11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[Cecilie1200]

Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy is expected to sign the legislation into law, following the state Senate approving legislation opting Connecticut into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact on May 5. The state House passed the legislation last month.

“The National Popular Vote Compact will ensure an equal vote for every American citizen, regardless of which state they happen to live in,” Malloy said in a statement.

Methinks this gentleman does not understand the parameters of his job. He's not the governor for "every American citizen". He's the governor of Connecticut, and his job is to look out for the best interests of the citizens of Connecticut.

“The vote of every American citizen should count equally, yet under the current system, voters from sparsely populated states are awarded significantly more power than those from states like Connecticut,” Malloy said. “This is fundamentally unfair.”

Okay, first of all, let me just say that, in my never-humble opinion, if you're babbling about "fair", you're arguing like a kindergartner. Second, shouldn't a state governor understand the American system of government better than this? Shouldn't he understand MATH better than this? Shouldn't he at least know that HIS OWN STATE is one of those "sparsely populated states" which are "unfairly" getting power from the Electoral College, at least from the perspective of places like New York, California, Texas, etc?

But critics say the pact would actually hurt smaller states like Connecticut, given that candidates would be likely to only focus on large population centers and neglect rural areas.

Duhhh, Governor Malloy. Did you not realize that when you're the 3rd smallest state in the nation, you have a hard limit on how much population you even have room for, and you're NEVER going to have enough to be noticed under this wackadoodle scheme? New York and California are playing you for an ignorant rube.

And here's an interesting tidbit, courtesy of Tara Ross at the Daily Signal:

The Constitution State has drifted far from its roots. What would Founders such as Roger Sherman think? That Connecticut statesman was an influential delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Great Compromise—sometimes called the Connecticut Compromise— which gave Congress its bicameral structure, might never have been brokered without him.

Moreover, Sherman was one of many delegates from small states who refused to go along with the idea of a direct popular vote for the presidency. He knew that little Connecticut would be outvoted time and time again. The people at large, Sherman told the Convention, “will generally vote for some man in their own state, and the largest state will have the best chance for the appointment.”

Too bad the governor of Connecticut doesn't know his own state's history.

Much has been made of Hillary Clinton’s victory in the national popular vote, but less attention has been paid to where she achieved that victory.

More than 20 percent of Clinton’s 65.8 million votes came from only two states: New York and California. Indeed, if we remove those states from the national tally, Clinton loses by more than three 3 million votes.

She needed to diversify her support in order to win because of the Electoral College. She failed to do that.

Now imagine what Clinton—or any candidate—could do without the restraints inherent in the Electoral College system.

If Clinton reaped a reward from those landslide victories in Los Angeles and New York City, wouldn’t she have worked even harder to run up her tallies there? Why would she make extra visits to Rust Belt states if she could make up the votes with massive voter drives in the big cities?

With the Electoral College, the Democratic Party received a firm reminder not to take those states for granted. Without the Electoral College, such states—which make up vast swaths of the electorate—could simply be ignored.

The Electoral College discourages overreliance on a single kind of voter. That’s healthy in a country as diverse as ours. It ensures that small states and less populated parts of the country can make themselves heard. It encourages presidential candidates to build diverse coalitions.

The intention of our Founders in regards to national elections was NEVER about "individual votes being equal on the national stage, because that's 'fair'". Fortunately for all of us, our Founders were a hell of a lot smarter and more far-sighted than people today (including me, I freely admit, because I don't know that I would have been able to predict things as accurately as they did without their example to learn from). Their eye was always on the outcome, the results of their policies, and making sure that the ULTIMATE best interests of all citizens were achieved, rather than just what looked good in the short-term.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The state must represent their constituency. They can proportionality distribute their college votes by the populace within their state or they can give them all to the winner of the popular vote WITHIN THEIR STATE, but they can not give their votes away due to voting in other states.. This violates FEC rules..

Really. What FEC rule would this be?

In fact, states are not required to hold an election at all. All they have to do is choose electors, and how they choose said electors is entirely up to that state. Show us how that's not the case.

And if i was a voter in one of those states they would find themselves in court defending that disenfranchisement of my right to vote.

Presumably you've already been in court on the same complaint every time your state gave its entire electoral vote to a candy you voted against then, correct? Good for you, hope you get results someday..

There presumably some limits to how undemocratic a States Elector selection can be.

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 guarantees a Republican form of government for each State, and if you add the whole 14th amendment thing, i doubt the governor could just pick electors whilly nilly.

Still the State does have some latitude, just not enough latitude, in my opinion, to select their electors based on mostly the votes of people outside the State.

I'd be curious to see how the SCOTUS would rule on the issue.

Article 4 Section 4 guarantees each state a Republican form of government. That is in no way harmed by having EC electors not voted on; the government is still representational and has a chief of state which is not a king. Add in the explicit choice given to state legislatures in how electors are chosen, and I don't know if there's any ground to prevent a state from doing just about whatever they want to choose electors, so long as the legislature makes the decision in accordance with that state's laws.

With the 14th amendment, while people (men, specifically, but I would think women also are included now) are guaranteed the right to vote at any election of presidential or vice presidential electors, I think that if the legislature gets rid of elections, that becomes moot.

I can't see any state legislature doing away with some form of voting being the way electors are chosen, but they do seem to have that right per the Constitution.

If you had the legislators directly selecting electors, you might be able to get away with it, but by signing legislation like this you are taking your own votes and diluting them with votes outside the state, thus basically making any of your votes moot.

Someone else deciding the outcome of your own election is decidedly un-republican.

again, switch "the popular vote winner" with "the candidate from party X" and you see how pretty daft the whole concept is.

And again at the risk of noting the same thing over and over to deaf ears, diluting votes with other contrary votes is ALREADY THE WAY IT'S DONE every time your state or mine or anybody else's goes to Congress and tells the lie that literally everybody in that state voted for the Red or Blue candidate, because that kind of unanimous vote has never happened anywhere ever. So the un-republicanism is not only already here, it has a way long and shoddy history.

There's no reason for any voter in any locked-red or locked-blue state to go vote at all. They can vote with their state, vote against their state, vote for some third party or stay home and play sudoku and all four produce exactly the same result. So it's a bit late to be suddenly stat noticing what's been there the whole time. Or else a bit selective.

Again, you're being obtuse.

No one is telling Congress that "literally everybody in the state voted for this candidate". No one thinks that, either.

All that happens now is really what the EC-ignorant claim to want, except on a smaller scale: a popular vote where the person with the most votes takes the prize. The only difference is that it happens at the state level instead of nationally, and the prize is the slate of Electors, instead of the Presidency. So why is that "fair" and "democratic" on a national level, but "disenfranchising voters" and "making votes count less" on a state level?

And if you think voting in a state where you're the minority is an exercise in futility, just think how utterly meaningless it's going to become to every part of the country that isn't California and New York if this bullshit "pact" is allowed to stand. Every person who isn't a coastal leftist might as well just lock on a slave collar and slap some duct tape on their mouths, and get to pickin' the Democrat cotton, because we won't exist as citizens in any substantial way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

You don't think how a branch of their state government operates has an effect on their state government?

I don't think it has an effect on whether that state government is republican or not. The state government will still be made up of elected representatives, with a head of state, all of whom are bound by state law. Choosing electors is one of the powers granted to certain representatives in state government, namely the legislatures.

It's possible that the SCOTUS might decide that electors being chosen in a manner other than election violates Article 4 Section 4, but I wouldn't bet on it. That's particularly true because some states have chosen electors without any vote in the past, and because electors are not bound to cast their votes based on the results from their state.

Nice dodge, but in fact, if we lived in a nation that was utterly dominated by coastal leftists, state governments would become wholly vestigial and meaningless. Think the former USSR and its puppet governments in the "satellite nations".

Pretty sure there will be nothing "republican" about ANYTHING governmental at that point.

You don't have to believe me, but feel free to make a note of this prediction and refer to it down the road.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

Last time I checked, the goal of a republican form of government is to provide representation of the people governed.

So I'm going to say that choosing a slate of Electors for the state based on what people OUTSIDE that state want is not representing the people of that state, except perhaps by coincidence.

Please quote the Constitution where it describes process the state legislators must go through when choosing the method of selection for their EC electors.

Please quote me where I said anything about the letter of the law. Oh, I didn't? Then don't waste my fucking time with "Aha!" moments that are unrelated to the post you're allegedly responding to.

My post was addressing the purposes and goals of our laws, our systems, and our various levels of government. You did not once address anything I actually said, or anything I was actually talking about.

I have zero patience left with "Fuck everything as long as I can get away with it!" arguments that multiply like cockroaches in this country these days.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Looks like your system may not be EC anymore, allowing a perpetual government based on the whims of California and New York I suppose.

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

Connecticut is joining a growing alliance of liberal states in a "pact" that would supposedly allow them to change the way presidents are picked -- by allocating each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The uphill campaign, which if ever brought to fruition would almost certainly face a court challenge, has gained renewed attention amid Democratic grumbling about the Electoral College in the wake of President Trump's 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.

Enter the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which blue states are joining to commit to allocating their electoral votes to the national popular-vote winner -- regardless of their own state results.

The pact is meant to be a work-around to the constitutional requirements that created the Electoral College system, which awards each state's electors to the winner of that state.

In theory, the game-changing compact would take effect once it signs on states representing at least 270 electoral votes, the threshold to win the presidency. With the expected addition of Connecticut's seven electoral votes, the group now has 172.

 

[BlackFlag]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

 

[DOTR]

Slaves were counted to boost south state #s .

Sort of. The argument over representation and taxation meant that the North wanted to tax every person in the slave states while the slave states argued that in that case they would get to vote for every person. They compromised in counting every slave as 3/5 a person for voting and also for taxation.


"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

California wants something similar. Being third worldish it doesn't want to pay any more taxes but it does like voting the franchise of illegals who shouldn't be here. By bringing in illegals the wealthy get a bigger, dishonest, vote for Democrats nationally as they, for all practical purposes, cast votes for the illegals. At the same time inside California their votes are not diluted and the wealthy can continue to rule a state of field serfs.

 

[Montrovant]

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

You don't think how a branch of their state government operates has an effect on their state government?

I don't think it has an effect on whether that state government is republican or not. The state government will still be made up of elected representatives, with a head of state, all of whom are bound by state law. Choosing electors is one of the powers granted to certain representatives in state government, namely the legislatures.

It's possible that the SCOTUS might decide that electors being chosen in a manner other than election violates Article 4 Section 4, but I wouldn't bet on it. That's particularly true because some states have chosen electors without any vote in the past, and because electors are not bound to cast their votes based on the results from their state.

Nice dodge, but in fact, if we lived in a nation that was utterly dominated by coastal leftists, state governments would become wholly vestigial and meaningless. Think the former USSR and its puppet governments in the "satellite nations".

Pretty sure there will be nothing "republican" about ANYTHING governmental at that point.

You don't have to believe me, but feel free to make a note of this prediction and refer to it down the road.

Let's see: Even assuming that going to a national popular vote for president meant that coastal leftists were to "utterly dominate" presidential elections, the president is not a dictator nor a king. How does that make state governments "wholly vestigial and meaningless"? Too often I see people who seem to equate the presidential election with the entirety of power in US government.

Next: Who says that the national popular vote would lead to even presidential elections being "utterly dominated" by coastal leftists? As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Trump got over 30% of votes cast in California in the 2016 election. Unlike the current winner-take-all electoral system, those votes would not end having counted for Clinton. California actually was more fully dominated by coastal leftists because of the Electoral College system than it would have been under a popular vote system. In a popular vote system, with the same votes being cast, Trump would have gotten millions of votes from California which would have counted toward his total. Because of the WTA electoral system actually in place, all 55 of California's electoral votes went to Clinton. Trump got an even higher percentage of votes in New York. And conversely, Clinton got a higher percentage in Texas. In each case, however, the EC system leads to every single elector's vote going to one candidate; the EC winner-take-all system has led to states becoming 'red' or 'blue', when clearly many voters in each state voted for other candidates.

Next: California has actually only gone Democrat in the last 7 presidential elections. Prior to that, it went Republican for 6 elections. I'm not going to predict another change any time soon, but it could happen.

Next: I didn't dodge anything. Being a Republican form of government does not have much to do with choosing electors for presidential elections in my opinion. Being a Republican form of government is about people electing representatives, which they do. Those representatives then decide how electors are chosen. If the people don't like how the representatives operate, they can vote for someone else. That gives the people the ultimate power. That seems to fit the definition of a Republican government.

I've already said that I lean more toward a proportional distribution of electoral votes than changing to a popular vote. I've also said that I think this sort of hybrid electoral/popular system seems particularly off. I just don't think it's illegal or unconstitutional.

 

[DOTR]

Oh, I see. You're talking about apportionment; I thought you were saying something about illegals voting. Thanks for clarifying.

I am speaking of electoral votes. Democrat states get extra votes in the EC for the illegals they bring in.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, I see. You're talking about apportionment; I thought you were saying something about illegals voting. Thanks for clarifying.

I am speaking of electoral votes. Democrat states get extra votes in the EC for the illegals they bring in.

Yes, apportionment is determining population to determine which states get how many seats in the House.

 

[Zander]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. In fact, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the EC.

The electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism and is working precisely as it was intended. Preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

 

[jwoodie]

This is just another political gimmick that the Dems would abandon in a hot minute if they thought the GOP might win. Clearly unconstitutional, since it would disenfranchise the voters in each of these states.

 

[DrLove]

You continuously fail to see the need for the EC because you keep trying to swing it back to being about PEOPLE. PEOPLE decide the outcome at the state level and the EC gives each STATE then a proportional voice so that all of them are represented fairly. Otherwise, every election would be decided not only by a handful of states like CA and NY, but by a handful of CITIES in those states, and none of the rest of the states would have any voice at all.

As opposed to giving too much influence to rural areas

Let THE PEOPLE elect the President, one man, one vote

The Senate is proportioned to protect the interests of unpopulated states

Exactly - Amazing right? California with 33 million residents has two Senators and so do all these states with less than 3/4 of a million.

That makes things PLENTY fair

Alaska 735,132
North Dakota 723,393
Vermont 626,630
Wyoming 582,658

Again, Moron, the Senators do not REPRESENT YOU. They represent the state. One state, two senators. The population doesn't mean JACK (except to you whining baby snowflakes). If you want REPRESENTATION, go to the fucking HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. God, did you ever graduate from high school? And if so, HOW?

My Senators don't represent me or my interests as well as state issues?

MMMMKay

One of my Senators dad's helped kill JFK. President "CT" Trumpybear said so.

Trumpybear? Don't get me started!

 

[jwoodie]

The electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism and is working precisely as it was intended. Preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

In addition, it is the last bastion against vote fraud. Without it, the big Democrat cities would simply withhold their vote totals until they knew how many were needed to win. This happens in almost every election.

 

[Rustic]

One more time, the reason for the electoral college is so that every state in the union gets equal representation when it comes to federal elections.

Then it's a failure. An Electoral Vote from Wyoming represents 143,000 people, while one from Florida represents more than three times that.

You continuously fail to see the need for the EC because you keep trying to swing it back to being about PEOPLE. PEOPLE decide the outcome at the state level and the EC gives each STATE then a proportional voice so that all of them are represented fairly. Otherwise, every election would be decided not only by a handful of states like CA and NY, but by a handful of CITIES in those states, and none of the rest of the states would have any voice at all.

As opposed to giving too much influence to rural areas

Let THE PEOPLE elect the President, one man, one vote

The Senate is proportioned to protect the interests of unpopulated states

Exactly - Amazing right? California with 33 million residents has two Senators and so do all these states with less than 3/4 of a million.

That makes things PLENTY fair

Alaska 735,132
North Dakota 723,393
Vermont 626,630
Wyoming 582,658

Lol
Without The electoral college rural areas have no say in the direction of the country... that is a fact.
So urban areas would have total control over the Executive branch, that is what you want? I figured as much control freak.

 

[BlindBoo]

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

Last time I checked, the goal of a republican form of government is to provide representation of the people governed.

So I'm going to say that choosing a slate of Electors for the state based on what people OUTSIDE that state want is not representing the people of that state, except perhaps by coincidence.

Please quote the Constitution where it describes process the state legislators must go through when choosing the method of selection for their EC electors.

Please quote me where I said anything about the letter of the law. Oh, I didn't? Then don't waste my fucking time with "Aha!" moments that are unrelated to the post you're allegedly responding to.

My post was addressing the purposes and goals of our laws, our systems, and our various levels of government. You did not once address anything I actually said, or anything I was actually talking about.

I have zero patience left with "Fuck everything as long as I can get away with it!" arguments that multiply like cockroaches in this country these days.

Nah no aha, just duh!

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,......"

But the likelihood of achieving 270? Slim to none.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Article II, Section l of the U.S. Constitution proves you're right.

The state must represent their constituency. They can proportionality distribute their college votes by the populace within their state or they can give them all to the winner of the popular vote WITHIN THEIR STATE, but they can not give their votes away due to voting in other states.. This violates FEC rules..

And if i was a voter in one of those states they would find themselves in court defending that disenfranchisement of my right to vote.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. If Trump wins 60% of the popular vote in state XYZ, that state cannot say that Hillary won the national popular vote (which is a meaningless, non-binding statistic only with no legal value), by 2%, so they are giving Trump's 60% state win over to Hillary. That violates every election law in the books.

For the Dems to even suggest such a thing is the hare-brained fascist power-grab to end all hare-brained fascist power grabs and will be challenged and defeated in the Supreme Court.

The states involved would be changing their laws regarding how they seat electors. In that case, what law would be violated, specifically?

Well, if it contradicts the results in the state, it would amount to disenfranchising their voters. I'm gonna say any number of people could make a convincing case that that's illegal.

As I read it, if a state is going to go through the charade of a popular vote purportedly to select Electors, then every state that apportions any of its electors contrary to a significant portion of those votes --- as they all do with the WTA system --- is in so doing disenfranchising that portion of its voters. And as already noted, that's already been going on longer than any of us have been alive. If a case can be made that that is in fact illegal, then I wish somebody would make it, yesterday. James Madison would agree, and already did.

It is not a "charade", nor is it "disenfranchising", that every election has a winner and a loser. That is nonsensical on the face of it. How in the hell would you make it illegal for elections to produce one winner, even assuming you wanted such an asinine and impossible thing?

I don't recall James Madison EVER suggesting that we should somehow invent elections with no winners.

What IS a charade is to say, "No matter who wins in this state, we're going to give our Electoral votes to the winner of all the other states!" THAT is disenfranchising every voter who isn't a resident of California, New York, or Texas, basically.

The fact that there are people who are honestly bewildered about what our system does, how it does it, and why just goes to show how utterly ignorant our population has become.

"Winner take all" states are not my preference, but are still far more inclusive of all citizens voting and participating than any pretense that a "national popular vote" could make at it.

I won't say you're definitely wrong about how out-of-touch people have become, but I do think this is going to be egregious enough to wake a lot of idiots up, when push comes to shove. And I think it will be idiots on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Oh, it's an end-run around the Constitution, and the fact that the left is screaming, "TECHNICALLY, it's okay! We can get away with it!" doesn't change the fact that this is a deliberate, malicious attempt to twist and pervert the letter of the law in order to attack the intent of the law.

And yes, I know that the US Constitution doesn't specify a vote of the people, but I don't think that's because the Founding Fathers considered the votes of individuals in regards to the President to be irrelevant or unimportant; I think they just believed that the question would be addressed at the state level, which is where they thought the will of the individual people would be strongest and most valued. I don't think they expected us to become so spoiled and apathetic and divorced from the concept of sovereign states that we would allow things to come to this pass.

Or, in the case of Ben Franklin, he seems to have thought that if we WERE that stupid and lazy, we deserved what we got.

Sorry to have to cut all the middle quotes out, but it got REALLY unwieldy in the formatting.

 

[Anathema]

This plan doesn't go into place until 270 Electors worth of States have agreed to it. That won't happen in the next two years. So it will be 2024 at the absolute earliest before this is potentially an issue.

It's still stupid, but it's not an immediate issue.

 

[BlackFlag]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. In fact, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the EC.

The electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism and is working precisely as it was intended. Preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections." - James Madison

 

[DrLove]

One more time, the reason for the electoral college is so that every state in the union gets equal representation when it comes to federal elections.

Then it's a failure. An Electoral Vote from Wyoming represents 143,000 people, while one from Florida represents more than three times that.

You continuously fail to see the need for the EC because you keep trying to swing it back to being about PEOPLE. PEOPLE decide the outcome at the state level and the EC gives each STATE then a proportional voice so that all of them are represented fairly. Otherwise, every election would be decided not only by a handful of states like CA and NY, but by a handful of CITIES in those states, and none of the rest of the states would have any voice at all.

As opposed to giving too much influence to rural areas

Let THE PEOPLE elect the President, one man, one vote

The Senate is proportioned to protect the interests of unpopulated states

Exactly - Amazing right? California with 33 million residents has two Senators and so do all these states with less than 3/4 of a million.

That makes things PLENTY fair

Alaska 735,132
North Dakota 723,393
Vermont 626,630
Wyoming 582,658

Lol
Without The electoral college rural areas have no say in the direction of the country... that is a fact.
So urban areas would have total control over the Executive branch, that is what you want? I figured as much control freak.

Hey ClownPants - YOU actually DO have a voice.