Is it time to replace Electoral College with popular vote? (Page 1/13)
rinselberg NOV 06, 11:34 AM
I am thinking that MAYBE the reasons for having the Electoral College have become moot, because of the ways that the U.S. has changed since the Electoral system was adopted.

Changes:
  • Satellite and cable TV
  • Internet and World Wide Web
  • Cell phones
  • Facebook, Twitter and other social networking venues
  • Global reach of remote video conferencing
  • Automobiles and Interstate Highways
  • Passenger Airlines from coast to coast and everywhere in between
  • More mobile population, more people relocating between cities, suburbs, rural areas and states


?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-06-2016).]

Tony Kania NOV 06, 11:45 AM
In my honest opinion, folks do not even know about the Electoral Vote. In fact, I read up on it a lot last week, and all it did was pizz me off. You and I really do not matter. We play like we do, and get all hot under the collar on the internets, but the Popular Vote is a farce.
maryjane NOV 06, 12:04 PM
Yes--on all posted accounts.
jmclemore NOV 06, 12:16 PM
Pure majority vote - time tested way to guarantee complete alienation and suppression of a political majority.

The government would just tell us that the majority agreed with them...... every single time..

Been there done that - always fails.

[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 11-06-2016).]

Blacktree NOV 06, 12:21 PM
You want to get rid of the electoral college... so voter fraud can directly affect the elections?

NO THANK YOU.
RayOtton NOV 06, 12:23 PM
We should not get rid of the electoral college but there are ways to tweak it to better represent the will of the people.

The biggest problem is the "winner takes all" system that exists in most state.

Interestingly, there is no provision for winner-takes-all in the Constitution. State legislatures, generally controlled by one party or the other, have forced unanimity onto their state's dissenting minorities. They have done this simply because they can.
Formula88 NOV 06, 12:24 PM
Do you live in one of the top 10 most populous states? If not, don't bother voting.

whadeduck NOV 06, 12:40 PM

quote
Originally posted by RayOtton:

We should not get rid of the electoral college but there are ways to tweak it to better represent the will of the people.

The biggest problem is the "winner takes all" system that exists in most state.

Interestingly, there is no provision for winner-takes-all in the Constitution. State legislatures, generally controlled by one party or the other, have forced unanimity onto their state's dissenting minorities. They have done this simply because they can.




I would like to see a provision that percentages of electoral votes go to each candidate would be awarded based on the state's popular vote. That would probably be the closest we could get to a popular vote. Otherwise, let's say a state who has a winner-take-all policy and it has a population of ten million voters (keeping the numbers simple) in it and they all vote. Four million nine hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine votes go to one candidate and five million and one votes go to the other candidate. So that candidate wins and half of the state then effectively goes unrepresented. South Carolina is a winner-take-all state and I heard so many Democrats talk about how they won't vote because they know their votes won't count. SC is notoriously a red state. To hear anyone saying that they won't vote because they feel their vote doesn't count is saddening no matter Democrat or Republican. Having percentages for electors could benefit both candidates. Each would pick up numbers from both red and blue states. We could still have the electoral college yet have a better representation of the popular vote. The other thing would be to have something across the board obligating electors to vote based on the way their state votes. There are actually only a few states where the electors are bound to vote the way their state votes. That being the case, you could have one hundred percent of the state vote for a single candidate but the electoral votes still go to the other candidate. In what universe would that be fair?

Correction to my comment about only a few states.

"There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:"


------------------
Whade' "Darkwing" Duck
Fieroless (11/18/12)

[This message has been edited by whadeduck (edited 11-06-2016).]

olejoedad NOV 06, 12:45 PM
The individual States are responsible as to how the Electoral votes from their districts are divided. Most States have opted for the 'all in' approach only two have divided their votes to reflect the districts.
I think the 'all in' approach is antiquated and excludes the voters in non-urban areas.

Eliminating the Electoral College would require an Amendment to the Constitution.
Blacktree NOV 06, 12:46 PM
I agree, the "winner takes all" policy is retarded. IMO, the electoral college should be representing the will of the voters.