Electoral College. Just why?

[percysunshine]

.
The US constitutional system of governance is, by inspection, better than anything else history has offered up.

That said, if you can get enough stupid people in one room at the same time....they can **** up any system.

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm a fan of proportional representation. But the US system in no way ensures equal representation for voters. I can't understand how the posters who say it does arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps they've heard it somewhere.

We are not the same, Again how many times does it have to be pointed out? People in Wyoming are different then people Living in Los Angles

And that is somehow supposed to mean that their vote is supposed to count for more than the vote of a Californian?

What kind of fucked up logic is that?

Damn my jaw just dropped to the floor, you never understood it? You have been indoctrinated well not to comprehend something people over 200 years ago knew so well.

Oh, I understand it perfectly. The EC was partially created to insulate against the "tyranny of the majority", but at that time, the largest state, Virginia, was only 12.6 times larger in population than the smallest state, Delaware, and not 61 times larger.

Try again, and this time, do it with talent.

You are trying to understand it, I will give you a "C" for effort

Nice try. Mebbe there are some civics courses out your way...

 

[dcraelin]

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Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country?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

it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

NO I think they will then concentrate on population centers.............but your reply also brings up another concern....the power of money in elections...with a nationwide vote....I can see the power of money magnified since candidates would want to advertise more broadly..republicans would do more advertising in california say...democrats more in texas

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope. It would be an election thhat dismissed the demographic and geographic of the individual state and its population.

And, yes, the parties would concentrate where there are the most votes.

The predator preys where there are the most prey.

 

[dcraelin]

.
The US constitutional system of governance is, by inspection, better than anything else history has offered up.

That said, if you can get enough stupid people in one room at the same time....they can **** up any system.

.

youre just a ray of sunshine

 

[Darkwind]

Blaming me for not loving equality and advocating 'limited' democracy at the same time. Just wow!

You claim to love it

We believe in equality and democracy

when your constitution, which you haven't amended, strictly forbids it. You can't have it both ways.

You cannot be that stupid. Try actually reading my posts first and then come back for a discussion. Constitution is not only about rights and liberties. When times change we, as a nation, have a right to amend the laws and live according to new rules. Two words: slavery and homosexuality. The former was legal but now it is not. The latter was once outlawed and now is widely recognized. Tell me how Constitution is above common sense and ever-changing environment once again.

Maybe you should think before replying. He said you have to amend the constitution. You want to do away with the EC.....amend the Constitution.

You don't just get to say, "I don't like it" and it magically goes away.

 

[cnm]

.
The US constitutional system of governance is, by inspection, better than anything else history has offered up..

It leads to ludicrous gridlocks that make people point their fingers and laugh and downgrade credit ratings.

 

[percysunshine]

.
The US constitutional system of governance is, by inspection, better than anything else history has offered up..

It leads to ludicrous gridlocks that make people point their fingers and laugh and downgrade credit ratings.

Actually, ludicrous gridlocks and finger pointing are common aspects of human nature. As real 250 years ago as they are now.

You have inadvertently discovered the purpose of the Constitution.

.

 

[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.

Nonsense.

The outcome is decided long before the EVs are cast

Now you're apparently only left with silly, nonsensical answers.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Explain exactly how those two things interact.

 

[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?

it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.

Thanks professor, that explains everything.

 

[Liminal]

It seems as though the loss of WTA would steer dollars out of rural America

Well of course campaign dollars are the most important thing about elections.

I bet you have a good laugh at those who think elections are about determining policy direction.

Poor choice of words on my part.
Elections are not about competing answers to the same question; they are about the questions getting asked themselves. That is simply the truth in the current polticial system. If you question someone's integrity, you vote for the other gal/guy. In any binary system, you end up with this sort of relationship.

What I should have said was that if you want the rural areas to matter, getting rid of WTA may not be the best way to address it.

No, you're wrong again, and about so many things too. Elections are all about competing answers to the same contrived questions.

 

[dilloduck]

Could it be that people are awakening to the fact that Americans have lost to globalist powers and are now slaves to the goverment that does prety much anything it wants to include spying on every aspect of our personal lives ? Let's hope this awakening can get passed the "The electoral college sucks" phase.

 

[dcraelin]

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?

it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.

Thanks professor, that explains everything.

lol.... I dont know which states do it that way...........i think generally tho its big-shots in the respective parties...state party chairmen etc that usually get the nod.

 

[Liminal]

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?

it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.

Thanks professor, that explains everything.

lol.... I dont know which states do it that way...........i think generally tho its big-shots in the respective parties...state party chairmen etc that usually get the nod.

Exactly, there is no democratic process in selecting electors.

 

[dcraelin]

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?

it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.

Thanks professor, that explains everything.

lol.... I dont know which states do it that way...........i think generally tho its big-shots in the respective parties...state party chairmen etc that usually get the nod.

Exactly, there is no democratic process in selecting electors.

well in a way there is, depends on the presidential vote

 

[Flopper]

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.

No.

In practice electors are not free to vote as they. Some states have laws that require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote. In the other states, electors are bound by pledges to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. For elector to break their pledge to the party would be political suicide.

U. S. Electoral College Who Are the Electors How Do They Vote

 

[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.

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?

it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.

Today, in every every state, citizens vote directly for electors — as represented on the ballot by the candidates with which they are associated — but in most states the electors are still not legally bound to vote for any particular candidate. An elector could, in theory, throw his or her vote to any candidate! Since each candidate has his or her own slate of electors, however, and since the electors are chosen not only for their loyalty but because they take their responsibility seriously, this almost never happens. It last happened in 1988, when it had no impact on the outcome of the election.

 

[Nyvin]

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?

it isnt like there is one delegate.....they are awarded depending on who wins the presidential election...each candidate has their own slate.

Today, in every every state, citizens vote directly for electors — as represented on the ballot by the candidates with which they are associated — but in most states the electors are still not legally bound to vote for any particular candidate. An elector could, in theory, throw his or her vote to any candidate! Since each candidate has his or her own slate of electors, however, and since the electors are chosen not only for their loyalty but because they take their responsibility seriously, this almost never happens. It last happened in 1988, when it had no impact on the outcome of the election.

In 2004 an elector from Minnesota voted for John Edwards for president.