The Electoral College Needs to Go

[Lesh]

Darkies need to work on being more diverse like Hispanics

Shhhhhh...you're supposed to pretend that you aren't racist...

Is it racist to believe Hispanics are more diverse than blacks?

It's racist to use the term "darkies"

I think the OP used it first. Yep in post #8.

By "fake ballots", you mean, "Letting the darkies vote."

.

You can really get a feel for how little democrats think of darkies when you watch them explain why voter ID is racist. Democrats literally believe black people are to dumb to goto the DMV. No joke.

You just can't go three posts in a row without going full on racist huh?

 

[OKTexas]

No state shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. It's in the Constitution, so of course you don't take it seriously.

Has nothing to do with getting rid of the electoral college... so I don't.

Dismissed.

Seriously. That person is stupid.

The electoral collage only applies to the presidential election.

No other political office in America is elected by the electoral college.

Wrong, the VP is also.

.

 

[OKTexas]

What you are failing to consider is that changing the rules will change the number of votes cast. A lot of people in Patriotic states like West Virginia and Mississippi don't bother going to the polls nowadays because they know how their state is going. Expect turnout to triple or better in many locations.

But the same could be said about Civilized states like Illinois and New York because they know how their state is going.

heck, when I voted, we knew Biden was going to take Illinois, Durbin was running against a non-entity for Senate and his fifth term, and the GOP didn't even bother to run an opponent for my Congressman, a guy whose name I couldn't pronounce on a bet.

Yeah, you know how your State is going, bankrupt.

.

 

[Markle]

By JoeB131

The 2020 Election has proven one thing, that it is past time for America go get rid of the 18th century anachronism of the Electoral College.

The reasons that the electoral college is detrimental can be identified pretty easily.

• The presidents it chooses over the will of the people always turn out to be bad for the country. Not only the modern examples of George W. Bush (crashing the economy, getting us into a war based on lies), and Trump (the list is too long of his failings) but the earlier ones like Rutherford B. Hayes, whose administration reversed victory in the Civil War, or John Q. Adams, who corrupted congress to win. They are almost always a mistake the voters needed to correct the next election.
• It creates a false sense of mandate. Even when the people are clear in their choice, a 60/40 win like Reagan in 1984 or Nixon in 1972 appear to have a mandate with a mostly single color map when in fact there were plenty who didn’t support them.
• It makes it impossible for third parties to gain any traction. Every year, we hear about how we are “Stuck with the lesser of two evils”. American history is full of third parties that challenged the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, but none of them really last beyond an election cycle or two. Why? Because at the end of the day, the best they could hope for is to throw the election into Congress. Case in point, the Reform Party. Ross Perot was a bit eccentric, but he brought issues to the fore that other parties didn’t. Yet by 2000, the Reform party was done.
• At some point, it will make it impossible for the GOP to win. This is something that the GOP should consider. Texas came closer to turning blue this time than it ever has, and demographic changes will make that inevitable. Once that happens, it will be nearly impossible for the GOP to get an electoral majority, even if they win the popular vote.
• It depresses voter participation. If you didn’t live in one of the ten “Swing states”, there was really not much reason for you to come out and vote, was there? Even though 2020 was a record turnout, 80 million Americans, or about 34% of the eligible electorate, did not vote. Why should they, when they were already painting their state red or blue before a single vote was counted.
• It causes candidates to pander to the interests of small groups over the good of the country. The Cuban American community in Florida is still bitter about a revolution that happened 60 years ago, but it still factors into our politics, keeping us from normalizing relations with Cuba. Meanwhile, in Iowa, we are still spending money to subsidize ethanol nobody really wants to put in their cars. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
• It’s kind of racist. The fact that small homogenous rural states have outsized influence over diverse urban states in this system is a real problem in a country that has historically oppressed minorities. The fact is that it has contributed to the racial divide in this country, where one party has effectively become a white identity party, while the other had tied its fortunes to minority turnout.
• It is subject to a lot of potential mischief after the votes are tallied. The 2020 election itself was not in doubt. Biden won by 7 million votes. Yet we have had endless arguments about some 45,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin. State Legislatures, federal and state courts, faithless electors and congress have all been called upon to change the results, calling the whole system into question.

There is a very simple solution to the problems above. Adopt a system like the French have. You have a presidential election, where if the winner gets 50%+1, he wins, but if no one clears 50%, there would be a runoff. This will allow fuller participation, allow third parties greater exposure, and at the end, we will have a president with a clear mandate for change.

 

[francoHFW]

By JoeB131

The 2020 Election has proven one thing, that it is past time for America go get rid of the 18th century anachronism of the Electoral College.

The reasons that the electoral college is detrimental can be identified pretty easily.

• The presidents it chooses over the will of the people always turn out to be bad for the country. Not only the modern examples of George W. Bush (crashing the economy, getting us into a war based on lies), and Trump (the list is too long of his failings) but the earlier ones like Rutherford B. Hayes, whose administration reversed victory in the Civil War, or John Q. Adams, who corrupted congress to win. They are almost always a mistake the voters needed to correct the next election.
• It creates a false sense of mandate. Even when the people are clear in their choice, a 60/40 win like Reagan in 1984 or Nixon in 1972 appear to have a mandate with a mostly single color map when in fact there were plenty who didn’t support them.
• It makes it impossible for third parties to gain any traction. Every year, we hear about how we are “Stuck with the lesser of two evils”. American history is full of third parties that challenged the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, but none of them really last beyond an election cycle or two. Why? Because at the end of the day, the best they could hope for is to throw the election into Congress. Case in point, the Reform Party. Ross Perot was a bit eccentric, but he brought issues to the fore that other parties didn’t. Yet by 2000, the Reform party was done.
• At some point, it will make it impossible for the GOP to win. This is something that the GOP should consider. Texas came closer to turning blue this time than it ever has, and demographic changes will make that inevitable. Once that happens, it will be nearly impossible for the GOP to get an electoral majority, even if they win the popular vote.
• It depresses voter participation. If you didn’t live in one of the ten “Swing states”, there was really not much reason for you to come out and vote, was there? Even though 2020 was a record turnout, 80 million Americans, or about 34% of the eligible electorate, did not vote. Why should they, when they were already painting their state red or blue before a single vote was counted.
• It causes candidates to pander to the interests of small groups over the good of the country. The Cuban American community in Florida is still bitter about a revolution that happened 60 years ago, but it still factors into our politics, keeping us from normalizing relations with Cuba. Meanwhile, in Iowa, we are still spending money to subsidize ethanol nobody really wants to put in their cars. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
• It’s kind of racist. The fact that small homogenous rural states have outsized influence over diverse urban states in this system is a real problem in a country that has historically oppressed minorities. The fact is that it has contributed to the racial divide in this country, where one party has effectively become a white identity party, while the other had tied its fortunes to minority turnout.
• It is subject to a lot of potential mischief after the votes are tallied. The 2020 election itself was not in doubt. Biden won by 7 million votes. Yet we have had endless arguments about some 45,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin. State Legislatures, federal and state courts, faithless electors and congress have all been called upon to change the results, calling the whole system into question.

There is a very simple solution to the problems above. Adopt a system like the French have. You have a presidential election, where if the winner gets 50%+1, he wins, but if no one clears 50%, there would be a runoff. This will allow fuller participation, allow third parties greater exposure, and at the end, we will have a president with a clear mandate for change.

 

[OKTexas]

Majority rule is not a good idea.

Which leaves minority rule?

Interesting.

Which minority?

I believe you have the Incorrect premise.
The electoral college was to make sure things weren’t just majority rule, any majority. It was so large urban centers didn’t overwhelm other areas.
I don’t claim to be any type
Of expert regarding the EC. In fact, my constitutional knowledge is a bit lacking in this area. I couldn’t really debate it in a competent way. So I’m open to hear what you say regarding the manner.
I will state, however, that I am biased in regards to changing the constitution. I believe it was an incredible document, and making changes to it is generally a bad idea. Take for example the senate and what we did to it.
The senate’s purpose was to represent the states in the federal government. House was to represent the people. Now the senate has been destroyed and turned into a smaller (in numbers) house. It’s redundant and the states no longer have direct federal representation.

there are some changes I’d like to see. Term limits being a huge one.

Agreed, but that too would require an amendment.

.

 

[Lesh]

What you are failing to consider is that changing the rules will change the number of votes cast. A lot of people in Patriotic states like West Virginia and Mississippi don't bother going to the polls nowadays because they know how their state is going. Expect turnout to triple or better in many locations.

But the same could be said about Civilized states like Illinois and New York because they know how their state is going.

heck, when I voted, we knew Biden was going to take Illinois, Durbin was running against a non-entity for Senate and his fifth term, and the GOP didn't even bother to run an opponent for my Congressman, a guy whose name I couldn't pronounce on a bet.

Yeah, you know how your State is going, bankrupt.

.

You think Texas is doing great?

 

[OKTexas]

What you are failing to consider is that changing the rules will change the number of votes cast. A lot of people in Patriotic states like West Virginia and Mississippi don't bother going to the polls nowadays because they know how their state is going. Expect turnout to triple or better in many locations.

But the same could be said about Civilized states like Illinois and New York because they know how their state is going.

heck, when I voted, we knew Biden was going to take Illinois, Durbin was running against a non-entity for Senate and his fifth term, and the GOP didn't even bother to run an opponent for my Congressman, a guy whose name I couldn't pronounce on a bet.

Yeah, you know how your State is going, bankrupt.

.

You think Texas is doing great?

Yep, you don't see Abbott begging to bailed out like Cuomo and other commiecrats that were broke before Covid.

.

 

[JoeB131]

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, you know how your State is going, bankrupt.

All the states are going bankrupt thanks to TRUMP PLAGUE and TRUMP RECESSION.

 

[citygator]

Good thread. I’m still struck by the fact that LA county has more people in it than 40 other states. And more than 10 states combined.

 

[martybegan]

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

 

[pknopp]

All this gnashing of teeth when the solution is easy. Nominate someone the people can support.

We don't do that anymore.

We have been forced to pick from the worst of the worst

Absolutely. Hillary, Trump, Biden..........if we can't do better than this we deserve to fall apart.

We obviously can't do better.

The reason we have ignorant selfish politicians is because we have ignorant selfish voters

In part. Presidents are suppose to lead though.

Not really, the feds are supposed to do the things the States can't do alone, of course that concept was destroyed years ago, you can thank the courts for that.

.

Presidents aren't really suppose to lead? LOL......OK.

 

[Pogo]

The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

States ALREADY give all their EVs to a candidate its voters didn't vote for. As I just noted above.

For example in 2016 exactly that happened in:

• Arizona
• Colorado
• Florida
• Maine*
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Nebraska*
• New Mexico
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• Utah
• Virginia
• Wisconsin

*Maine and Nebraska partially split EVs by district; neither Maine district elected a non-majority candidate but the state as a whole, did, while NE-2 awarded its EV to a candidate the voters did not select​

​

That's the second point addressed upstairs in post 156. This is also what's behind the OP's call for runoffs and/or ranked choice voting.

As far as the Compact being "unConstitutional" we all know by now that the COTUS Article 2 declares that states shall choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" --- the Compact would simply be the Manner they direct. That Article was strongly used as basis last year when SCOTUS (unanimously) upheld state so-called "faithless elector" laws, despite such laws running contrary to the original spirit of the EC (again see post 156).

 

[martybegan]

The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

States ALREADY give all their EVs to a candidate its voters didn't vote for. As I just noted above.

For example in 2016 exactly that happened in:

• Arizona
• Colorado
• Florida
• Maine*
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Nebraska*
• New Mexico
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• Utah
• Virginia
• Wisconsin

*Maine and Nebraska partially split EVs by district; neither Maine district elected a non-majority candidate but the state as a whole, did, while NE-2 awarded its EV to a candidate the voters did not select​

​

That's the second point addressed upstairs in post 156. This is also what's behind the OP's call for runoffs and/or ranked choice voting.

As far as the Compact being "unConstitutional" we all know by now that the COTUS Article 2 declares that states shall choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" --- the Compact would simply be the Manner they direct. That Article was strongly used as basis last year when SCOTUS (unanimously) upheld state so-called "faithless elector" laws, despite such laws running contrary to the original spirit of the EC (again see post 156).

So you are saying Trump lost all those States?

The Constitution also guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" and allowing someone outside your State determine how your State votes despite what the voters in your State wants is not "Republican"

It would be the same as giving the vote to a flip of the coin.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

I believe you have the Incorrect premise.
The electoral college was to make sure things weren’t just majority rule, any majority. It was so large urban centers didn’t overwhelm other areas.

But that's not what the thinking at the time was at all. At the time, America was largely an agrarian society, NYC, for instance, only had a population of 25,000 in 1776. It wouldn't have even qualified as a large suburb today. No, the fear was that a more populus state would dominate, which was a worry when there were only 13 states.

I don’t claim to be any type
Of expert regarding the EC. In fact, my constitutional knowledge is a bit lacking in this area. I couldn’t really debate it in a competent way. So I’m open to hear what you say regarding the manner.

Here's the thing about the EC. The method they came up with in 1787 didn't work. It was a rushed compromise to get Geo. Washington to agree to be president, and the first two elections were by acclamation. The next one was the first one with any real contest, between Adams and Jefferson, after a handful of other candidates were eliminated by the EC, it was decided by Congress. Adams got the Presidential slot, Jefferson got Veep, they never really were allies (although they became fast friends after they both left office). In 1800, you had the bit where Aaron Burr tried to sneak into the presidency by the back door. After that, they passed the 12th Amendment to give us the EC in the form we have today.

I will state, however, that I am biased in regards to changing the constitution. I believe it was an incredible document, and making changes to it is generally a bad idea. Take for example the senate and what we did to it.
The senate’s purpose was to represent the states in the federal government. House was to represent the people. Now the senate has been destroyed and turned into a smaller (in numbers) house. It’s redundant and the states no longer have direct federal representation.

But then you have to consider why they stopped letting the state legislatures pick senators... because there was so much corruption involved in the process.

The problem with a bicameral Congress is that it's modelled after the British Parliament ... but the British had the good sense to make the House of Lords ceremonial after a certain point.

there are some changes I’d like to see. Term limits being a huge one.

We have term limits. They're called "Elections". The problem is, of course, that when you guys say you want term limits, it isn't for your Senator or Congressman, it's for that annoying guy from another state who's been there forever and you don't like his positions.

the senate is supposed to represent the state. It is now redundant as just another house of rep. Was there corruption involved in picking senators? Possibly. When isn’t corruption involved. But it should not have been changed to what it is now, a popular vote.
And yes, I am for term limits all around.

 

[Pogo]

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

All the states are going bankrupt thanks to TRUMP PLAGUE and TRUMP RECESSION.

It is Democrapic Governors and Mayors who are doing this, sabotaging their own economies under the guise of the #CoronaHoax2020. And Democrap Joe Biden who has threatened to do this on a national scale.

 

[martybegan]

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.

It would be VERY different from what happens now, because it would be a reaction after say a State like NY after signing the compact overwhelmingly votes for a Dem, but the Republican wins the popular vote. You really think the Dem politicians in the State won't immediately revoke the law in question?

 

[Pogo]

The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

States ALREADY give all their EVs to a candidate its voters didn't vote for. As I just noted above.

For example in 2016 exactly that happened in:

• Arizona
• Colorado
• Florida
• Maine*
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Nebraska*
• New Mexico
• North Carolina
• Pennsylvania
• Utah
• Virginia
• Wisconsin

*Maine and Nebraska partially split EVs by district; neither Maine district elected a non-majority candidate but the state as a whole, did, while NE-2 awarded its EV to a candidate the voters did not select​

​

That's the second point addressed upstairs in post 156. This is also what's behind the OP's call for runoffs and/or ranked choice voting.

As far as the Compact being "unConstitutional" we all know by now that the COTUS Article 2 declares that states shall choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" --- the Compact would simply be the Manner they direct. That Article was strongly used as basis last year when SCOTUS (unanimously) upheld state so-called "faithless elector" laws, despite such laws running contrary to the original spirit of the EC (again see post 156).

So you are saying Trump lost all those States?

The Constitution also guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" and allowing someone outside your State determine how your State votes despite what the voters in your State wants is not "Republican"

It would be the same as giving the vote to a flip of the coin.

Rump failed to catch 50% of the state vote in AridZona, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska 2, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah (UTAH!), and Wisconsin. Clinton failed to hit 50% in Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico and Virginia. NONE of those states' voters gave the majority of their vote to the candy who got ALL of their EVs.

As for the whole "republican form of govermnent/allowing outside states to determine" song and dance, show us in the Constitution where that's codified and we'll break down the language. If such language exists. Far as I know the only place where the nuts and bolts of how Electors are chosen is Article 2, and it promptly hands that decision off to -------- the states.