Electoral College. Just why?

[dcraelin]

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Does anyone know who their Electoral College Delegate is?

in some states you actually vote for the candidates's slate of electors directly....so if they have a ballot they know who they are.

Which states? Do you know who your delegate is?

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

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

right but I think the actual names of electors are on the ballot in some states rather than the name of the candidate alonee.

 

[Liminal]

Here's one explanation...I guess it demonstrates the weakness of a Union.

Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College

Constitutional Topic The Electoral College - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.​

And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.

No.

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

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

That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.

 

[Flopper]

Does anyone know who their Electoral College Delegate is?

in some states you actually vote for the candidates's slate of electors directly....so if they have a ballot they know who they are.

Which states? Do you know who your delegate is?

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

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

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

After the state's Electoral College ceremony concluded, no one stepped forward as the Edwards voter. Most electors chalked the vote up as a mistake rather than a purposeful political statement.
MPR Minnesota elector gives Edwards a vote Kerry gets other nine

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

You claim to love it

We believe in equality and democracy

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

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

Our interests in Iowa is different than somebody's in New York or California. Those two states plus a few more liberal one will decide who is our next president always under your communist inspired national popular vote. How about if we give every county in American a vote in the electoral college instead? Majority of counties voting for the Democrat or Republican or Libertarian votes wins. Call it the National County Popular Vote.

 

[Nyvin]

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

You claim to love it

We believe in equality and democracy

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

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

Our interests in Iowa is different than somebody's in New York or California. Those two states plus a few more liberal one will decide who is our next president always under your communist inspired national popular vote. How about if we give every county in American a vote in the electoral college instead? Majority of counties voting for the Democrat or Republican or Libertarian votes wins. Call it the National County Popular Vote.

Because giving LA county, CA 1 vote and giving Loving county, TX 1 vote is nothing short of absurd.

LA county population: 9,818,605

Loving county population: 82

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

What is this 21st century "reality" that needs fixing.so much that we have to trash our constitution? Reality my ass. You people hate the constraint our God inspired constitution places on your BIG government and the freedoms it ensures for the individual.

Screw you people. The EC is here forever.

 

[Flopper]

Here's one explanation...I guess it demonstrates the weakness of a Union.

Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College

Constitutional Topic The Electoral College - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.​

And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.

No.

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

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

That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.

The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Yea we know Joe, when the topic is about who founded this country, you liberals will always say "liberals"

Isn't it interesting that these people say "the republicans of Lincoln aren't the same as today's. And the Democrats of civil war, KKK and Jim Crow aren't the same as today's, but when it comes to the Founders, they insist they are the same liberals as they are today. Such fucking bullshit.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

From heritage,org.

The Unconstitutionality of the NPV: Compact Clause
Supporters of the NPV claim that because the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to determine how electors are chosen, the NPV is constitutional and requires no approval by Congress. Such claims, however, are specious. The NPV is unconstitutional because it would give a group of states with a majority of electoral votes “the power to overturn the explicit decision of the Framers against direct election. Since that power does not conform to the constitutional means of changing the original decisions of the framers, NPV could not be a legitimate innovation.”[17]

The Constitution’s Compact Clause provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”[18] The Founders created the Compact Clause because they feared that compacting states would threaten the supremacy of the federal government in matters of foreign affairs and relations among the states.[19] If states could make agreements among themselves, they could damage the nation’s federalist structure. Populist states, for example, cannot agree to have their U.S. Senators vote to seat only one Senator from a less populous state.

The very purpose of this clause was to prevent a handful of states from combining to overturn an essential part of the constitutional design. The plain text makes it clear that all such state compacts must be approved by Congress.

By circumventing the checks and balances of Congress, the NPV would risk setting a precedent that states can validate non–congressionally approved compacts as a substitute for a constitutional amendment. Undoubtedly, many liberal activist groups would like to create their own compacts or to lobby states individually to join compacts. Such compacts could then create de facto constitutional amendments regarding many different public policy issues—including purely federal matters.

Even though the plain text of the Constitution makes it clear that no compact shall be made by states without the consent of Congress, courts have recognized certain narrow agreements as exceptions to the limitations of the Compact Clause.[20] Interstate compacts that governed boundary disputes between states were almost always upheld as valid.[21] Although states sometimes did submit their compacts to Congress for ratification, there has been an implied understanding that interstate agreements were legitimate as long as they had a limited, specifically local impact and did not affect national prerogatives.

In the 1920s, interstate compacts expanded their scope and began to establish regulatory agencies.[22]As the 20th century progressed, compacts were increasingly used to tackle broader issues facing the states. Modern interstate compacts can govern everything from environmental issues to water conservation, waste disposal, education, child welfare, crime control, and others—if approved by Congress.[23]

Although some of the interstate compacts have expanded to include more national issues, none would affect the federal government or non-participating states to the extent that the NPV does. The NPV addresses an area of national concern by effectively abolishing the Electoral College and changing the method of choosing the President. However, unlike other agreements that are exempt from the requirement of congressional approval, the NPV aims to control the behavior of compacting and non-compacting states alike and “harms those states whose citizens benefit from the current system of election.”[24]

Should the NPV movement reach its target of 270 electoral votes, states not involved in the compact will have been co-opted into an electoral regime despite having never consented to the compact. This distinction delineates this compact from others, which have dealt with even arguably national issues.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Yes, but the electoral college does not have to follow the popular vote.....

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.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yes, but the electoral college does not have to follow the popular vote.....

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.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Really? So this is the law in nine states or four states? As far as I know, only two states (NE and ME) use proportional awarding of electoral votes.

Please enlighten me.

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

Any idea what he was talking about?

He is talking about the states in which the Interstate Compact has become law and where it has at least gotten a foothold in either or both houses, excluding, of course, Nebraska, which has a unicameral state legislature.

As soon as the compact is law in enough states whose sum electoral totals are at least 10 EV over 270, then it would go into effect at the next GE.

It will go to the Supreme Court. It is unconstitutional.

 

[dcraelin]

Here's one explanation...I guess it demonstrates the weakness of a Union.

Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College

Constitutional Topic The Electoral College - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.​

And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.

No.

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

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

That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.

The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?

I somewhat agree, except the presidential candidates dont spend any time or give those staes attention now...Except if they hapen to buly their way tho the front of the primary or caucus line like Iowas and New Hampshire.

 

[candycorn]

Four times in history, presidents have been elected despite losing the popular vote. So what? Given that we have had 60 presidential elections, that seems like a pretty good batting average - sure beats the hell out of area voting.

So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?

Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).

......rendering the popular vote completely irrelevant, since the electoral college decides the outcome.

Nonsense.

The outcome is decided long before the EVs are cast

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

Better that than to be left hopelessly ignorant of the electoral process as you are.

 

[candycorn]

The small states that benefit the most from the EC would never go for it. There is no need in discussing the fantasy of eliminating the EC.

I see, so you'll decide what the need is.

It would be much like making a plan to walk on the ocean floor without first addressing the fact that you can't breath underwater. There is no need discussing a post electoral-college America since there will never be a post electoral-college America.

No doubt that's what the founding slave holders thought.

Quite to the contrary. The body didn't think one way or another about any number of topics. Compromise and negotiation delivered us this imperfect system which could be further perfected by inclusion of the mandate that the President Elect garner a plurality of the popular vote IN ADDITION TO the majority of the electoral vote.

Explain exactly how those two things interact.

Well, you will still need to get 270 electoral votes. But you would also need to get the highest amount of popular votes in the election. Anything less than that and the 12th Amendment takes over

 

[candycorn]

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.

 

[candycorn]

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.

What is this 21st century "reality" that needs fixing.so much that we have to trash our constitution? Reality my ass. You people hate the constraint our God inspired constitution places on your BIG government and the freedoms it ensures for the individual.

Oh shut the fuck up and shove your indignant attitude up your ass.

Screw you people. The EC is here forever.

As I've said 20 times now fuckwad.

However, the notion that the 50+ people that founded the nation got everything right is moronic as it would be to expect the 50 smartest people in the universe right now to craft a system that would work flawlessly 300 years from now.

Try wrapping your two working brain cells around that concept fuckwad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We believe in equality and democracy

No you don't. The Electoral College's specific job is to make sure there is not too much democracy.

And how does it do that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The guy who wins the popular vote wins the presidency all but about once a century.

The electoral college is meaningless.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We believe in equality and democracy

No you don't. The Electoral College's specific job is to make sure there is not too much democracy.

Yeah, democracy, a system where the power resides with the People...

...a conservative's worst nightmare.