The Electoral College

[TheFireGod]

If they care so much about the rural areas, it would be better to abolish that winner-take-all approach, and do what Maine and Nebraska already does.

The electorates of Oregon and Illinois are determined by Portland and Chicago respectively because there are a lot of people there. All that's needed is enough people voting one party in a given state and the winner takes all; therefore we're already a country ruled by the mob so feared by traditionalist, albeit a de-centralized one.

With the electorates based on the popular vote of each congressional district and the at-large popular vote of the state, California and Texas wouldn't seem as solidly blue and red respectively.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

And they should have balanced representation in picking the president.

Give every state two more electoral votes, and cap the max at fifty.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.



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.



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.



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.

Putting compromises with evil necessary to preserve the union on par with structural aspects designed to protect liberty degrades your argument to the level of trash.

And the worship of democracy is a trend to be resisted, because it is NOT conducive to liberty. "One man, one vote" is a principle that has been abused to destroy more liberty in this country than any other I can think of. It is destructive of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", because its end result is the centralization of power in an unelected bureaucracy.

 

[hotatlboi]

And they should have balanced representation in picking the president.

Give every state two more electoral votes, and cap the max at fifty.

I agree with the others, there's no logical reason your vote should count more just because you live in a rural area.

 

[Kulindahr]

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?

You have exactly equal representation already: you have one vote for determining for whom your state will cast its votes for president. The states elect the president, not the people.

If the electoral college is ever abolished, every state west of the Rockies should immediately secede, as should Texas and Hawaii. Ending the electoral college means ending the Union by turning all the states into mere administrative subdivisions of the central government.

That liberals favor this is one good reason conservatives see them as authoritarians and conformists: no one is allowed, in the liberal view, to differ at all from what is decreed at the center.

 

[Kulindahr]

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...

Good idea.

While we're at it, give the governor and treasurer of each state an electoral vote.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree with the others, there's no logical reason your vote should count more just because you live in a rural area.

It doesn't.

The vote of a person in South Dakota already counts just as much as the vote of a person in California: they each get one vote toward determining the candidate for whom their state's electoral votes are cast.

 

[hotatlboi]

If the electoral college is ever abolished, every state west of the Rockies should immediately secede, as should Texas and Hawaii. Ending the electoral college means ending the Union by turning all the states into mere administrative subdivisions of the central government.

Absurd. It would do nothing of the sort. In fact it wouldn't impact the federalist separation of state and national power to any substantive degree other than in picking the president.

State law and jurisdiction would still be state, and federal would still be federal.

 

[hotatlboi]

It doesn't.

The vote of a person in South Dakota already counts just as much as the vote of a person in California: they each get one vote toward determining the candidate for whom their state's electoral votes are cast.

But it must logically based on your argument.

You said having a national popular vote would be bad because it would give people in cities too much power. But it would be one person one vote, everyone's vote would count equally.

So then you must feel that the current system gives less weight to those in cities than everyone's vote counting equally if that was the basis for your opposition.

 

[evanrick]

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.



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.

I disagree. We have the senate to protect the minority.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I disagree. We have the senate to protect the minority.

In a round about way they do, but it certainly wasn't by design.

 

[Seasoned]

As its no longer put together as it was originally formulated its time to let it go. There's too much emphasis on certain swing states and not enough on swing voters throughout the nation. I don't give a rats ass if someone visits my state. Let the candidates formulate policy with advisors rather than swing how many flights they can take and how many stops they can make in a day. In a media age, what a waste of time.

 

[palemale]

Putting compromises with evil necessary to preserve the union on par with structural aspects designed to protect liberty degrades your argument to the level of trash.

And the worship of democracy is a trend to be resisted, because it is NOT conducive to liberty. "One man, one vote" is a principle that has been abused to destroy more liberty in this country than any other I can think of. It is destructive of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", because its end result is the centralization of power in an unelected bureaucracy.

"One man, one vote" destroyed more liberty than Jim Crow laws? How about labor relations before passage of the National Labor Relations Act federalized labor law? Robber Barons had state militias and private armies at their disposal to slaughter strikers, lynch union activists and break unions. How well did the states protect the liberty of working people to form unions? Was it the states that put an end to the lynching of African Americans in the South? Of course not, it was the federal government. I'd say the "states' rights" crowd has destroyed more liberty than any other force in this country.

 

[Centexfarmer]

"One man, one vote" destroyed more liberty than Jim Crow laws? How about labor relations before passage of the National Labor Relations Act federalized labor law? Robber Barons had state militias and private armies at their disposal to slaughter strikers, lynch union activists and break unions. How well did the states protect the liberty of working people to form unions? Was it the states that put an end to the lynching of African Americans in the South? Of course not, it was the federal government. I'd say the "states' rights" crowd has destroyed more liberty than any other force in this country.

And I'm still trying to understand your argument.

You called me out earlier in this thread, and to me you and I seem to be making the same argument.

In my view, and perhaps the argument that the "Founding Fathers" were trying to make, the "electorate" cannot make informed decisions, or that they are too influenced by outside sources, to actually "govern" their own elected officials that we MUST have an Electoral College.

Let's take the current GOP Primary as an example.

Iowa voted Santorum.

Their "straw poll" voted Bachmann.

Iowa has what? 2 Electoral Votes?

Any Engineer or Architect will tell you that if you're off by 1/16th of an inch at the beginning, you'll be off by a foot at the end.

Who comprised most of our "Founding Fathers?"

Masons.

The Electoral College was implemented for a reason.

Please explain to me why it should be discarded along with 2/5ths of a person, or Prohibition.

 

[Centexfarmer]

The Founding Fathers are widely reputed to have mostly been masons.

It's a myth...

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Indepencence and 39 of the Constitution out of a convention of 55.

Only 9 or 10 of them were Masons each time, with a few more who are suspected to have been.

Get your facts straightened out buddy.

First off I'm not laying into to the conspiracy theories of the Masons, I'm just acknowledging the fact that our American Ancestors were better at Math than our current dubious elected officials, and their SUPER PACS are at trying to convince the current electorate to "give" them what they want, which in this case would seem to require a Constitutional Ammendment.

Buddy.

 

[palemale]

And I'm still trying to understand your argument.

You called me out earlier in this thread, and to me you and I seem to be making the same argument.

In my view, and perhaps the argument that the "Founding Fathers" were trying to make, the "electorate" cannot make informed decisions, or that they are too influenced by outside sources, to actually "govern" their own elected officials that we MUST have an Electoral College.

Let's take the current GOP Primary as an example.

Iowa voted Santorum.

Their "straw poll" voted Bachmann.

Iowa has what? 2 Electoral Votes?

Any Engineer or Architect will tell you that if you're off by 1/16th of an inch at the beginning, you'll be off by a foot at the end.

Who comprised most of our "Founding Fathers?"

Masons.

The Electoral College was implemented for a reason.

Please explain to me why it should be discarded along with 2/5ths of a person, or Prohibition.

The Electoral College should be abolished because it is anti-democratic. It gives greater weight to the votes of people in the small states than in the bigger states. Consider the following:

California has 55 electoral votes and a population of 37,253,956. Thus, California has one electoral vote for every 677,345 people.

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and a population of 563,626 people. Thus, Wyoming has one electoral votes for every 187,875 people.

Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by 543,895 votes, yet [STRIKE]stole[/STRIKE] won the election in the Electoral College. Just over 200,000 people voted in Wyoming, less than half of the difference in the popular vote split. A swing of 3 electoral votes would have given Gore a majority of electoral votes.

It's also anti-democratic because the election is largely conducted in a handful of swing states. We never see any presidential candidates in the New York area at election time, except for when they come here for fundraisers. This obviously inflates the turnout in battleground states, but depresses it in safe states.

As I said earlier, the electoral college is a relic of the 18th century and should be eliminated.

 

[palemale]

While most Founding Fathers are widely reputed to have been masons, they weren't.

It's a myth...

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Indepencence and 39 of the Constitution out of a convention of 55.

Only 9 or 10 of them were Masons each time, with a few more who are suspected to have been.

Get your facts straightened out buddy.

The Masons, like our system of government, were products of the Enlightenment.

 

[Centexfarmer]

The Electoral College should be abolished because it is anti-democratic. It gives greater weight to the votes of people in the small states than in the bigger states. Consider the following:

California has 55 electoral votes and a population of 37,253,956. Thus, California has one electoral vote for every 677,345 people.

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and a population of 563,626 people. Thus, Wyoming has one electoral votes for every 187,875 people.

Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by 543,895 votes, yet [strike]stole[/strike] won the election in the Electoral College. Just over 200,000 people voted in Wyoming, less than half of the difference in the popular vote split. A swing of 3 electoral votes would have given Gore a majority of electoral votes.

It's also anti-democratic because the election is largely conducted in a handful of swing states. We never see any presidential candidates in the New York area at election time, except for when they come here for fundraisers. This obviously inflates the turnout in battleground states, but depresses it in safe states.

As I said earlier, the electoral college is a relic of the 18th century and should be eliminated.

In my mind, and in my view you and I are still on the same page.

But I like the point that Kuli mentioned previously in this thread:

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.

I'm a Texas Democrat who lives in Rural/Conservative/Republican Values part of Texas.

My neighbors and coworkers vote Republican, vote against health care, vote against their Children's health insurance, vote against Education, vote against "Welfare" even though 95% are on it, but they're not a part of "the GOP Party" electorate.

They just vote how they're told, much like some Democrats in the area.

The "grass roots Karl Rove activists."

So consider this, Obama is the incumbent.

FACT.

The GOP wants to nominate a challenger.

FACT.

The GOP challenger has to acquire X amount of delegate votes to be considered the nominee.

FACT.

Some States give away their delegates like a whore gives away their services, and some states make them work for it.

This would be where "State's Rights" work their way in.



But because of the way that Electoral Votes are counted, who ever is running for POTUS...IMO...goes for the cheap whores; Ohio, Florida, Michigan, etc.

What's happening during this process?

The rest of the Nation/Electorate gets to see what a group of self serving incompetent assholes that want to represent them.

Which is why, as a Democratic Delegate for the State of Texas that I did not caucus for Obama back in '08.

As much as I disliked Hillary, I was willing to caucus for her more so than an untested legislative candidate from Illinois.

The POTUS candidates aren't chosen by the electorate, they're chosen by the "grass roots activists" (those most likley to vote), and then we get to the part where "popular vote" v. "electoral college" matters.

This isn't American Idol, or Jersey Shore on MTV, this is American Politics 101.

It isn't perfect.

But honestly?

I'd rather count upon a group of fellow Americans that I vehemently disagree with, than an electorate that can't tell the difference between the Kardashians, and their favorite contestant on American Idol.

Are we beginning to understand each other a little better now?

 

[Tengilethos]

I don't understand why a popular vote would lead to "mob rule" or tyranny of the populous states over the rest. What is the difference between "mob rule" and the present system, when according to wikipedia there were only three elections (1876, 1888 and 2000) where the loser of the popular vote became president?

And how would the populous states lord over the other states, when you have a senate, strong states who have power over a large range of issues and a constitution that protects state-rights and can only be amended by a majority of states? Disregarding the fact that we just discovered that the president has only limited amount of control over the legislative agenda, even when his own party controls congress.

And lastly, even if for example Pennsylvania would suddenly stop being a pretty evenly divided state and go all out for a single candidate in collusion with other populous states, what is the difference between a tyranny of the populous states and the tyranny of the swing-states?

 

[bankside]

A constitutional democracy is supposed to ensure government by the majority with respect for minority rights. The senate in many federal systems is weighted to provide that balance in geographic terms, as is the case in the US. But an important tenet of all free governments is the principle fought for in South Africa: One man, one vote. In that regard, the US Presidential selection (not "election) is conspicuously distorted by the Electoral College.

I recommend you scrap it. But if national consensus is impossible to achieve, I note that each state holds the exclusive right to determine how to seat its quota of electors. A state whose people wish to ensure that the outcome of the election actually does follow the popular vote need only specify that, regardless of how its citizens vote on election day, its entire slate of electors shall be seated in the proportions required to bring the electoral college vote as close as possible to an approximation of the popular national vote.

The state's electoral college quota would act as a buffer. If the state were big enough, this would have the effect of guaranteeing that the popular vote of all Americans would prevail on election day.

It would have only taken one state to allocate 4 seats to Gore using this process to ensure that he would have carried the Electoral College with the same proportion as he did the popular vote. Even relatively small states could perform this service for the entire country.