Electoral College. Just why?

[candycorn]

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.

Well, Credit where it is due...

 

[candycorn]

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Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country?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

The small states that benefit the most from the EC would never go for it. There is no need in discussing the fantasy of eliminating the EC.

 

[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.

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.

Who is your delegate? Any idea? Any idea how that person was selected for the job? Have you ever heard of an election campaign for an electoral college delegate?

 

[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.

The small states that benefit the most from the EC would never go for it. There is no need in discussing the fantasy of eliminating the EC.

I see, so you'll decide what the need is.

 

[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.

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.

So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?

 

[candycorn]

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.

Not sure about that. 2014 showed us that and 2012 wasn't exactly great for down-ticket races.

 

[candycorn]

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.

The small states that benefit the most from the EC would never go for it. There is no need in discussing the fantasy of eliminating the EC.

I see, so you'll decide what the need is.

It would be much like making a plan to walk on the ocean floor without first addressing the fact that you can't breath underwater. There is no need discussing a post electoral-college America since there will never be a post electoral-college America.

 

[candycorn]

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.

So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?

Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).

 

[Liminal]

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.

So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?

Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).

......rendering the popular vote completely irrelevant, since the electoral college decides the outcome.

 

[Liminal]

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.

The small states that benefit the most from the EC would never go for it. There is no need in discussing the fantasy of eliminating the EC.

I see, so you'll decide what the need is.

It would be much like making a plan to walk on the ocean floor without first addressing the fact that you can't breath underwater. There is no need discussing a post electoral-college America since there will never be a post electoral-college America.

No doubt that's what the founding slave holders thought.

 

[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.

Who is your delegate? Any idea? Any idea how that person was selected for the job? Have you ever heard of an election campaign for an electoral college delegate?

As a matter of fact, I know two of them from Colorado - where I live. Does this mean you don't?

In Colorado, each party submits its panel of delegates. Since Colorado is a winner-take-all state, the panel submitted by the winning party represents Colorado. They are required to vote for the winner - until 3 rounds - and, if the election is still undecided, they can then vote their own conscience.

Frankly, this is the methodology in most states, though there are variations.

 

[Spare_change]

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.

So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?

Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).

......rendering the popular vote completely irrelevant, since the electoral college decides the outcome.

I guess you didn't bother to actually read the post, did you?

The popular vote is reflected in the votes of electoral college delegates. But, if you were to understand that, you wouldn't be able to support your position, would you? And, we know which is more important to you - your position or the truth.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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?

They are not called delegates. They are simply called electors.

And each party gets to decided on it's slate of electors, who, if the candidate from their party wins in the NPV in state state, get to cast their ballots on or around December 16-18, 5 to 6 weeks after the GE. The electors are generally party faithful.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?

Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).

Actually Maine and Nebraska allocate electors by congressional district with the PV winner getting the other 2. I would like to see all states go to this method, electors would be more representative of the electorate because large cities couldn't determine all the electors for that State.

 

[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.

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.

Who is your delegate? Any idea? Any idea how that person was selected for the job? Have you ever heard of an election campaign for an electoral college delegate?

As a matter of fact, I know two of them from Colorado - where I live. Does this mean you don't?

In Colorado, each party submits its panel of delegates. Since Colorado is a winner-take-all state, the panel submitted by the winning party represents Colorado. They are required to vote for the winner - until 3 rounds - and, if the election is still undecided, they can then vote their own conscience.

Frankly, this is the methodology in most states, though there are variations.

I see, each party submits it's panel of delegates. How were those delegates selected? Did you vote for them?

 

[Liminal]

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.

So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?

Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).

......rendering the popular vote completely irrelevant, since the electoral college decides the outcome.

I guess you didn't bother to actually read the post, did you?

The popular vote is reflected in the votes of electoral college delegates. But, if you were to understand that, you wouldn't be able to support your position, would you? And, we know which is more important to you - your position or the truth.

The popular vote is reflected......is that so. That sounds pretty vague, perhaps you can explain exactly how that happens.

 

[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?

They are not called delegates. They are simply called electors.

And each party gets to decided on it's slate of electors, who, if the candidate from their party wins in the NPV in state state, get to cast their ballots on or around December 16-18, 5 to 6 weeks after the GE. The electors are generally party faithful.

Party faithful and connected to power, those are the only two qualifications.

 

[candycorn]

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.

So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?

Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).

......rendering the popular vote completely irrelevant, since the electoral college decides the outcome.

Nonsense.

The outcome is decided long before the EVs are cast

 

[candycorn]

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.

The small states that benefit the most from the EC would never go for it. There is no need in discussing the fantasy of eliminating the EC.

I see, so you'll decide what the need is.

It would be much like making a plan to walk on the ocean floor without first addressing the fact that you can't breath underwater. There is no need discussing a post electoral-college America since there will never be a post electoral-college America.

No doubt that's what the founding slave holders thought.

Quite to the contrary. The body didn't think one way or another about any number of topics. Compromise and negotiation delivered us this imperfect system which could be further perfected by inclusion of the mandate that the President Elect garner a plurality of the popular vote IN ADDITION TO the majority of the electoral vote.

 

[cnm]

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.

It does not. It provides unequal representation for voters.