Electoral College. Just why?

[Statistikhengst]

Correct: ME and NE do elector-splitting, per law.

The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

It 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.

No state uses proportional awarding of electoral votes.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

The venacular for what you described vis a vis ME and NE is "elector splitting".

One needs to be precise in word use.

There are many kinds of "splitting" possible.

There has never been a proportional split by a state.
Proportional is very different than the congressional district method, and is not subject to gerrymandered districts.

Maine has never actually "split" their electoral votes.
Nebraska has only "split" once, with one vote.

Indeed. And there is a reason why NE has not undone it's elector-splitting law.

Ask me, I'll throw you a link or two, if that interests you.

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed last month.

It goes much deeper than this:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond NEBRASKA UPDATE 2

I have been following this phenomenon since early 2009.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Closer than 537 votes in one state determining the entire election?

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

That is incorrect:

1880: Garfield +9,070 raw votes nationally
1884: Cleveland +57,579 raw votes nationally
1888: Harrison +94,530 raw votes nationally

Furthermore, the closest electoral vote margin was not 2000, it was 1876:

Hayes 185 / Tilden 184, margin: Hayes +1

 

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

It 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.

No state uses proportional awarding of electoral votes.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

The venacular for what you described vis a vis ME and NE is "elector splitting".

One needs to be precise in word use.

There are many kinds of "splitting" possible.

There has never been a proportional split by a state.
Proportional is very different than the congressional district method, and is not subject to gerrymandered districts.

Maine has never actually "split" their electoral votes.
Nebraska has only "split" once, with one vote.

Indeed. And there is a reason why NE has not undone it's elector-splitting law.

Ask me, I'll throw you a link or two, if that interests you.

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed last month.

It goes much deeper than this:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond NEBRASKA UPDATE 2

I have been following this phenomenon since early 2009.

Closer than 537 votes in one state determining the entire election?

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

That is incorrect:

1880: Garfield +9,070 raw votes nationally
1884: Cleveland +57,579 raw votes nationally
1888: Harrison +94,530 raw votes nationally

Furthermore, the closest electoral vote margin was not 2000, it was 1876:

Hayes 185 / Tilden 184, margin: Hayes +1

The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

It 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.

No state uses proportional awarding of electoral votes.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

The venacular for what you described vis a vis ME and NE is "elector splitting".

One needs to be precise in word use.

There are many kinds of "splitting" possible.

There has never been a proportional split by a state.
Proportional is very different than the congressional district method, and is not subject to gerrymandered districts.

Maine has never actually "split" their electoral votes.
Nebraska has only "split" once, with one vote.

Indeed. And there is a reason why NE has not undone it's elector-splitting law.

Ask me, I'll throw you a link or two, if that interests you.

After Obama won 1 congressional district in Nebraska in 2008, the leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party promptly adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support. A GOP push to return Nebraska to a winner-take-all system of awarding its electoral college votes for president only barely failed last month.

It goes much deeper than this:

Statistikhengst s ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2015 and beyond NEBRASKA UPDATE 2

I have been following this phenomenon since early 2009.

A survey of Nebraska voters showed 67% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

Support by political affiliation was 78% among Democrats, 62% among Republicans, and 63% among others.

By congressional district, support for a national popular vote was 65% in the 1st congressional district, 66% in the 2nd district (which voted for Obama in 2008); and 72% in the 3rd District.

By gender, support for a national popular vote was 76% among women and 59% among men.

By age, support for a national popular vote, 73% among 18–29 year-olds, 67% among 30–45 year-olds, 65% among 46–65 year-olds, and 69% among those older than 65.

In a 2nd question with a 3-way choice among methods of awarding electoral votes,
* 16% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all five electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide)
* 27% favored the current system
* 57% favored a national popular vote

Support by political affiliation for a national popular vote was still 65% among Democrats, 53% among Republicans, and 51% among others.

NationalPopularVote

 

[JakeStarkey]

Got to do it by Constitutional amendment, and the votes just are not there.

 

[dilloduck]

Politicians would have to entirely change their strategy. They have far too much invested in keeping the status quo. Like it matters anyway. We always get stuck with liars

 

[mvymvy]

Got to do it by Constitutional amendment, and the votes just are not there.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

 

[mvymvy]

Politicians would have to entirely change their strategy. They have far too much invested in keeping the status quo. Like it matters anyway. We always get stuck with liars

Paul Ryan said, "If there's a thing I learned from being involved in the 2012 election, it's that we can't have this Electoral College strategy with the margin of error of one state." (August 21, 2014)

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable, to the point that only ten states were considered competitive in the 2012 election.

From 1992- 2012
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242 electoral votes) voted Democratic every time

If this pattern continues,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states.
If Republicans lose Florida (29 electoral votes), they would lose.

Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.

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

More than 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the National Popular Vote bill.

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.

 

[Clementine]

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.

We are already in trouble with nearly half believing in big government and redistribution of all wealth. If those people became the majority, our country would collapse.




Origins of the Electoral College

"Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic -- or, arguably, a republican democracy -- that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government.27 Moreover, a republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks: enabling large and small sovereign states to live peacefully alongside each other.

The authors of the Constitution had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they strove to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unfettered majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny.Madison stated it this way:

[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.28

Alexander Hamilton agreed that "[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."29 Other early Americans concurred. John Adams, who signed the Declaration of Independence and later became President, declared, "[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."30 Another signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, stated, "A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils."31"

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy

 

[dilloduck]

The power machines of politics will work around any monkey wrenches thrown in their way.

 

[Liminal]

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....

You've got it all wrong.

Feel free to elaborate on the importance of the Electoral College.

 

[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?

 

[JoeB131]

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 fuck it, we've got this weird relic from the 18th century.

 

[Unkotare]

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....

You've got it all wrong.

Feel free to elaborate on the importance of the Electoral College.

Feel free to go back to Jr High and get the most basic education on Civics. We'll take it from there.

 

[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 fuck 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.

 

[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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Got to do it by Constitutional amendment, and the votes just are not there.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

False. The electoral college is the system in which the states operate. They have no independent to change it. States control their elections within that system and submit their electoral votes per the Constitution

 

[SuperDemocrat]

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.

Politicians can manipulate the masses. It is a good system because the elected get their office by direct vote of the electors not the people. The electors get their office by direct vote of the people. It creates a little ditance between the people and the politicians which can be healthy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's almost like saying that the citizens in California deserve more say in government than those that live in North Dakota.

Actually, North Dakotans' votes count for more in a presidential election than Californians'.

 

[regent]

If the electoral college were changed would a candidate win the election if he had the most votes over the 50% margin or would a candidate win if he had a majority of the votes cast?

 

[mvymvy]

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.

We are already in trouble with nearly half believing in big government and redistribution of all wealth. If those people became the majority, our country would collapse.




Origins of the Electoral College

"Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic -- or, arguably, a republican democracy -- that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government.27 Moreover, a republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks: enabling large and small sovereign states to live peacefully alongside each other.

The authors of the Constitution had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they strove to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unfettered majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny.Madison stated it this way:

[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.28

Alexander Hamilton agreed that "[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."29 Other early Americans concurred. John Adams, who signed the Declaration of Independence and later became President, declared, "[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."30 Another signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, stated, "A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils."31"

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy

One more time:

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure 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.