On-Topic Clinton Will Win Popular Vote - Time to Scrap Electoral College

[peeonme]

81% of the country lives in and amongst cities. We're the majority and majority rules in a democracy. It's really that simple.

What is even more simple is that the term "democracy" doesn't appear in the constitution of the United States.
In it's purist form democracy is mob rule.
We are a Republic, with a representative form of government. That is what protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

 

[Kulindahr]

What is even more simple is that the term "democracy" doesn't appear in the constitution of the United States.
In it's purist form democracy is mob rule.
We are a Republic, with a representative form of government. That is what protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.

Unfortunately, our representatives do not represent the people but the wealthy who finance the campaigns. So they work hard to protect the interests on a tiny minority from the rights of the majority.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

But that ideology is the basis for all injustices all around the world, all throughout history. With that logic, gays do not deserve equal rights because they are not the majority.

What a false equivalency.

I can see where the Electoral College benefits certain states, but it is definitely not needed in every state. It most definitely works as a deterrent in some cases as to why people don't vote.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can see where the Electoral College benefits certain states, but it is definitely not needed in every state. It most definitely works as a deterrent in some cases as to why people don't vote.

Broadcast media serves as a deterrent to people voting. Maybe it isn't "needed in every state"?

 

[Sausy]

Not happening. If you want to get rid of the Electoral College, good luck getting 38 states to agree to marginalize themselves for the benefit of a few major population centers. It's a non starter. Hillary couldn't seal the deal in either Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. She wins two of three of them by the same slim margins that Trump won by, few if any Democrats would be wound up about the results. Trump fell slightly short in the popular vote of the number of voters Mitt Romney received in 2012... but the damning thing is Hillary wound up about minus 5 million or so from President Obama's total vote. The key thing is that while Trump underperformed a bit compared to Romney among Republicans, she lost this election when he gained in Rust Belt voters that had tended to go Democratic in the past. Hillary and her campaign's hubris, that sense of certain entitlement, is what brought her down in the end. Trump didn't really win so much as she blew the election in the end. Those who threw in their lot with Trump in the end I think are wrong... but Hillary was the wrong candidate to really take it to Trump. Too establishment, too corporate, too programmed and lacking genuine connection. Maybe next time the Dems get it right, but they have to earn it and people have to stop with these nonsensical ideas like eliminating the Electoral College.. which clearly needing a constitutional amendment to occur won't ever come close to happening anytime soon. Or maybe we do need a shake up in our political party structure, where we have new parties come out of old coalitions that crack up because it's just not sustainable anymore in our current culture.

 

[Benvolio]

What a false equivalency.

I can see where the Electoral College benefits certain states, but it is definitely not needed in every state. It most definitely works as a deterrent in some cases as to why people don't vote.

I doubt if there is a single person who decided not to vote because the Electoral College might possibly result in electing the one who did not get the most votes nationally.

 

[cityboy-stl]

What a false equivalency.

I can see where the Electoral College benefits certain states, but it is definitely not needed in every state. It most definitely works as a deterrent in some cases as to why people don't vote.

I doubt if there is a single person who decided not to vote because the Electoral College might possibly result in electing the one who did not get the most votes nationally.

I doubt people didn't vote at all due to the electoral college because there were so many other things on the ballot as well. But Digital has a point. Your vote for president doesn't count in the electoral college if you didn't vote for the winner in your state. Which is why I keep saying the electoral college should be modified at a national level so that each state is required to allocate their electoral vote in proportion to the states popular vote. Then every vote would count in the electoral college unless you vote for a nobody. I can easily see people in Texas thinking why should I vote? My vote for Clinton won't count anyway. Or people in California thinking why should they vote? Their vote for Trump won't count anyway.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Broadcast media serves as a deterrent to people voting. Maybe it isn't "needed in every state"?

That is not why I think it's not needed in every state, which is why I used a period and made it a separate point.

 

[Benvolio]

It would be a good time to consider moving to a parliamentary system. Voting for the president by the people neccessarily resuls in this acrimonious division or at best a popularity contest; it would also make third parties feasible. It prevents gridlock since the PM is from the majority party or coalition.
I think most prople realize our current system does not work. But i doubt if the democrats will want the change; they are close to totalitarian power nowithstanding this election result.

 

[CoolBlue71]

I haven’t looked at this in over 24 hours; but, for national and state-to-state results, I do notice something:

In 2012, Mitt Romney carried Texas by +1.26 million raw votes.

Donald Trump, despite his 2016 Republican pickup of the presidency, underperformed Romney’s raw-vote margin in Texas by around –400,000. Trump carried Texas by +800,000-plus.

What I am saying is this: When I last looked, Hillary Clinton won a 2016 Democratic hold of the U.S. Popular Vote by a raw-vote margin of over +200,000. I think some source may have had at +300,000-plus. While not all 100 percent of the vote is in nationwide, I would figure that Donald Trump not winning a Republican pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote is partly due to not matching—or, better yet, overperforming—a 2012 Mitt Romney in 2016 Texas.

 

[DantheManFL]

She's ahead by 1.7% so far, and votes are still coming in.

 

[Kulindahr]

I doubt people didn't vote at all due to the electoral college because there were so many other things on the ballot as well. But Digital has a point. Your vote for president doesn't count in the electoral college if you didn't vote for the winner in your state. Which is why I keep saying the electoral college should be modified at a national level so that each state is required to allocate their electoral vote in proportion to the states popular vote. Then every vote would count in the electoral college unless you vote for a nobody. I can easily see people in Texas thinking why should I vote? My vote for Clinton won't count anyway. Or people in California thinking why should they vote? Their vote for Trump won't count anyway.

That's essentially what I already suggested: start at the bottom with small states and get them to divide their electoral votes the way Nebraska does.

But at the same time, do away with congressional districts and elect representatives with a statewide party vote! If California alone did that we'd have six different parties in the House the next election -- at least. Get New York and Florida to do the same, and soon it wouldn't be possible to have a majority of one party in the House, and at that point congresscritters would have to learn to cooperate and compromise, something the two-party duopoly doesn't teach.

 

[Kulindahr]

It would be a good time to consider moving to a parliamentary system. Voting for the president by the people neccessarily resuls in this acrimonious division or at best a popularity contest; it would also make third parties feasible. It prevents gridlock since the PM is from the majority party or coalition.
I think most prople realize our current system does not work. But i doubt if the democrats will want the change; they are close to totalitarian power nowithstanding this election result.

That would require a change in the Constitution. States could make their House delegations multi-party without any constitutional change, so that's the place to start.

 

[cocksucker4use]

Re: Protest. Protest, America!

The electoral college is meant to guard liberty, so unless you believe liberty is outmoded.....

As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

64.4 million Americans voted for the qualified presidential candidate as opposed to 62.2 million for the unqualified candidate, a win of 1.7% of the popular vote.

The qualified candidate won 232 (43%) of the possible 538 Electoral Votes, while the unqualified candidate won 306 (57%), becoming the next President of the United States.

Can an arcane institution so clearly pervert the Will of the People and still be Guardian of their Liberty?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Protest. Protest, America!

As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

64.4 million Americans voted for the qualified presidential candidate as opposed to 62.2 million for the unqualified candidate, a win of 1.7% of the popular vote.

The qualified candidate won 232 (43%) of the possible 538 Electoral Votes, while the unqualified candidate won 306 (57%), becoming the next President of the United States.

Can an arcane institution so clearly pervert the Will of the People and still be Guardian of their Liberty?

The president is not, nor was ever meant to be, elected by the people. He is elected by the will of the states -- and that protects liberty.

In this case we get to see whether it will also guard against what worried Hamilton, putting a bozo in office. I agree with the "Hamiltonians" that Trump ought to be replaced with someone qualified, but not Clinton (a result that would lead to the worst rioting we've ever seen). The only realistic way to do that, though, would be to deadlock the electoral college and thus throw the election to the House of Representatives -- the same idiots who've insisted on keeping the deficit high and jobs stymied just to discredit Obama.

 

[palemale]

I assume we can all agree that we as a country and a people have progressed from colonial days. The current belief in one person, one vote is accepted in every democracy in the world, except us. It is time to change the Constitution and scrap the electoral college. The is no rational argument to keep it. It really doesn't do anything to protect the small states. Only one truly small state is a perennial battleground, and that is New Hampshire. The candidates didn't campaign in any other small states. There have been studies that show that federal spending goes disproportionately to battleground states, most of which are large states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina. Campaigning in swing states is done mostly in urban and suburban areas.

I might be persuaded to change my mind if someone can give me a reasoned answer to this question: Why should someone in a small state, like South Dakota or Vermont, have a greater say in who is president than I do, living in New York?

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Protest. Protest, America!

As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

64.4 million Americans voted for the qualified presidential candidate as opposed to 62.2 million for the unqualified candidate, a win of 1.7% of the popular vote.

The qualified candidate won 232 (43%) of the possible 538 Electoral Votes, while the unqualified candidate won 306 (57%), becoming the next President of the United States.

Can an arcane institution so clearly pervert the Will of the People and still be Guardian of their Liberty?

That is the twist of fate that in the last 16 years the Electoral College gave us two unqualified candidates over the popular will, which was supposedly unreliable for vetting qualified candidates. That was the consequence of the Balkanization of US territory to give white and rural voters overwhelming representation.

 

[Benvolio]

I assume we can all agree that we as a country and a people have progressed from colonial days. The current belief in one person, one vote is accepted in every democracy in the world, except us. It is time to change the Constitution and scrap the electoral college. The is no rational argument to keep it. It really doesn't do anything to protect the small states. Only one truly small state is a perennial battleground, and that is New Hampshire. The candidates didn't campaign in any other small states. There have been studies that show that federal spending goes disproportionately to battleground states, most of which are large states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina. Campaigning in swing states is done mostly in urban and suburban areas.

I might be persuaded to change my mind if someone can give me a reasoned answer to this question: Why should someone in a small state, like South Dakota or Vermont, have a greater say in who is president than I do, living in New York?

A federal system involving states with wide differences in population, needs compromises to make it palatable to the lesser populated states. Our Constitution include compromises in the Senate and Electoral College. It has worked well giving us a stable democracy, the greatest economy in world history and the most powerful country. The Constitution also protects smaller states by requiring approval of amendments to the Constitution by 75% of the state legislatures. As a practiclal matter, election by national majority would involve giving the democrat/immigrant party a permanent lock on the presidency and a one party system. I can think of no rational reason for the states to allow the amendment.

 

[Benvolio]

Re: Protest. Protest, America!

At least 5 poorly qualified presidents would be more accurate. Carter, Clinton and Obama had not significant federal experience. Obama was a community organizer. Even Palin was better qualified. But it cannot be blamed on the electoral system.

 

[Kulindahr]

I assume we can all agree that we as a country and a people have progressed from colonial days. The current belief in one person, one vote is accepted in every democracy in the world, except us. It is time to change the Constitution and scrap the electoral college. The is no rational argument to keep it. It really doesn't do anything to protect the small states. Only one truly small state is a perennial battleground, and that is New Hampshire. The candidates didn't campaign in any other small states. There have been studies that show that federal spending goes disproportionately to battleground states, most of which are large states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina. Campaigning in swing states is done mostly in urban and suburban areas.

I might be persuaded to change my mind if someone can give me a reasoned answer to this question: Why should someone in a small state, like South Dakota or Vermont, have a greater say in who is president than I do, living in New York?

No, we don't agree. Taking it away would make the small states even more neglected than they presently are. If anything, populous states should be broken up to keep them from having such an inordinate effect.

Western small states especially need that influence; they are pretty much serfs of the populous states already, with so uch of their states not even belonging to them. If you want to surrender all federal lands in the small states to those states, you might have a decent bargaining chip to get them to agree to end the electoral college, but anything less wouldn't be a sensible trade.