Electoral College. Just why?

[Cecilie1200]

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Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country?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

Every election year, we go through this. "It's old and doesn't give me what it wants, so it's outdated." Take a civics class and grow up.

it gives none except special interests what they want.

Well, that's certainly your opinion, especially since mob rule would give YOUR special interest what you want.

"mob rule" ..please....lets talk reality......it would benefit the whole nation

Oh, well, if YOU say so, it must be true. Why bother with that whole silly "substantiation" thing? Surely I respect you and your wisdom enough to just take your word for it.

And maybe flying monkeys will shoot out your ass.

 

[natstew]

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.

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.

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.

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.

McCain's citizenship was challenged
Bush's patriotism was challenged. He was called a traitor. Obama called him "unamerican"

John Kerry never finished his tour of duty in Vietnam:

 

[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.

It's beyond me, other than maybe one side believing that it gives an advantage. In my opinion, it should be by popular vote. Also, it's believed that the higher the population of a state, the more votes that state deserves. 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. In my opinion, the whole political process is screwed up.

You want it because a fucking liberal Santa Claus will win every election. Obama won under the Electoral System. The system works.

Well, sure. Do away with the Electoral College and you can just ignore those pesky rubes in flyover country and let the elites in NYC, LA, etc. run the country for the serfs, the way it should be.

Those people in flyover country dont get a say NOW.....its not like doing away with the electoral college the way it is now would make a difference.....it needs to be modified not eliminated.

Incorrect. Right now, Presidential candidates have to actually pay attention to and visit other states besides NY and CA. And WHY does it need to be modified? Because YOU don't like it and don't understand its purpose (or just don't agree with its purpose because it doesn't give you what you want)? As I said, we have this argument every time we have a Presidential election season, with a slew of leftist imbeciles thinking they're Mr. Clever and come up with something brand-new by parading their ignorance of basic Civics around. And I have yet to hear any reason for "It needs to go" other than "I don't like it. It isn't fair, Mommy! Waaaah!"

I'm really not interested in re-organizing the procedures of government based on a grade-school understanding of the subject, and life in general.

Well I dont agree with those that say it needs to go entirely......but the idea that it helps focus attention on the flyover staes is just bunk.....as its composed now.....The primary/caucus system occasionally brings attention..but not the general elction

 

[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.

Every election year, we go through this. "It's old and doesn't give me what it wants, so it's outdated." Take a civics class and grow up.

it gives none except special interests what they want.

Well, that's certainly your opinion, especially since mob rule would give YOUR special interest what you want.

"mob rule" ..please....lets talk reality......it would benefit the whole nation

Oh, well, if YOU say so, it must be true. Why bother with that whole silly "substantiation" thing? Surely I respect you and your wisdom enough to just take your word for it.

And maybe flying monkeys will shoot out your ass.

substantiation?.....the "democracy is mob rule" is the chant of elitists or tools of elitists.

 

[natstew]

I believe the candidate who wins a Congressional district should get that District's Electoral vote.

"Winner take all" as is done in California, Florida, Texas, New York and others is just plain unfair.

 

[dcraelin]

I believe the candidate who wins a Congressional district should get that District's Electoral vote.

"Winner take all" as is done in California, Florida, Texas, New York and others is just plain unfair.

Good idea except the districts are gerrymandered (which I believe is really unconstitutional) .....Making states award electoral votes proportionately, would approximate your proposal IF districts were fairly drawn.

 

[Nyvin]

I believe the candidate who wins a Congressional district should get that District's Electoral vote.

"Winner take all" as is done in California, Florida, Texas, New York and others is just plain unfair.

I still think this would produce skewed results too often, with one candidate winning the election despite losing the popular vote.

 

[Kosh]

The electoral college was designed to accommodate a multiple (more than two) party system.

It is the two parties that do not want to loose their power over the people.

Also the states electoral college points does not have to give their votes to the one who gets the most votes.

 

[dcraelin]

The electoral college was designed to accommodate a multiple (more than two) party system.

It is the two parties that do not want to loose their power over the people.

Also the states electoral college points does not have to give their votes to the one who gets the most votes.

I think your right on the multiple partys,....or just favorite sons, in an era when communication was limited.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Personally, what I think is that it's very telling - and very typical of you - to be blatantly saying, "So how CAN we disenfranchise people who aren't giving us what we want?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, this is the US and, for some reason, whatever the 50 or so founders thought was a good idea in the late 1700's are still the rules we have to live by regardless of whether or not they fit into the 20th century realities.

If you were watching this from Mars, you'd be laughing your ass off at the crap Americans choose to care about.

Maybe it's because the Founding Fathers threw lime in the outhouse over stuff that was smarter than you are. Think that could have some bearing on why we like their ideas of good governance better than yours?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Democrats live and die by stuffing the ballot box with as many inappropriate voters as they can snag, the dumber the better. You're walking proof of that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The one tweak,that I think would make sense,going to a proportional count,not this all or nothing,this would discourage campaigns from just focusing on states like Ohio and Florida.New york is a fine example so is Cal,the cities almost always carry the state,disenfranchising the rest of the state.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

It's like the system isn't SUPPOSED to guarantee the election to the winner of some apocryphal "popular vote", or something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

We are not a democracy.

You know how much leftists love buzzwords. Saves time and effort on thinking.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

We are not a democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

Not the point, Chuckles. The point is that we are not designed to operate as a democracy, so citing "democracy!" as a reason to change a representative procedure in government like the EC is silly.

The question was never, "Can we change it and still be a republic?" It's actually, "Why should it be changed?" I have yet to hear a good reason.

 

[Cecilie1200]

National Popular Vote does not give equal or fair votes to the States that have fewer populations.
The Larger Mob always wins and gives no representation to the minorities of the Nation.
This is exactly why our Founders set up our Government as a Republic where the mob does not control everyone.

Yes it does....1 person 1 vote. Why should it matter where the person lives when electing a national leader?

Why should people in smaller states have more representation for electing the president than people from large states?

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

 

[Nyvin]

National Popular Vote does not give equal or fair votes to the States that have fewer populations.
The Larger Mob always wins and gives no representation to the minorities of the Nation.
This is exactly why our Founders set up our Government as a Republic where the mob does not control everyone.

Yes it does....1 person 1 vote. Why should it matter where the person lives when electing a national leader?

Why should people in smaller states have more representation for electing the president than people from large states?

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

 

[peach174]

National Popular Vote does not give equal or fair votes to the States that have fewer populations.
The Larger Mob always wins and gives no representation to the minorities of the Nation.
This is exactly why our Founders set up our Government as a Republic where the mob does not control everyone.

Yes it does....1 person 1 vote. Why should it matter where the person lives when electing a national leader?

Why should people in smaller states have more representation for electing the president than people from large states?

It does not give them more representation.
It gives them a fairer representation over the majority and gives the few a voice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Because we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy - and thankfully so.

Because the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy. At the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island conducted popular elections for Governor. If popular election of a state’s chief executive meant that these four states were not a “republic,” then all four would have been in immediate violation of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”). If the states were not “republics,” the delegates from these four states would not have voted for the Constitution at the Convention and these four states would never have ratified the Constitution.

Madison’s definition of a “republic” in Federalist No. 14: “in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents.” Also Federalist No. 10.

The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia).

No one ever said the EC 'makes' the United States a Constitutional Republic; the United States is a Constitutional Republic because that was the Framers' intent, to wisely eschew a direct democracy and referenda and opt for representative democracy where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not the tyranny of the majority:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...” Article VI, Section 4, US Constitution.

The EC, therefore, reflects the Framers' intent to create a Republic, where the EC is consistent with a republican form of government, as guaranteed by the Constitution, ensuring the states equal and full participation when electing a president.

Wow, this is very coherent and well-stated.

Did someone hack your account?

 

[Cecilie1200]

National Popular Vote does not give equal or fair votes to the States that have fewer populations.
The Larger Mob always wins and gives no representation to the minorities of the Nation.
This is exactly why our Founders set up our Government as a Republic where the mob does not control everyone.

Yes it does....1 person 1 vote. Why should it matter where the person lives when electing a national leader?

Why should people in smaller states have more representation for electing the president than people from large states?

Maybe because our Founding Fathers had firsthand experience of living with no representation, and thought it was a bad thing.

People in smaller states don't have "more representation". They just have a different sort from what suits your simplistic, juvenile worldview.

No, you're mathematically wrong. People who live in smaller population states have more electoral clout for the presidential election than people in large population states.

Well, if it was about individual votes, that might be true. But if it was about individual votes, we wouldn't have an Electoral College at all.