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).]
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.
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.
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.:"
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.
Ive always been against the 'winner takes all' method. Like mentioned, I think it would work better if each candidate got the percentage of electorial votes from each state based on their popular vote of that state. ie/ if you got 1/3 of the popular vote...you should get 1/3 of the electorial vote.
We don't need to just get rid of the electoral college, we need to get rid of first past the post. Our voting system has to be instant runoff elections.
For those advocating for a straight nationwide popular vote to choose the President, this may change your mind and help you understand why the Electoral College is actually a great system.
You are not thinking big enough. Why don't we eliminate states, counties, and city governments. We will just have one government for the whole country. Everything will be decided by popular vote. If the major cities all decide that they should get free food from the farmers, tough, majority rule. When the major cities decide that we should have free gasoline and cable TV, so be it. Let's have a pure democracy!
You are not thinking big enough. Why don't we eliminate states, counties, and city governments. We will just have one government for the whole country. Everything will be decided by popular vote. If the major cities all decide that they should get free food from the farmers, tough, majority rule. When the major cities decide that we should have free gasoline and cable TV, so be it. Let's have a pure democracy!
We are NOT a democracy! We are a Constitutional Republic, expressly designed that way from the beginning. The Progressive Left and the MSM constantly speak of Democracy, but the differences between a democracy and a republic are vastly different. Read and educate yourself!
You are not thinking big enough. Why don't we eliminate states, counties, and city governments. We will just have one government for the whole country. Everything will be decided by popular vote. If the major cities all decide that they should get free food from the farmers, tough, majority rule. When the major cities decide that we should have free gasoline and cable TV, so be it. Let's have a pure democracy!
Why not even go beyond that. Get rid of Democracy? Why even deal with pesky elections and uninformed people having a say at all.
I would accept one government, but we have to get rid of Democracy and the Popular vote along with it for me to accept that.
Originally posted by rinselberg: 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
?
Are you daft ? Or just stupid ? I don't know which category I fall into.
Let's talk about this. The Electoral College was put in place to prevent mob rule.
I agree with your thinking though. The Electoral College is not representing large swaths of America, specifically rural America. Most cities vote dumb, = popular vote. They are the people who need government mothering.
The government didn't build America. The people did.
He enjoys recreational trolling. He's said as much in previous posts. Discuss the topic if you like, but don't kid yourself that he was interested in anything other than pushing people's buttons to see how they react.
I've thought on this issue many times. We have seen in the recent past (within my lifetime) a President elected by the Electoral College that also did not receive a majority in the popular vote. Most times though, the person who has won the Electoral College also won the popular vote. And by "Most times" I mean since it's inception and implication, which would be since ratification of the Constitution, there has only been 4 elections where the winner did not also win the popular vote. Only 4! times would the election results in our history have been changed if it was done purely on popular vote.
I think the biggest irritation I have over the Electoral College is the ability for the electors in some states to vote against the will of the people in that state. I don't think the electors should be unbound from the people they are placing their vote for.
My second issue I have with it is the total lack of representation many feel because of the "winner take all" most states have. While I don't think the states should be forced to adopt a "split vote" system I do feel many people get screwed by it in many ways. First being the utter lack of incentive to use their vote because their party has not won the state in so many years that they see the likeliness of their vote giving their state to their chosen candidate as unobtainable. My second issue with the winner take all is the lack of political campaign funds many states see because they are seen as "already won" for whichever party. This means that the millions upon millions of dollars spent to campaign is being spent in the largest quantity in the few swing states where the split is close to 50/50. So states like California for example, see a lot less campaigning funds spent there because they don't need to, really, they aren't going to take the state or they aren't going to lose the state. This also means that the issues these states face get a lot less play time and, while campaign promises are not necessarily worth anything, they won't be seeing as much focus on what matters to them as far as these promises go. You see promises to steel workers, automotive workers or coal workers, but just how much of that goes on in California that leaves it's local residents in the desperate state that you might find in Ohio for example? Places where local industries are failing so hard that the people are living in almost if not depression like economies.
The third thing that I feel the "winner takes all" system does is force us into a 2 party system. "If" you had a split Electoral College in your state it would give people an incentive to actually vote 3rd party. I know some may hate this idea but so long as a 3rd party vote is seen as nothing more than a protest, a 3rd party will never become a factor in this country. As a matter of fact, the only place we really see 3rd party candidates winning is where popular vote is the election process. Even if a 3rd party were to somehow gain enough protest votes to take 1 state, that is a far cry from ever taking enough states to win the Presidency. With a split vote, if your state has 10 votes and the results are 50% to the D, 30% to the R and 20% to the I, well the I picked up 2 Electoral votes. At the end of the election, they will actually have a portion of the count which would give people a reason to actually consider a 3rd party as more and more do and that portion of the vote increases until it comes to be an actual challenger to the other 2. This of course assumes that the split vote is truly split and not just split between the top 2 candidates. But, when you consider that registered Independents make up as much about 1/3rd of registered voters the idea that a 3rd party could actually make a good showing isn't outside the realm of possibility.
But, I think the above 3 reasons should be considered by the voters in each state and the actual benefits of splitting their votes explained so they can decide by vote if they want tot do that. So long as it's left in the hands of the, for example mostly Democrat hands of California's legislator or in the mostly Republican hands of South Carolina's legislator, they will want to keep all the states votes going to their guy.
I don't have all the answers but I think states with larger Electoral College votes numbers may benefit from splitting the vote while smaller numbered states may find more power in keeping their votes as one block.
Politics, like so many other things has so many facets that figuring out what the best way is for any given place isn't a simple this or that option. Sometimes it's a bit of this here and a some of that there because each place would benefit more from something different than the other.
/Shrug, just some of my musings I've had on the topic. See now, topics have come up that I actually think I want to contribute in after I just posted in another thread how I've been being more selective about what I actually post on. Figures things I have really thought about would all come up close together, huh?
... don't kid yourself that he was interested in anything other than pushing people's buttons to see how they react.
If you are right, he has a sad life. However, it is my duty to challenge anything that he says that is wrong. Lest someone believe it. I enjoy my job, .
So, about a year and a half after I started this topic, I'm back.
I am prompted by a segment on MSNBC's Hardball, with a guest who represented the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
First, from the Washington Post:
quote
Lawmakers in Connecticut have approved legislation that would add the state to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing electoral reformers closer to their goal of sidestepping the Electoral College to elect presidents by a nationwide popular vote.
Under the compact, states pledge to allocate all their electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote in presidential elections. It would not go into effect until it's adopted by states representing at least 270 electoral votes, a majority.
Connecticut's seven electoral votes join the 165 electoral votes of 10 other states plus the District of Columbia, putting the compact fewer than 100 electoral votes away from becoming reality. The last state to join the compact was New York, in 2014.
Next, from The Hill:
quote
Now that the Connecticut Senate has passed, in bipartisan fashion, the National Popular Vote bill, I’d like to address some of the more common myths surrounding the bill that arose during the floor debate — and the likely outcomes of reforming the current state-based system. Some of these myths I have recently published as opinion here at The Hill.
First, this bill is not unconstitutional and it is not an end-run around the Constitution. The state-based, winner-take-all-laws that the National Popular Vote bill replaces were never debated at the Constitutional Convention and never mentioned in “The Federalist Papers.” In fact, a majority of states did not have state-based, winner-take-all laws until the eleventh presidential election, generations after the Founding Fathers were dead. So, if you are defending the current system as “the Founders’ system,” honesty and history demand that you stop doing so.
Second, the idea that the current system is designed to protect small states is just plain silly. It is not. . . .
So, WaPo, followed by The Hill. "The old one-two." Want more? Here are the http links to the full length reports:
And the video segment--maybe better than any of the "reads"
James Glassman of the Making Every Vote Count Foundation joins Hardball to break down how states can align their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.
This idea is put forward by people desperate to destroy the checks and balances built in to the Constitution. The popular vote would shift all electoral power to large population centers, and strip all voice from the less populated states. This idea is anti American, anti Republic and another attempt by Progressives to cripple our country. Anyone, I repeat anyone, who espouses this idea, has no clue as to how our system of government is designed to give all people a voice in the decisions of who sits in the White House. EDIT TO ADD...They do understand, and want to destroy the voice of the people. This idea springs the desire for power, not representation of the will of the people scattered across this country.
Pay attention Ronald - We do NOT live in a Democracy! This is a Constitutional Republic!
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 05-28-2018).]
We have the popular vote here in Canada and can tell you it sucks.
We have 2 provinces (Ontario and Quebec) deciding what is good for all of Canada and as such who do the politicians suck up to and pour money into?
Our current "leader" thinks western Canada is a blight on society and is on record (recorded interview) saying that Alberta is bad for Canada.
IF politicians treated all areas the same it wouldn't be a problem now, but they don't and they simply "buy" their votes by taking sides where they will get the most votes.
You want to get rid of the electoral college... so voter fraud can directly affect the elections?
NO THANK YOU.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
This idea is put forward by people desperate to destroy the checks and balances built in to the Constitution. The popular vote would shift all electoral power to large population centers, and strip all voice from the less populated states. This idea is anti American, anti Republic and another attempt by Progressives to cripple our country. Anyone, I repeat anyone, who espouses this idea, has no clue as to how our system of government is designed to give all people a voice in the decisions of who sits in the White House. EDIT TO ADD...They do understand, and want to destroy the voice of the people. This idea springs the desire for power, not representation of the will of the people scattered across this country.
Pay attention Ronald - We do NOT live in a Democracy! This is a Constitutional Republic!
Yep.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 05-30-2018).]
Topic Closed
.
