with the United States (i.e. Puerto Rico, Guam), and if such security could be achieved without acceding the United States, it would be very foolish to join. This is exactly why Puerto Rico and Guam are not U.S. states. They CHOOSE not to be. This is very confusing to those American citizens who've been brainwashed into believing that the United States is a perfect union that no sensible nation could resist. Puerto Ricans aren't stupid. They like their independence. Now they have managed to do the genius thing of maintaining independence while creating an alliance with the most powerful nation on Earth that would certainly defend you if you have run into any problems. In Puerto Rico's case, they are having their cake and eating it too.

So then the question arises as to why any state would ever join the United States in the first place. The answer is in the Senate and Electoral College. A state with 1/100 of the population of the United States would actually have a voice greater than 1/100 of Congress. The two equal-power Senators are the ONLY way to encourage newcomers into joining the U.S. Similarly, the Electoral College which is framed exactly the same as the U.S. Congress gives that necessary extra voice to the small states.

_______________________

SOURCE

I get the Senatorial aspect, which has what to do with the EC aspect? California has 47 votes in the EC. How does that make it 'fair' to Alaska? Hell, Alaska, Hawaii, Oregan and Washington could be the reddest states in the land, but their combined EC don't even add up to California if it is blue state. How has that 'empowered' the other four states? (hint, it hasn't)

 

[jillian]

EC is redundant....

Says he who hasn't a coal in the fire. Pffft.

so everyone on this board gets to shut up about how they do things in Iran? You know, cause they haven't a coal in that fire and all....

 

[Immanuel]

What it does is to help make sure that the people in the less populated states, i.e. the mid west... er the people that feed you, are not totally ignored by their own federal government.

If we were a strict Democracy our Federal Government would only care about the North East and California and nothing in between (well except for Chicago) would matter one bit not only during a Presidential campaign but for the other year and a half in between as well.

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

Has nothing to do with distrusting "the people." The EC keeps one or two regions from dominating the entire electorate and helps build a national consensus.

That it kept that crazy son of a bitch Al Gore out of the White House was just gravy.

100% Correct. It staves off a PURE Democracy, which can be summed up as mob RULE, and a step or two away from pure anarchy.

The EC ensures this never happens, and the PEOPLE have a voice from far and wide, and not one of just a FEW elect taint the process to the point where THEY solely RULE.

Right. So the 3 and 4 votes in Alaska and Hawaii are gonna really empower those folks in those states compared the 55 votes California has....

Yes it does... for the small states populations do not get lost in the masses... each state can show what they stood for and who they voted for.... it prevents the small states from being silenced by the urban masses

 

[The T]

Right. So the 3 and 4 votes in Alaska and Hawaii are gonna really empower those folks in those states compared the 55 votes California has....

READ

What is the Electoral College?
The electoral college is a system set up by the framers of the Constitution in Article 2, Section 1, and then altered by the 12th Amendment.

It assigns a certain number of electoral votes to each state (and Washington, D.C.) for the purpose of determining presidential elections. The number of assigned electorates equals the number of congressmen where one vote is given for each House member and two votes for two Senators.

Why the Electoral College?
To understand the need for the Electoral College, you have to understand the foundation of the United States in the first place. Notice that the country is named the "United States", not the "United People".
Independent sovereign states (nations) once inhabited this land. They had their own independent governments. They had militaries which defended their borders. They had foreign ambassadors sent to other countries to establish regular treaties, just as independent nations do today.

Going back to the American Revolution, at that time, there were 13 colonies under British control. These 13 colonies did not want to remain under the control of the King of England, so they basically "teamed up" and declared their independence from England. A war ensued and their defeat of England won their independence outright. But the colonial governments knew that this was not permanent. They knew that England would one day come to regain control over the rich, fertile colonies in the New World. The colonies knew that the only way to thwart such an attack in the future was to start building strong alliances with each other in the present. Over the next 10+ years after the war, the colonies explored different ways of strong unions that would not only guard against future invasions by Mexico, France, and England, but would be strong enough to discourage those invasions in the first place. Hence, the conclusion was that a permanent union needed to be formed, a union of independent sovereign states with a centralized limited government that could call on the states to defend each other in the future when necessary. Legal documents would be needed to establish such a union, something that required the leaders of all states to sign and be bound to. The Constitution was born and so was the United States.

Shouldn't a presidential election be determined by a popular vote in a democracy?
Yes. But we don't live in a democracy. We live in a federation/republic. The best example of this is the U.S. Congress. The Congress is divided into two houses. The House of Representatives was created as a representation of the will of the people, giving each equally populated block of citizens a single representation with equal power. The Senate, on the other hand, which is more powerful, is not a representation of the people, but a representation of the states (state governments, if you will). In the Senate, each state has exactly two representatives, giving EVERY state equal power. The Senate was created to encourage those very small states to enter the Union. Otherwise, it would not be logical for states with tiny populations (relative to the U.S. population) to enter into a true representative Union as they would be relinquishing their own sovereign power over themselves by doing so.

When thinking about government decisions, it sometimes helps to relate them to your own personal situation. Think about moving into a new apartment versus living alone. Let's assume that you have lived alone for several years and have somewhat enjoyed the freedom with running your apartment the way you see fit. Now let's assume that you have agreed to move into a 5-bedroom apartment with four of your friends. Is the new apartment going to be run exactly the way you see fit? Are you going to get the shower for as long as you want anytime you wanted as you did when living alone? Of course not. But there is the security factor. Most of us feel much more secure when living with others than living alone. This is very similar to a state's decision to enter the United States. They have much more power as an independent nation that they would relinquish when joining the Union, but the Union offers a certain level of security that they could not have had otherwise. But that security could also be emulated by simple alliances with the United States (i.e. Puerto Rico, Guam), and if such security could be achieved without acceding the United States, it would be very foolish to join. This is exactly why Puerto Rico and Guam are not U.S. states. They CHOOSE not to be. This is very confusing to those American citizens who've been brainwashed into believing that the United States is a perfect union that no sensible nation could resist. Puerto Ricans aren't stupid. They like their independence. Now they have managed to do the genius thing of maintaining independence while creating an alliance with the most powerful nation on Earth that would certainly defend you if you have run into any problems. In Puerto Rico's case, they are having their cake and eating it too.

So then the question arises as to why any state would ever join the United States in the first place. The answer is in the Senate and Electoral College. A state with 1/100 of the population of the United States would actually have a voice greater than 1/100 of Congress. The two equal-power Senators are the ONLY way to encourage newcomers into joining the U.S. Similarly, the Electoral College which is framed exactly the same as the U.S. Congress gives that necessary extra voice to the small states.

_______________________

SOURCE

I get the Senatorial aspect, which has what to do with the EC aspect? California has 47 votes in the EC. How does that make it 'fair' to Alaska? Hell, Alaska, Hawaii, Oregan and Washington could be the reddest states in the land, but their combined EC don't even add up to California if it is blue state. How has that 'empowered' the other four states? (hint, it hasn't)

You are Confused.

 

[The T]

100% Correct. It staves off a PURE Democracy, which can be summed up as mob RULE, and a step or two away from pure anarchy.

The EC ensures this never happens, and the PEOPLE have a voice from far and wide, and not one of just a FEW elect taint the process to the point where THEY solely RULE.

Right. So the 3 and 4 votes in Alaska and Hawaii are gonna really empower those folks in those states compared the 55 votes California has....

Yes it does... for the small states populations do not get lost in the masses... each state can show what they stood for and who they voted for.... it prevents the small states from being silenced by the urban masses

Exactly.

 

[DiamondDave]

if that were the case then 2000 would have turned out differently. no?

2000 was an irreparable farce. The EC couldn't fix it, but I think it prevented it from getting a lot worse.

how did it keep it from getting worse when the person who won the popular vote didn't get the presidency and the supreme court appointed the other guy... in a total and complete departure from all federal law at the time...with a decision that for the first time ever was specifically held to have no value as precedent.

Jill.. we have 3 branches of government chosen in 3 different ways, purposely.... we have a branch elected by direct vote, and that is the legislative... it al goes with the checks and balances

 

[jillian]

What it does is to help make sure that the people in the less populated states, i.e. the mid west... er the people that feed you, are not totally ignored by their own federal government.

If we were a strict Democracy our Federal Government would only care about the North East and California and nothing in between (well except for Chicago) would matter one bit not only during a Presidential campaign but for the other year and a half in between as well.

Immie

yes... it gives people in underpopulated states inordinate voting power. why should that be the case? do you think someone in Idaho should have a vote worth four times what mine is worth because i live in ny?

 

[Immanuel]

Can't trust the people can we?

Has nothing to do with distrusting "the people." The EC keeps one or two regions from dominating the entire electorate and helps build a national consensus.

That it kept that crazy son of a bitch Al Gore out of the White House was just gravy.

The electoral college does no such thing. The guy who gets the popular vote almost always wins anyway.

The electoral college only means that if you're in a state where the party you usually oppose is dominant, your vote will usually count for ZERO. And if you're from a state that doesn't qualify as a 'battleground' the candidates will probably ignore you.

What is good about that?

Just because it doesn't fully work the way it was intended to doesn't mean that it should be abandoned... then again, Social Security doesn't work either.

Fudge that!!!! Abandon both!!!

Immie

 

[jillian]

2000 was an irreparable farce. The EC couldn't fix it, but I think it prevented it from getting a lot worse.

how did it keep it from getting worse when the person who won the popular vote didn't get the presidency and the supreme court appointed the other guy... in a total and complete departure from all federal law at the time...with a decision that for the first time ever was specifically held to have no value as precedent.

Jill.. we have 3 branches of government chosen in 3 different ways, purposely.... we have a branch elected by direct vote, and that is the legislative... it al goes with the checks and balances

the EC has less to do with checks and balances and more to do with landed gentry having greater power.

and just because something worked...doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be re-evaluated.

 

[Immanuel]

What it does is to help make sure that the people in the less populated states, i.e. the mid west... er the people that feed you, are not totally ignored by their own federal government.

If we were a strict Democracy our Federal Government would only care about the North East and California and nothing in between (well except for Chicago) would matter one bit not only during a Presidential campaign but for the other year and a half in between as well.

Immie

yes... it gives people in underpopulated states inordinate voting power. why should that be the case? do you think someone in Idaho should have a vote worth four times what mine is worth because i live in ny?

Yes, I think they should have a voice. You think they should be silenced completely.

I'll stick to what I believe.

And their vote is not worth anymore than yours.

Their state is proportionally represented which is how it should be.

Immie

 

[DiamondDave]

how did it keep it from getting worse when the person who won the popular vote didn't get the presidency and the supreme court appointed the other guy... in a total and complete departure from all federal law at the time...with a decision that for the first time ever was specifically held to have no value as precedent.

Jill.. we have 3 branches of government chosen in 3 different ways, purposely.... we have a branch elected by direct vote, and that is the legislative... it al goes with the checks and balances

the EC has less to do with checks and balances and more to do with landed gentry having greater power.

and just because something worked...doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be re-evaluated.

Wrong jill... it is not about 'land voting' as the land, being absent of consciousness, cannot vote... it is not about those with more land getting 'more' of a vote.... it is indeed about checks and balances with differing ways for each branch being chosen, and preventing the smaller voices/states from being silenced

 

[The T]

how did it keep it from getting worse when the person who won the popular vote didn't get the presidency and the supreme court appointed the other guy... in a total and complete departure from all federal law at the time...with a decision that for the first time ever was specifically held to have no value as precedent.

Jill.. we have 3 branches of government chosen in 3 different ways, purposely.... we have a branch elected by direct vote, and that is the legislative... it al goes with the checks and balances

the EC has less to do with checks and balances and more to do with landed gentry having greater power.

and just because something worked...doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be re-evaluated.

READ

It explains it well.

 

[Political Junky]

It usually puts an end to squablling in close races. Not always, as 2000 showed, but it was a big help in 1960 and 1968, and also in 1992. It amplifies rather than interferes with the will of the people.

if that were the case then 2000 would have turned out differently. no?

If Gore had been able to win his home state, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

You remember that "talking point" from 2000, good for you.

 

[jillian]

Jill.. we have 3 branches of government chosen in 3 different ways, purposely.... we have a branch elected by direct vote, and that is the legislative... it al goes with the checks and balances

the EC has less to do with checks and balances and more to do with landed gentry having greater power.

and just because something worked...doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be re-evaluated.

READ

It explains it well.

and? you keep posting things you don't understand.

thanks, though

 

[The T]

Jill.. we have 3 branches of government chosen in 3 different ways, purposely.... we have a branch elected by direct vote, and that is the legislative... it al goes with the checks and balances

the EC has less to do with checks and balances and more to do with landed gentry having greater power.

and just because something worked...doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be re-evaluated.

Wrong jill... it is not about 'land voting' as the land, being absent of consciousness, cannot vote... it is not about those with more land getting 'more' of a vote.... it is indeed about checks and balances with differing ways for each branch being chosen, and preventing the smaller voices/states from being silenced

Yep. It prevents the Elites from larger/populus areas from over-riding the interests of less populus areas. The INTENT is to guarantee equal voice in the affairs of the Union.