Electoral College. Just why?

[OKTexas]

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.

That would be the most democratic way to do it.

No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.

For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.

With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.

 

[Nyvin]

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.

That would be the most democratic way to do it.

No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.

For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.

With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.

Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?

 

[Liminal]

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

Did anyone ask about Obama's tax returns in 2012 dumb dumb? No. They asked about Romney's. Did anyone ask about McCain's birth certificate? No. They asked about Obama's. Did anyone seriously question Bush's patriotism in 2004? No but they questioned Kerry's eventhough Bush was partying in Alabama during the war and Kerry was in-country.

You seriously have zero idea what you're talking about.

All those questions obviously answer themselves, don't they. And they're just as obviously contrived to create the perception of real questions, aren't they. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be twice as smart as I think you are.

Well, I'll just have to settle for being 10 times as smart as you think you are. I can trade you insult for insult all day long loser-boy. I'm a "made man" in this forum and you're a nobody.

As political science 101, what those questions do is suck oxygen away from what the target would rather be talking about. Romney's tax returns were the subject despite his insistance that it wasn't. Obama did the smart thing and didn't take the bait and eventually the tying of McCain to Bush became the issue; so much so that McCain basically had to cry about how effective the tactic was in their 3rd debate.

A made man? Are you kidding? Do you mean to say you actually take yourself seriously? You apparently have very modest expectations for yourself.

Hyperbole to be sure...except where I referred to you as a nobody...that is correct.

I'm sure it seems that way in your little internet reality.

 

[candycorn]

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.

That would be the most democratic way to do it.

No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.

For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.

With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.

Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?

That returns us to the very nature of the Electoral College. It's simply not going to go anywhere because the small states will not hear of it. And, for a system that is so cumbersome with so many moving parts and the shifting demogrpahics of America, the opponents of the EC must admit that it's done pretty good in delivering us a winner who also won the PV.

I would favor a mandate that you must win the EV majority and a plurality of the popular vote.

I understand the argument of winning the PV without the EV even being considered but unless you want a system where the flyover states are totally ignored, the best bet would be to stick with what we currently have.

 

[Liminal]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

 

[Nyvin]

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.

That would be the most democratic way to do it.

No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.

For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.

With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.

Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?

That returns us to the very nature of the Electoral College. It's simply not going to go anywhere because the small states will not hear of it. And, for a system that is so cumbersome with so many moving parts and the shifting demogrpahics of America, the opponents of the EC must admit that it's done pretty good in delivering us a winner who also won the PV.

I would favor a mandate that you must win the EV majority and a plurality of the popular vote.

I understand the argument of winning the PV without the EV even being considered but unless you want a system where the flyover states are totally ignored, the best bet would be to stick with what we currently have.

Small States have already voted for going by the popular vote, including Vermont, Rhode Island, and Hawaii.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's really not the small states that are against getting rid of the electoral college...it's the big swing states like Florida and Ohio mostly.

Also, unfortunately, going by the popular vote for some reason has picked up somewhat of a liberal tag so conservative states are against it now. Which is kinda retarded since the EC does benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans (the 2000 election is literally the "only" recent exception to this)

 

[OKTexas]

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.

That would be the most democratic way to do it.

No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.

For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.

With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.

Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?

The number of electors are based on congressional representation, why shouldn't the people of each congressional district select their elector ,with the two electors represented by the States senate seats going to the one who wins the popular vote State wide? How would that change the 1 person 1 vote paradigm?

 

[Spare_change]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

You're wrong ---- I can name those in Colorado (the Republican version) for the past two elections. But then, I'm actually involved in the political process, rather than sitting on a limb throwing feces.

 

[candycorn]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

Not really. We're not surprised that you think there is a group somewhere that meets as one to decide the President and Vice President.

As for who represented you in the last Electoral College...you can look here dumb dumb:

List of United States presidential electors 2012 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Liminal]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

Not really. We're not surprised that you think there is a group somewhere that meets as one to decide the President and Vice President.

As for who represented you in the last Electoral College...you can look here dumb dumb:

List of United States presidential electors 2012 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That is awesome! Then you must also know what these people's qualifications are for the job.

 

[Liminal]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

You're wrong ---- I can name those in Colorado (the Republican version) for the past two elections. But then, I'm actually involved in the political process, rather than sitting on a limb throwing feces.

If you look it up real quick on Wikipedia I'm sure you could name any number of electors.

 

[Flopper]

That would be the most democratic way to do it.

No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.

For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.

With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.

Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?

That returns us to the very nature of the Electoral College. It's simply not going to go anywhere because the small states will not hear of it. And, for a system that is so cumbersome with so many moving parts and the shifting demogrpahics of America, the opponents of the EC must admit that it's done pretty good in delivering us a winner who also won the PV.

I would favor a mandate that you must win the EV majority and a plurality of the popular vote.

I understand the argument of winning the PV without the EV even being considered but unless you want a system where the flyover states are totally ignored, the best bet would be to stick with what we currently have.

Small States have already voted for going by the popular vote, including Vermont, Rhode Island, and Hawaii.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's really not the small states that are against getting rid of the electoral college...it's the big swing states like Florida and Ohio mostly.

Also, unfortunately, going by the popular vote for some reason has picked up somewhat of a liberal tag so conservative states are against it now. Which is kinda retarded since the EC does benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans (the 2000 election is literally the "only" recent exception to this)

It has been passed in 3 of the 13 smallest states and failed in 5 and the remainder have not considered it. Of the 26 states that voted, 11 passed it and it failed in 16. It's not likely that 38 states would ratify.


.

 

[Flopper]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

Not really. We're not surprised that you think there is a group somewhere that meets as one to decide the President and Vice President.

As for who represented you in the last Electoral College...you can look here dumb dumb:

List of United States presidential electors 2012 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That is awesome! Then you must also know what these people's qualifications are for the job.

The electors are selected because they are considered loyal party members. To vote against their party's nominee who has won the vote in their state is tantamount to political suicide. Most of the faithless electors who have done so, failed to honor their pledge because the candidate died before the electoral college met. Since the Electoral College was formed there have 82 Electors out of over 75,000 who have broken their pledge and it has never affected the outcome of a presidential election. The country has serious problems and there are many amendments that need to be considered. The Electorate College is not one of them.
Faithless elector - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Flopper]

No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.

For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.

With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.

Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?

That returns us to the very nature of the Electoral College. It's simply not going to go anywhere because the small states will not hear of it. And, for a system that is so cumbersome with so many moving parts and the shifting demogrpahics of America, the opponents of the EC must admit that it's done pretty good in delivering us a winner who also won the PV.

I would favor a mandate that you must win the EV majority and a plurality of the popular vote.

I understand the argument of winning the PV without the EV even being considered but unless you want a system where the flyover states are totally ignored, the best bet would be to stick with what we currently have.

Small States have already voted for going by the popular vote, including Vermont, Rhode Island, and Hawaii.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's really not the small states that are against getting rid of the electoral college...it's the big swing states like Florida and Ohio mostly.

Also, unfortunately, going by the popular vote for some reason has picked up somewhat of a liberal tag so conservative states are against it now. Which is kinda retarded since the EC does benefit the Democrats more than the Republicans (the 2000 election is literally the "only" recent exception to this)

It has been passed in 3 of the 13 smallest states and failed in 5 and the remainder have not considered it. Of the 26 states that voted, 11 passed it and it failed in 16. It's not likely that 38 states would ratify. It would be a loser in both small and large states.


.

 

[Spare_change]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

You're wrong ---- I can name those in Colorado (the Republican version) for the past two elections. But then, I'm actually involved in the political process, rather than sitting on a limb throwing feces.

If you look it up real quick on Wikipedia I'm sure you could name any number of electors.

Don't ask stupid questions - all they do is embarrass you.

 

[Spare_change]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

Not really. We're not surprised that you think there is a group somewhere that meets as one to decide the President and Vice President.

As for who represented you in the last Electoral College...you can look here dumb dumb:

List of United States presidential electors 2012 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That is awesome! Then you must also know what these people's qualifications are for the job.

The electors are selected because they are considered loyal party members. To vote against their party's nominee who has won the vote in their state is tantamount to political suicide. Most of the faithless electors who have done so, failed to honor their pledge because the candidate died before the electoral college met. Since the Electoral College was formed there have 82 Electors out of over 75,000 who have broken their pledge and it has never affected the outcome of a presidential election. The country has serious problems and there are many amendments that need to be considered. The Electorate College is not one of them.
Faithless elector - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In some states, they are directed by law to follow the popular vote - some states require that they vote the ticket until the third iteration, and then they are free to vote their 'conscience' (that's they only way to break ties/get a majority, etc.)

 

[candycorn]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

Not really. We're not surprised that you think there is a group somewhere that meets as one to decide the President and Vice President.

As for who represented you in the last Electoral College...you can look here dumb dumb:

List of United States presidential electors 2012 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That is awesome! Then you must also know what these people's qualifications are for the job.

Party Patronage usually.

Anything else you need to know about politics...you don't seem to know very much.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Correct.

Bingo, we have a winner.

There is absolutely no directive in the US Constitution where it is written that the electors of any given state must cast their elector-ballots based on the popular vote results of their state. But the tradition, a good one, I might add, has been so strong since it started in part of the country in 1824, that I doubt that any state would ever try to go against it.

That Elector would come up dead if he voted for anybody other than the one who won the popular vote IN THAT STATE.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 39 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-83% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

Support for a National Popular Vote
South Dakota -- 75% for Question 1, 67% for Question 2.
Connecticut -- 74% for Question 1, 68% for Question 2,
Utah -- 70% for Question 1, 66% for Question 2

NationalPopularVote.com

Let's all eat shit. 50 million flies can't be wrong.

Well, that was weird.

Wierd indeed! That's the philosophy of the Lib.dem. if the majority thinks it's great, then it must be.

Well we could have rule by minority, but then everyone would have to vote the opposite of who they wanted, in order to get their opinions in the minority that would be ruling.

 

[Liminal]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

Not really. We're not surprised that you think there is a group somewhere that meets as one to decide the President and Vice President.

As for who represented you in the last Electoral College...you can look here dumb dumb:

List of United States presidential electors 2012 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That is awesome! Then you must also know what these people's qualifications are for the job.

Party Patronage usually.

Anything else you need to know about politics...you don't seem to know very much.

Fortunately I can rely on your impressive expertise to educate me.

 

[Liminal]

And yet, no one on this thread can name a person who represents them in the Electoral College. Big surprise.

Not really. We're not surprised that you think there is a group somewhere that meets as one to decide the President and Vice President.

As for who represented you in the last Electoral College...you can look here dumb dumb:

List of United States presidential electors 2012 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That is awesome! Then you must also know what these people's qualifications are for the job.

The electors are selected because they are considered loyal party members. To vote against their party's nominee who has won the vote in their state is tantamount to political suicide. Most of the faithless electors who have done so, failed to honor their pledge because the candidate died before the electoral college met. Since the Electoral College was formed there have 82 Electors out of over 75,000 who have broken their pledge and it has never affected the outcome of a presidential election. The country has serious problems and there are many amendments that need to be considered. The Electorate College is not one of them.
Faithless elector - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Loyal party members......are they vetted by a party commissar?