Electoral College. Just why?

[mvymvy]

It's almost like saying that the citizens in California deserve more say in government than those that live in North Dakota.

Actually, North Dakotans' votes count for more in a presidential election than Californians'.

If the electoral college were changed would a candidate win the election if he had the most votes over the 50% margin or would a candidate win if he had a majority of the votes cast?

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

 

[mvymvy]

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Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country?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.

Does anyone know who their Electoral College Delegate is?

The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

Each election, the states report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site

 

[mvymvy]

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 **** 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.

"Fly over" states are "flown over", ignored. That's what it means.
With the current system, 80% of states and voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

Analysts already say that only the same 7 or 8 states will matter in the 2016 presidential general election. -- Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

 

[mvymvy]

Got to do it by Constitutional amendment, and the votes just are not there.

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 normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

False. The electoral college is the system in which the states operate. They have no independent to change it. States control their elections within that system and submit their electoral votes per the Constitution

Of COURSE states control their elections for President and can change how they award their electoral votes.

The U.S. Constitution specifically permits diversity of election laws among the states because it explicitly gives the states control over the conduct of presidential elections (article II) as well as congressional elections (article I). The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and preserves state control of elections

In Massachusetts, for example:
● In 1789, Massachusetts had a two-step system in which the voters cast ballots indicating their preference for presidential elector by district, and the legislature chose from the top two vote-getters in each district (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors).

● In 1792, the voters were allowed to choose presidential electors in four multi-member regional districts (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors).

● In 1796, the voters elected presidential electors by congressional districts (with the legislature choosing only the state’s remaining two electors).

● In 1800, the legislature took back the power to pick all of the state’s presidential electors (entirely excluding the voters).

● In 1804, the voters were allowed to elect 17 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis.

● In 1808, the legislature decided to pick the electors itself.

● In 1812, the voters elected six presidential electors from one district, five electors from another district, four electors from another, three electors from each of two districts, and one elector from a sixth district.

● In 1816, Massachusetts again returned to state legislative choice.

● In 1820, the voters were allowed to elect 13 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis.

● Then, in 1824, Massachusetts adopted its 10th method of awarding electoral votes, namely the statewide winner-take-all rule that is in effect today.

● In 2010, Massachusetts enacted the National Popular Vote interstate compact.

These changes were accomplished using the Constitution’s built-in method for changing the method of electing the President, namely section 1 of Article II. That constitutional provision gives Massachusetts (and all the other states) exclusive and plenary power to choose the manner of awarding their electoral votes.

 

[mvymvy]

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.

Politicians can manipulate the masses. It is a good system because the elected get their office by direct vote of the electors not the people. The electors get their office by direct vote of the people. It creates a little ditance between the people and the politicians which can be healthy.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

 

[Flopper]

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.

We have the electoral college because it's in the constitution. What difference would it have make if will had the popular vote instead of the electoral college. Looking at presidential elections since WWII, Clinton and G W Bush would have lost.

 

[cnm]

To make it as hard as possible for a wealthy ruling elite to take over this country. That's why.

Oops, too late.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

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 Republicans can't admit that George W. Bush was a huge mistake.

The electoral college is horrible. It distorts democracy.

That full employment thing totally sucked.

 

[Liminal]

It's almost like saying that the citizens in California deserve more say in government than those that live in North Dakota. Equal representation should mean exactly that, no exceptions....

You've got it all wrong.

Feel free to elaborate on the importance of the Electoral College.

Feel free to go back to Jr High and get the most basic education on Civics. We'll take it from there.

About what I expected, more of the same nothing.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Does anyone know who their Electoral College Delegate is?

in some states you actually vote for the candidates's slate of electors directly....so if they have a ballot they know who they are.

Which states? Do you know who your delegate is?

 

[Liminal]

In my opinion, the only thing keeping Republicans and Democrats going is stupid voters that fall for their BS each and every election cycle. ... Oh, I almost forgot to mention .... the wealthy, the powerful, and the influential that buy and control professional politicians.

It's basically every post you make:

"I'm smart and every one else is stupid."

mixed with....

"We're doomed."

It's a way the lesser lights among us claim to be intelligent but then offer excuses for being ineffective.

WOW .. another cute one .. you're good ..... a very quick mind ... I like that ..... yes, you're talented for sure.... Hey, just curious, can you dispute what I have said? Or, is throwing your cute little slams and slurs all you have?

Sure.

It's as simple as the elections we have every 2 years. The people elect the President and their representative. Candidates decide whether they get on the ballot; not the rich.

You abandoned the other thread when I kicked your ass on the subject--you remember.

Now your cartoonish fantasy about some rich guy picking your representative and them voting his whim is hilarious but it's still wrong.

Getting on the ballot and getting elected are two different animals. Nice try tho.

His point was that the rich decide who get on the ballot....I showed him otherwise and he abandoned the thread.

You didn't show anyone anything but more opinions. But you certainly do like to give yourself a lot of credit any way.

 

[Liminal]

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?

At least it sounds better than the system we've got right now. I believe though it is highly unfair and even undemocratic to let some people decide for us when there is popular vote results available. Lack of centralization in the US, that was supposed to enforce democracy in this country, sustains outdated social practices and slows down social development.

That wasn't the vision the founding slave holders had in mind.

 

[Liminal]

Here's one explanation...I guess it demonstrates the weakness of a Union.

Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College

Constitutional Topic The Electoral College - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.​

And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.

 

[Liminal]

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?

How about if we just completely do away with the electoral college. No one but wealthy, connected people will ever miss it.

 

[Spare_change]

I read the first five pages of this thread, and I must say I am stunned at the ignorance of most of the posters. Nobody was able to explain why the electoral college exists, nor how it is structured. If, in the following 15 pages, someone did provide a rational explanation, I apologize for repeating the answer.

The electoral college consists of representatives from each state. The number of representatives is determined by adding the number of senators (two) and the number of representatives in the House (determined by population). This structure ensures equal representation for each voter.

States determine whether their electoral college representative are required to vote: a) en masse - all votes for one candidate, b) proportional - votes divided based on percentage of the popular vote, or c) vote their own conscience, in which the popular vote is used as a guideline, not a requirement (24 states).

Why is there an electoral college in the first place? The framers of the Constitution felt this was the best way to ensure equal representation. If the popular vote were used, then candidates would tailor their platforms to attract the largest single group of voters. A candidate, for example, might decide that a plank of his platform would be to give a 50% tax break to all citizens living in cities of 1 million people or more. This would virtually ensure his election, since people vote their own personal interests first. All other citizens would have to bear the brunt of the lost taxes.

So, candidates would focus on only those large groups of voters - you wouldn't see a single candidate in states like Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, etc., etc., etc. If fact, I strongly suspect they would only campaign in California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Texas, etc., and then only in the more populous areas. The interests of all those non-city citizens would be ignored, since their votes would have no impact on the election.

Election by popular vote, while sounding good, would be disastrous. Equal representation under the law is necessary. Besides, the electoral college does reflect the will of the people - all of the people.

 

[Liminal]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Democrats live and die by keeping the Electoral College in place.

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

Uh huh, the 2000 Presidential election sure showed us that.

 

[Liminal]

I read the first five pages of this thread, and I must say I am stunned at the ignorance of most of the posters. Nobody was able to explain why the electoral college exists, nor how it is structured. If, in the following 15 pages, someone did provide a rational explanation, I apologize for repeating the answer.

The electoral college consists of representatives from each state. The number of representatives is determined by adding the number of senators (two) and the number of representatives in the House (determined by population). This structure ensures equal representation for each voter.

States determine whether their electoral college representative are required to vote: a) en masse - all votes for one candidate, b) proportional - votes divided based on percentage of the popular vote, or c) vote their own conscience, in which the popular vote is used as a guideline, not a requirement (24 states).

Why is there an electoral college in the first place? The framers of the Constitution felt this was the best way to ensure equal representation. If the popular vote were used, then candidates would tailor their platforms to attract the largest single group of voters. A candidate, for example, might decide that a plank of his platform would be to give a 50% tax break to all citizens living in cities of 1 million people or more. This would virtually ensure his election, since people vote their own personal interests first. All other citizens would have to bear the brunt of the lost taxes.

So, candidates would focus on only those large groups of voters - you wouldn't see a single candidate in states like Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, etc., etc., etc. If fact, I strongly suspect they would only campaign in California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Texas, etc., and then only in the more populous areas. The interests of all those non-city citizens would be ignored, since their votes would have no impact on the election.

Election by popular vote, while sounding good, would be disastrous. Equal representation under the law is necessary. Besides, the electoral college does reflect the will of the people - all of the people.

The electoral college reflects the will of the electoral college.

 

[Spare_change]

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?

How about if we just completely do away with the electoral college. No one but wealthy, connected people will ever miss it.

I must say - that makes no damn sense whatsoever. Maybe you can expand on it.

 

[Spare_change]

I read the first five pages of this thread, and I must say I am stunned at the ignorance of most of the posters. Nobody was able to explain why the electoral college exists, nor how it is structured. If, in the following 15 pages, someone did provide a rational explanation, I apologize for repeating the answer.

The electoral college consists of representatives from each state. The number of representatives is determined by adding the number of senators (two) and the number of representatives in the House (determined by population). This structure ensures equal representation for each voter.

States determine whether their electoral college representative are required to vote: a) en masse - all votes for one candidate, b) proportional - votes divided based on percentage of the popular vote, or c) vote their own conscience, in which the popular vote is used as a guideline, not a requirement (24 states).

Why is there an electoral college in the first place? The framers of the Constitution felt this was the best way to ensure equal representation. If the popular vote were used, then candidates would tailor their platforms to attract the largest single group of voters. A candidate, for example, might decide that a plank of his platform would be to give a 50% tax break to all citizens living in cities of 1 million people or more. This would virtually ensure his election, since people vote their own personal interests first. All other citizens would have to bear the brunt of the lost taxes.

So, candidates would focus on only those large groups of voters - you wouldn't see a single candidate in states like Montana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, etc., etc., etc. If fact, I strongly suspect they would only campaign in California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Texas, etc., and then only in the more populous areas. The interests of all those non-city citizens would be ignored, since their votes would have no impact on the election.

Election by popular vote, while sounding good, would be disastrous. Equal representation under the law is necessary. Besides, the electoral college does reflect the will of the people - all of the people.

The electoral college reflects the will of the electoral college.

That's your choice - if you live in one of the 24 states. If you don't like it, change it. But concentrating all the voting power into specific regional areas (big cities) makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Spare_change]

We have the electoral college because we have a federal government, not a national one.

Without the electoral college, heavily urbanized areas would control the election, and small and rural states would always be steamrolled.

The reason the electoral college has grown less popular is precisely because we have moved ever so incrementally toward a national government. This is not a good thing.

Think of the electoral college system as similar to the World Series. A team can theoretically score the most points but still lose the series. This has happened, but rarely. It also happens once in a great while that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote.

In the 1960 World Series, the Yankees scored 55 runs, and the Pirates scored 27. Guess which team won the Series?

Yeah. The Pirates.

The Electoral College is the same. It isn't about winning the most votes, it is about winning the most states.

Blue areas suck money from the red areas to survive. This is why Democrats support the elimination of the Electoral College.

Are you trying to be ironic?

Democrats live and die by keeping the Electoral College in place.

Why? It's statistically extremely improbable for the Democrats to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote. There's too many wasted votes in California and New York (and I guess Illinois).

Not sure what you're saying.... The map I saw after 2014 had about a zillion red counties and 60 blue ones; proportionally the GOP would kick the Democrat's ass. The only thing that keeps the Dems going is the Electoral college.

Uh huh, the 2000 Presidential election sure showed us that.

Four times in history, presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. So what? Given that we have had 60 presidential elections, that seems like a pretty good batting average - sure beats the hell out of area voting.