Electoral College. Just why?

[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?

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.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

 

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Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country?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

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.

The Electoral College never has ensured states equal and full participation when electing a president.

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just ten states in 2012.

California has 55 electoral votes. Delaware 3.

It's even more indefensible that California's population is 61 times bigger than Wyoming's, but in the electoral college, it's has only 18.3 times the electoral firepower that WY does. Surely that is not what the founders had in mind.

Why "surely"? Because it doesn't fit in with your adolescent viewpoint on life?

That was exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind, although admittedly, they weren't worried about individual vote representation.

 

[Brian_1349]

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.

What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?

 

[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.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

 

[peach174]

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?

Then you just might as well go to popular vote.

Well, no.

The small states like colloquially Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, all the way up to Virginia, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and North Carolina like having the candidates campaign there. It means revenue for their media outlets, hotels, restaurants, etc... and attention for their issues. There is no way they are going to give that up so it's not even worth having the conversation.
.

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

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.

Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote.com

I think the Electoral College is the poster boy for what the founders got wrong. Its an incredibly anti-democratic system that long outlived it's usefulness when voting was done by sharpened lead instrument and counting was done by people in powdered wigs.

I'm just telling you that the small states will never go for a change in the system and, regardless of what they tell you in some polling, the Democrats love going into the contests with such massive advantages.

It's sort of the karmic outcome of our founders. Today's GOP got the antiquated second Amendment (the founders never envisioned guns that could kill so efficiently) and the Democrats got the Electoral College. Its strange how neither party thought to ensure privacy. Different times I suppose.

We are a Republic that gives minorities their voice as well as the majorities voice.
Our Privacy is in the 4th amendment.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Well, that question is decided by each state, as it should be. It is up to the people of each state to make their state's laws reflect what they feel is best for them.

 

[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.

What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?

California is the one that gets extra representation. They have the highest amount of electoral votes of any other State in the Union.

 

[peach174]

What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?


The Democrats.

 

[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?

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

What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?

California is the one that gets extra representation. They have the highest amount of electoral votes of any other State in the Union.

Cause they have by far the most people. Simple elementary math tells us per person they actually get one of the worst deals.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You run an ad in Iowa and get 100% of the vote or 3 million votes.

Safe seats or states will always be ignored by both sides in a two party system. Proportional representation lets more extreme right or left wing parties nibble at previously safe states. People can vote for them knowing their vote won't be immediately meaningless.

What the direct election via popular vote would do is put every square inch of the country in play. If the governor of IA gets 60% of the vote, that means that 40% is ripe for the picking.

Probably another reason the political parties are dubious of the benefit of direct election.

Yes, because there's all kinds of reasons for candidates to visit WY if it's a popular vote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, when I said that, I was referring to working within the confines of the Electoral College system itself. Winner-take-all states are directly anti-democratic but that is what the Constitution prescribes.

Untrue. The Constitution has no prescription to this end; it leaves it entirely up to the states.

 

[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.

Well, that question is decided by each state, as it should be. It is up to the people of each state to make their state's laws reflect what they feel is best for them.

The election of a president is a nationwide concern...why should it be up to the states alone? California has way to much power because it awards electors winner-take-all, and no other state can match it for electoral count. But I would also say NY and Texas have to much power....it needs to change.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.

You know that the states already have this complete power, right?
And that the states need not hold an election for the allocation of their electors?

 

[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.

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?

no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.

 

[Dante]

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 are the only state to have our kind of a system and our nation was formed by a consensus of all involved. Nothing was imposed on us (unless you count the Tories )

We are a representative republic. Most of the world doesn't do so much better with their popular democracy model. People who complain about the Electoral College are usually losers -- in ore ways than one, losers

 

[dcraelin]

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.

No they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3

The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.

What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??

What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.

It's actually very very simple math:

California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote

Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote

Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote

Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote

Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.

informative but it leaves out the winner-take-all effect.....which gives way to much clout to California. texas and NewYork

 

[Dante]

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.

George C. Edwards, trying to quantify the abstract. What a genius! Absurdity rules.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

What do you mean by fairer representation? Fair representation in my opinion is one vote for one person. When certain states get extra representation just for being small enough that's not fair, that's manipulation. Who said minorities are more important than majority of the US population?

California is the one that gets extra representation. They have the highest amount of electoral votes of any other State in the Union.

Actually, in proportion to their population, California is underrepresented. Right now, CA should have 56 EV, not 55.

 

[Dante]

This is a good question and the answer to it is 'to be anti-democratic'. The people who insist that America is a republic and not a democracy (a ludicrous and empty argument, granted) seem attached to preserving this archaic institution in order to memorialize their discontent with and distrust of democratic processes. They like to ignore that all other elected Federal offices are by direct vote. They like to ignore that the House, which holds the purse strings and thus (at least in theory, as was the intention) control of what the Federal Government can do, is the most democratic aspect of American government. It is entirely elected every two years. Why the individual who administers the funds allowed by this overwhelmingly democratically elected assembly should not in turn be elected by direct vote is without valid support.
Any historical sense it may have made hundreds of years ago has long since evaporated.

You are confusing the 'democratic process' with a democratic system. We live in a representative, democratic republic. Using your own logic and argument, all forms of government should be called archaic.

Stating "all other elected Federal offices are by direct vote" is not by itself, an argument. Saying people you disagree with ignore that fact is disingenuous at best and scumbag lying at worst.

the rest of your post is an attack on motives or thinking of others -- motives and thinking you FAIL to back up in argument

 

[Dante]

Voila!

that's right. (see post above your own in the link), voila! Because we in America do not have popular democracy. We do not want to be like the Arab Spring, do we? We are less of a homogenous people than most all of the world. Even in Europe, when one introduces a less homogenous society we see popular democracy breaking down as being an attractive solution