The Electoral College

[chance1]

too much time on my hands I guess

found this - interesting - 6+ minute video on the absurdity of the system

seems like most americans think it's a bad system - and only about 1/3 think it's good

your thoughts?

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/11/still-time-to-abolish-electoral-college-.html

 

[Centexfarmer]

It seems to me that most folks, regardless of party affiliation, don't have an understanding of our Constitution, or the reason why the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote.

Seems to me that throughout American History groups have always disliked the Electoral College because "their guy didn't get elected."

Bush won the Electoral College but not the "popular vote."

Get over it.

'Oooh, but maybe my candidate can win the popular vote, but not the Electoral College, so let's get rid of it.'

I've heard both Democrats and Republicans calling for eliminating the Electoral College, and many of them calling it something else, but either way effectively eliminates or abolishes the Electoral College.

Both of them wrapping themselves in the American Flag, and talking romantically about "Democracy," and "American Values," but they're in effect, IMO wanting to tamper with a fundamental principle set fourth by our Founding Fathers, and set forth and outlined within our United States Constitution in an attempt to make sure that the Electorate is not only NOT heard, but NOT represented.

Those proposing the elimination of, or the alteration of the Electoral College want "Mob Rule." They want to make the voices of more populated states drown out the voices of those states with less voters.

They want to make sure that campaign finance and money has more influence than does the vote and voice of individual delegates.

They're counting on an emotive response to undermine our Constitution, but either side that proposes changing the Electoral College don't have the Electorate, or the population in mind, but rather an attempt to manipulate for their own power gain.

Just saying.

 

[cliffdweller]

People think it's a bad system because they don't understand how our government works and think it's based on the concept of "majority rule."

The electoral college doesn't work the way it was originally set up to work, and hasn't since Andrew Jackson was president.

Basically the framers of the U.S. Constitution were scared shitless of "tyranny of the majority," so they deliberately gave "the people" very little direct power. Originally, the U.S. House of Representatives was the only national office that people voted for directly. U.S. Senators were chosen by state legislators, as were the electors in the electoral college (who vote for the president).

So the office of the president was two places removed from direct popular vote.

Andrew Jackson wanted to do away with the electoral college. Since it would've required a Constitutional amendment to get rid of it (and that wasn't happening), it was decided that electors would be chosen by popular vote instead of the state legislatures, which is how it works today.

The election of U.S. Senators by popular vote didn't start until the ratification of the 17th amendment, in 1913.

And don't get me started on the idiots who squeal about "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench."

 

[Kulindahr]

too much time on my hands I guess

found this - interesting - 6+ minute video on the absurdity of the system

seems like most americans think it's a bad system - and only about 1/3 think it's good

your thoughts?

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/11/still-time-to-abolish-electoral-college-.html

I didn't even finish listening because the speaker was so grossly ignorant.

He's got one thing right: the electoral college isn't fair. But it's because it doesn't do enough to make small states count, not because it degrades direct democracy. The best reform we could do would be twofold: give every state two more electoral votes, and cap the maximum number a state can have.

It would be preferable to just give each state one vote than to go with direct democracy.

 

[chance1]

I didn't even finish listening because the speaker was so grossly ignorant.

He's got one thing right: the electoral college isn't fair. But it's because it doesn't do enough to make small states count, not because it degrades direct democracy. The best reform we could do would be twofold: give every state two more electoral votes, and cap the maximum number a state can have.

It would be preferable to just give each state one vote than to go with direct democracy.

why is he ignorant?

1 state 1 vote?

so wyoming = california?

popular vote is the determiner within a state - with no county/area having more/less representation

why is that not good for the country?

 

[Kulindahr]

why is he ignorant?

1 state 1 vote?

so wyoming = california?

popular vote is the determiner within a state - with no county/area having more/less representation

why is that not good for the country?

It's not good for the country because it endangers liberty. If it was all by popular vote, you'd get what we have in Oregon: the whole state is run the way the people in the big city want it to, regardless of what the people who live on the land want or what's good for them. Rural people are more and more effectively serfs to the people in the cities.

Make the election of the president by popular vote, and there'd be no reason at all for the candidates to visit anywhere but the biggest cities. Only urban areas would be represented.

 

[Kulindahr]

One think I never understood is why each state has different rules on how the electoral votes are counted. Some states, all electoral votes go to the winner of the state, but in others, it's divided in a similar percentage as the popular vote. If it's only used for federal elections - why not federal rules?

That's like asking why not federal rules on how people should vote -- mandating straight-party ballots, for example.

The federal government doesn't own those votes, and isn't casting them -- the ones who cast their votes get to decide how to do it.

 

[hotatlboi]

The electoral college is dumb for two reasons:

1. It disenfranchises a large number of voters. If you don't vote for the guy the majority in your state picked, your vote means absolutely nothing.

2. It causes all of the efforts and appeals of the candidates to be focused on a small number of "battleground" states while completely ignoring what the rest of the country wants because they are either way ahead or way behind in the other states.

National popular vote would be much better. Everyone's vote would count and in terms of the state dynamics, every state would matter since both candidates could pick up votes in every state.

 

[Kulindahr]

The electoral college is dumb for two reasons:

1. It disenfranchises a large number of voters. If you don't vote for the guy the majority in your state picked, your vote means absolutely nothing.

That's false for two reasons: it would mean that any voter who doesn't vote for any winning candidate would be disenfranchised; and it depends on how your state does things.

2. It causes all of the efforts and appeals of the candidates to be focused on a small number of "battleground" states while completely ignoring what the rest of the country wants because they are either way ahead or way behind in the other states.

That's not going to change much anyway -- the candidates will go where swaying voters has the most impact. It will just make for a slightly different set of places.

National popular vote would be much better. Everyone's vote would count and in terms of the state dynamics, every state would matter since both candidates could pick up votes in every state.

No candidate would ever visit any of the dozen least populous states -- they could have more impact by visiting New York, because the metropolitan area has more voters than those states combined.

We'd end up with all the rural states becoming effective serfs of the populous states, just like in Oregon the rural counties have become serfs to the cities. The Founding Fathers had a good idea with only landowners having the vote: everyplace gets represented evenly.

 

[hotatlboi]

That's false for two reasons: it would mean that any voter who doesn't vote for any winning candidate would be disenfranchised; and it depends on how your state does things.

It's not false. Of course it depends on how your state does things, that's what I said.

If you vote for the winner in your state, your wishes are reflected in the halls of Congress when the votes for your state are counted, if you don't, they are not. In the latter case your state expresses a vote 100% against your wishes, making your desires not heard at all. The only place they are heard is in the popular vote totals which are meaningless when it comes to actually picking the pres.

That's not going to change much anyway -- the candidates will go where swaying voters has the most impact. It will just make for a slightly different set of places.

A much wider set.

No candidate would ever visit any of the dozen least populous states

That happens already, since the least populous states are almost all reliably D or R.

We'd end up with all the rural states becoming effective serfs of the populous states, just like in Oregon the rural counties have become serfs to the cities.

Nonsense. The votes of the people in rural states would count just as much as those in populous states. One person one vote.

 

[Kulindahr]

My vote isn't supposed to count for the picking of the president -- the people don't elect the president, because he's not the president of the people, he's the president of the states. My vote goes to determining what my state's position is.

And your claim claim is laughable -- what I described is happening. It's already true to an extent as things are; the rural states tend to be run from D.C. for the pleasure of the urban folks. You'd just take it one step closer to turning the people of a dozen (more, actually) states into serfs.

The point of government isn't to worship noses, it's to safeguard liberty.

 

[hotatlboi]

My vote isn't supposed to count for the picking of the president -- the people don't elect the president, because he's not the president of the people, he's the president of the states. My vote goes to determining what my state's position is.

And your claim claim is laughable -- what I described is happening. It's already true to an extent as things are; the rural states tend to be run from D.C. for the pleasure of the urban folks. You'd just take it one step closer to turning the people of a dozen (more, actually) states into serfs.

The point of government isn't to worship noses, it's to safeguard liberty.

Horse hockey. The rural states have equal representation in the Senate.

 

[chance1]

^ love "horse hockey"

 

[jackoroe]

One think I never understood is why each state has different rules on how the electoral votes are counted. Some states, all electoral votes go to the winner of the state, but in others, it's divided in a similar percentage as the popular vote. If it's only used for federal elections - why not federal rules?

It's not really a Federal election. It's 50 states having an election for Federal office.

 

[palemale]

It seems to me that most folks, regardless of party affiliation, don't have an understanding of our Constitution, or the reason why the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College.

The reason the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College is that they did not trust the judgment of the people and feared the consequences of having the president picked by the majority of voters.

Both of them wrapping themselves in the American Flag, and talking romantically about "Democracy," and "American Values," but they're in effect, IMO wanting to tamper with a fundamental principle set fourth by our Founding Fathers, and set forth and outlined within our United States Constitution in an attempt to make sure that the Electorate is not only NOT heard, but NOT represented.

One of the fundamental principles set forth by our Founding Fathers and outlined within the Constitution was the absolute property rights of slave owners to own slaves. No sane person takes issue with tampering with Constitution to eliminate slavery and give African Americans full civil rights.

Those proposing the elimination of, or the alteration of the Electoral College want "Mob Rule." They want to make the voices of more populated states drown out the voices of those states with less voters.

The Constitution contained the infamous 3/5ths Compromise, whereby slave states had representation based on population figures counting 3 persons for every 5 slaves. Thus, the voices of the slave states could drown out the voices of the smaller, non-slave states.

They're counting on an emotive response to undermine our Constitution, but either side that proposes changing the Electoral College don't have the Electorate, or the population in mind, but rather an attempt to manipulate for their own power gain.

The desire to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College isn't an emotional response to undermine the Constitution. It's a rational and intellectual attempt to get rid of a relic of the 18th Century and bring our Constitution up to 21st Century standards and notions of democracy.

 

[palemale]

It's not good for the country because it endangers liberty. If it was all by popular vote, you'd get what we have in Oregon: the whole state is run the way the people in the big city want it to, regardless of what the people who live on the land want or what's good for them. Rural people are more and more effectively serfs to the people in the cities.

Make the election of the president by popular vote, and there'd be no reason at all for the candidates to visit anywhere but the biggest cities. Only urban areas would be represented.

So I am entitled to less representation because I live in NYC than someone in Wyoming because they live on the land? How does that make any sense?

 

[frankfrank]

The reason the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College is that they did not trust the judgment of the people and feared the consequences of having the president picked by the majority of voters.

The desire to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College isn't an emotional response to undermine the Constitution. It's a rational and intellectual attempt to get rid of a relic of the 18th Century and bring our Constitution up to 21st Century standards and notions of democracy.

I'm actually not sure what the Founding Fathers were scared of. What "People" were they scared of? This was back in the days when only European-descended male real estate owners could vote.

As archaic and illogical as the Electoral College may (or may not) be, depending on one's POV, LOTSA LUCK getting a Constitutional Amendment through the Senate with a two-thirds vote. There are too many states which have advantageous representation via the Electoral College. It's not only the obvious ones such as Hawai'i and South Dakota, but the not-so-obvious ones such as Alabama and Connecticut which have a few (but fewer than 10) Electoral votes.

 

[SuprSonic]

So I am entitled to less representation because I live in NYC than someone in Wyoming because they live on the land? How does that make any sense?

My thoughts exactly. Why exactly should rural folks get more of a say than city folks?

The electoral college is a relic from a bygone era when the states functioned more like the present day European Union. All of this going on about what the founding father intended is silly. Even the founding fathers couldn't agree on what they wanted. Placing them and their supposed intent on a pedestal is nothing but historical fundamentalism. How can you have a real policy discussion if you just want to throw out, "...but (my interpretation of) the Constitution...!" or, "... but the founders wanted..." It's the logical equivalent of saying, "...but the Bible says..."

 

[hotatlboi]

I'm actually not sure what the Founding Fathers were scared of. What "People" were they scared of? This was back in the days when only European-descended male real estate owners could vote.

As archaic and illogical as the Electoral College may (or may not) be, depending on one's POV, LOTSA LUCK getting a Constitutional Amendment through the Senate with a two-thirds vote. There are too many states which have advantageous representation via the Electoral College. It's not only the obvious ones such as Hawai'i and South Dakota, but the not-so-obvious ones such as Alabama and Connecticut which have a few (but fewer than 10) Electoral votes.

We don't need a constitutional amendment, we just need more states to join the national popular vote interstate compact. This has already been passed by 9 states which together control 132 electoral votes. As soon as enough states pass this to get to 270, it goes into effect and they will award all their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, meaning that a de facto national popular vote will be enacted.

This is completely legal because the Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine how the electors to the electoral college are chosen.

 

[swerve]

Not to go "off topic" too much...

But I think the REAL SOLUTION is to repeal the 17th amendment as STAY with the electoral college...