Abolish the ‘Undemocratic’ Electoral College?

[NetJedi]

Some of us think slavery was bad behavior.

Are you concerned that slavery is going to make a comeback without the heavy hand of the Federal Government constantly intervening in State level affairs?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Undemocratic Democrats?

Well, the Republicans have won two out of their four presidential elections since 1990 with less votes than their opponents, AND in the Senate have less votes over three elections (for one full election round) than Democrats since 2002, and yet still manage to win the senate.

Democrats NEVER get the chance to win with less votes than the Republicans.

senators are not elected by a national vote and no republican beat a democrat in their state with less votes then the democrat got in that state.

 

[Care4all]

That's not how the electoral college check on demagogues was designed to work, the check was designed to operate under the idea of what we would refer to today as "faithless electors".

"The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place." -- Federalist 68

It was a great idea!!! The problem is the states were given the power to change that, and they did...and they manipulated it to what was their advantage and not we the people's.

The electoral advantage the small states were given, was simply the two electors, representing their two US senators.....this gave an unpopulated state like a Wyoming would get two electors for their senators (and one elector representing their 1, US congressman), and a state the humongous size of California, would only get two electors representing their US senators....with no regard of population.... That gives smaller states a slightly weighted advantage in electors, that does not represent the number of people within their state.

Winner takes all defeats the founder's intent.

 

[Contumacious]

MSN

Senate Democrats are moving to try to abolish the Electoral College after their party suffered defeats up and down the ballot in November’s elections.

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the S.J. Res. 121 on Dec. 12, which proposes a Constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College system altogether and replace it with a simple national popular vote system. Senate Democrats Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Peter Welch of Vermont sponsored the resolution.

Comment:
The Democrats are cheaters.
They can't win fairly so they want to change the rules.
It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.
That will never happen.

ABOLISH THE SOCIALIST DEMON RATS' PARTY B4 THEY ABOLISH WE THE PEOPLE

 

[NetJedi]

It was a great idea!!! The problem is the states were given the power to change that, and they did...and they manipulated it to what was their advantage and not we the people's.

The interests of "We the people" are not preeminent over the interests of the sovereign entities that are the States and the States have not changed the original constitutional allocation formula for the number of electors they receive, just chosen how they are awarded for elections. Remember that it was the States that ratified the Constitution (and thus created the Federal Government and surrendered certain powers to it) not "We the People".

The electoral advantage the small states were given, was simply the two electors, representing their two US senators.....this gave an unpopulated state like a Wyoming would get two electors for their senators (and one elector representing their 1, US congressman), and a state the humongous size of California, would only get two electors representing their US senators....with no regard of population.... That gives smaller states a slightly weighted advantage in electors, that does not represent the number of people within their state.

That's incorrect, California IS allocated electors based on its population by way of the allocation of a number of electors equal to its number of House seats (which are allocated based on population) + 1 each for each of its 2 Senators, which is why California (54) has a lot more electors than Wyoming (3) does. Senators represent the State whose interests are EQUAL in the eyes of the Constitution. California isn't more important than Wyoming just because it has more people living there, if that hadn't been the case the Constitution would have never been ratified since the smaller population States at ratification would have not gone for that deal.

Winner takes all defeats the founder's intent.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? if the founders intended that the States should award electors in a specific way, why wouldn't they have included it in Article II, S1 C 2? Instead, they specifically included the language "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", which seems pretty clear that they intended that each State decide how to do it.

 

[kyzr]

The interests of "We the people" are not preeminent over the interests of the sovereign entities that are the States and the States have not changed the original constitutional allocation formula for the number of electors they receive, just chosen how they are awarded for elections. Remember that it was the States that ratified the Constitution (and thus created the Federal Government and surrendered certain powers to it) not "We the People".

That's incorrect, California IS allocated electors based on its population by way of the allocation of a number of electors equal to its number of House seats (which are allocated based on population) + 1 each for each of its 2 Senators, which is why California (54) has a lot more electors than Wyoming (3) does. Senators represent the State whose interests are EQUAL in the eyes of the Constitution. California isn't more important than Wyoming just because it has more people living there, if that hadn't been the case the Constitution would have never been ratified since the smaller population States at ratification would have not gone for that deal.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? if the founders intended that the States should award electors in a specific way, why wouldn't they have included it in Article II, S1 C 2? Instead, they specifically included the language "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", which seems pretty clear that they intended that each State decide how to do it.

Any democrats whining about the EC should be invited to allocate their state's EC votes proportionally.

 

[Care4all]

The interests of "We the people" are not preeminent over the interests of the sovereign entities that are the States and the States have not changed the original constitutional allocation formula for the number of electors they receive, just chosen how they are awarded for elections. Remember that it was the States that ratified the Constitution (and thus created the Federal Government and surrendered certain powers to it) not "We the People".

That's incorrect, California IS allocated electors based on its population by way of the allocation of a number of electors equal to its number of House seats (which are allocated based on population) + 1 each for each of its 2 Senators, which is why California (54) has a lot more electors than Wyoming (3) does. Senators represent the State whose interests are EQUAL in the eyes of the Constitution. California isn't more important than Wyoming just because it has more people living there, if that hadn't been the case the Constitution would have never been ratified since the smaller population States at ratification would have not gone for that deal.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? if the founders intended that the States should award electors in a specific way, why wouldn't they have included it in Article II, S1 C 2? Instead, they specifically included the language "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", which seems pretty clear that they intended that each State decide how to do it.

The advantage for smaller states in the electoral college and our Senate, are the two electors representing senators, the State.

THAT is how the small states being weighted, is done....
not thru the electors appointed to represent each congressional district....via population.... In that, big populated states would have more electors....than a small one.

Where do you think the electoral weighting advantage given to smaller states comes from?

The electoral college does not just coincide with population of each State.

 

[NetJedi]

The advantage for smaller states in the electoral college and our Senate, are the two electors representing senators, the State.

It's not an ADVANTAGE, it's an EQUALIZER, the states are all equal sovereign entities.

THAT is how the small states being weighted, is done....
not thru the electors appointed to represent each congressional district....via population.... In that, big populated states would have more electors....than a small one.

Where do you think the electoral weighting advantage given to smaller states comes from?

The electoral college does not just coincide with population!

This argument that only population should count, and that the States don't matter belies a serious misunderstanding of history, if that was what the founders had tried to pull off the United States would not exist because the Constitution would never have been ratified. The STATES agreed to create the Federal Government why on Earth would they agree to do that if they weren't going to be treated equally? If the founders had followed your prescription the portion of North America occupied by the United States would look like old Europe, just a collection of independent countries.

We're a Republic consisting of sovereign States, the States did not surrender that sovereignty when the Constitution was ratified, nor did they agree that certain States should be able to dominate all the others because they had more people living in them.

 

[Greenbeard]

That's incorrect, California IS allocated electors based on its population by way of the allocation of a number of electors equal to its number of House seats (which are allocated based on population) + 1 each for each of its 2 Senators, which is why California (54) has a lot more electors than Wyoming (3) does. Senators represent the State whose interests are EQUAL in the eyes of the Constitution. California isn't more important than Wyoming just because it has more people living there, if that hadn't been the case the Constitution would have never been ratified since the smaller population States at ratification would have not gone for that deal.

The Electoral College should be eliminated for any number of reasons, not least of which is that the functioning of its current incarnation is 180 degrees from the original vision.

Barring that, however, the 1920s era cap on the side of the House of Representatives should be lifted. Dramatically increasing the size of the House to reflect the last century of population growth will go a long way toward rectifying the absurd distortions (to the detriment of states like California) that result from trying to allocate the current 538 votes among the states. Plus it’s easy and requires no Constitutional amendment, just a law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Electoral College should be eliminated for any number of reasons, not least of which is that the functioning of its current incarnation is 180 degrees from the original vision.

Barring that, however, the 1920s era cap on the side of the House of Representatives should be lifted. Dramatically increasing the size of the House to reflect the last century of population growth will go a long way toward rectifying the absurd distortions (to the detriment of states like California) that result from trying to allocate the current 538 votes among the states. Plus it’s easy and requires no Constitutional amendment, just a law.

you wanna build a new congress building?

 

[Contumacious]

MSN

Senate Democrats are moving to try to abolish the Electoral College after their party suffered defeats up and down the ballot in November’s elections.

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the S.J. Res. 121 on Dec. 12, which proposes a Constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College system altogether and replace it with a simple national popular vote system. Senate Democrats Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Peter Welch of Vermont sponsored the resolution.

Comment:
The Democrats are cheaters.
They can't win fairly so they want to change the rules.
It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.
That will never happen.

Why the Electoral College Matters​

Ryan McMaken

"The important thing about the electoral college is not that it’s in the Constitution, or that the so-called “founding fathers” thought it was swell. The important thing to know is that it is a byproduct of the fact the framers of the Constitution recognized the United States was a collection of diverse and independent states which could only be held together in the long term by a system that offered both large and small states a chance at power-sharing.


In spite of the fact the Left (probably) won the 2020 election, we’re still hearing calls for the abolition of the electoral college. If successful, this could lead to one-party rule for the Democrats and accelerate national division. National division, conflict, and de facto separation is the likely prognosis for the United States in any case, but abolition of the electoral college could accelerate a more chaotic and acrimonious separation

Radio Rothbard: Why the Electoral College Matters - LRC Blog

The important thing about the electoral college is not that it’s in the Constitution, or that the so-called “founding fathers” thought it was swell. The important thing to know is that it is a byproduct of the fact the framers of the Constitution recognized the United States was a collection of...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[Greenbeard]

you wanna build a new congress building?

I don’t particularly care. Letting Congress get increasingly unrepresentative (and the EC increasingly distorted) because correcting the problem would make it harder for them to cram into the chamber for the rare made-for-TV events when they actually do all show up together is not defensible.

 

[Greenbeard]

In spite of the fact the Left (probably) won the 2020 election, we’re still hearing calls for the abolition of the electoral college. If successful, this could lead to one-party rule for the Democrats and accelerate national division.

Only one party controls the White House at a time now, every election results in “one party rule” of the executive branch.

 

[Contumacious]

The Democrats are defending "democracy" kind of like Madonna is defending virginity.
They are ******* the hell out of it.

Let's not forget that the Socialist Demon Rats FIRST LEGISLATIVE ACT in 2021 was an attempt to legalize election fraud . In order to do so they introduced HR1, S1. For Shame - DON'T FORGET IT

H.R. 1: Federalizing Elections and Chilling Speech

www.rpc.senate.gov

 

[BackAgain]

Alas, there are so many uneducated Americans, just like you. There are 5,286,269 registered Republicans in California, is their vote heard in Presidential elections?

Alas, ******* assholes llke you don’t get the fact that we are (very intentionally) not a democracy. We are, thank God, instead a Constitutional republic. Part and of that entails the designed avoidance of the tyrant of a majority.

Shitbags, such as the uneducated twits like you, cannot grasp the brilliant reasons for our Electoral College.

The reasons for it are already explained.

You just don’t like it because it stands in the way of your tyranny.

 

[Greenbeard]

Alas, ******* assholes llke you don’t get the fact that we are (very intentionally) not a democracy. We are, thank God, instead a Constitutional republic. Part and of that entails the designed avoidance of the tyrant of a majority.

Shitbags, such as the uneducated twits like you, cannot grasp the brilliant reasons for our Electoral College.

The reasons for it are already explained.

You just don’t like it because it stands in the way of your tyranny.

The U.S. is a constitutional republic and the U.S. has a Electoral College. The U.S. is not a constitutional republic because it has an Electoral College.

Every state is required by the Constitution to have a republican form of government, and every state does. No state uses an electoral college to select its chief executive, all use popular votes.

 

[para bellum]

The process does not require congress reread your linked statement it says legislatures of the states.

Already answered:

Abolish the ‘Undemocratic’ Electoral College?

Ya think? :dunno: Article V of the constitution, ya think

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[BackAgain]

The U.S. is a constitutional republic and the U.S. has an Electoral College. The U.S. is not a constitutional republic because it has an Electoral College.

I didn’t say that we are a “constitutional republic because [we have] an Electoral College.” Where did you come up with that nonsense?

Every state is required by the Constitution to have a republican form of government, and every state does.

We know. And?

No state uses an electoral college to select its chief executive, all use popular votes.

So?

 

[Greenbeard]

So?

A popular vote for the president is not incompatible with republicanism.

 

[BackAgain]

A popular vote for the president is not incompatible with republicanism.

It a with our Constitutional republic.

And if we were to make the mistake of amending the Constitution to abolish the EC, we would be ceding our government to those who prefer the tyranny of the majority in our future elections. Our nation would change dramatically for the worse.