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

[ChrisL]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

If this keeps up, Trump will have no path to defeat Hillary.

Don't worry, I'm sure Vladimir will be there to assist again.

I hope so. He might be our last hope.

I never thought I would ever read or hear an American citizen ever say those words.

Wow.

You people keep disgusting me everyday.

Turns out after all these decades of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a commie in a lame attempt to silence them, it's you republicans who turn out to be the real commies.

Nothing like taking ONE person's silly comment and applying it to everyone you don't like. Lol.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Subversion of the US Constitution and its defined means of electing our president is an act of treason against the United States. The compac will be held unconstitutional as it subverts the intent of each area having an equal vote. This keeps population centers from becoming dictatorial to the rest of the US. We have never been a popular vote democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

If they do this each states governor needs to be removed from power and kept from ever holding office again..

Subversion occurred early on, by the states....

when some states changed their rules to WINNER TAKES ALL electors of the state.... then other states joined in and did the same....

the founders created the set up for electors to REPRESENT the US House of Representatives, and the US Senate....

each state is given 1 elector for every congressmen/congressional district and 1 elector for each Senator.

as example, California has 53 Congressmen, and 2 Senators, so with electors they are allotted 53 electors plus the 2 electors, so they have a total of 55 Electors.

Let's say a majority of california's congress critters agree with each other on a bill they are voting on....say 30 of the critters vote YES to pass this bill, the other 23 congress critters vote NO on this bill in Congress..... The Congress does NOT change the 23 congress critters who voted NO to voting YES just because the majority/30 of Calif's congressmen wanted the bill to pass....

This is what many of our states decided to do by changing the elector's votes to WINNER TAKES ALL..... they basically shunned the 23 who voted no, (Or in the case with electors, voted for the 'other' candidate), and forced them to vote yes....

THIS is what has screwed up the electoral college... but the 'rules' allowed them to do it and change it.....so, we are stuck with it...

JUST AS what is happening now with Connecticut, and the other 10 states that have the same rule..... that their state electors will go to the national popular vote winner..... agree it is a subversion, of who their citizens voted for.... BUT so was the way the rule was before this new change....

the right way to do it, is how Maine does it.....which I explained in the earlier post.

They are not talking about winner take all states. They are talking about looking at the national vote and declaring their votes going to whom ever wins the national level popular vote.

May I suggest reading the pact...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

How dare they try and sabotage a system which gives Republicans an unfair advantage?

 

[ChrisL]

I can find plenty of "disgusting" dem comments I'm sure.

I do wonder one thing though. How can they all agree about everything their party spews at them? It is just total brainwashing. That much is obvious. These people are incapable of independent thoughts.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I suggest you review the structure of our government...especially the bit about being a Federal Republic made up of STATES. The design is expressly to prevent the mob majority bully rule into which pure "democracy" always descends.

Would having the president be elected by the national popular vote suddenly turn the country into a pure democracy?

Rent a Mob...

there would be no law... mob rules..

So it is only the way the president is elected that keeps us from mob rule? Really? How Congresspeople are elected doesn't matter, how judges get into office is unimportant, how laws are passed, how amendments are added.....the electoral system is the only thing standing between a representative form of government and mob rule?

The US Constitution and its approved amendments are LAW. Any effort to subvert that law is TREASON.

There is a reason each of our states have representatives for each designated region and those representatives are who is entrusted in the legislation of laws.. The whole US is built on the same footings as our electoral college for the president.

I see you failed basic civics...

So when trump said he wanted to ignore due process... that was treason?

No. You need an act to be treasonous. He did nothing but talk about something.

 

[ChrisL]

99.9% of the people on message boards who claim to be a member of one party or another tend to all think the same. I guess message boards would tend to attract the most extremist of the extreme fringes.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Here's a challenge:

Make a logical, argument for why we should use the electoral college without mentioning "democrats".

That is what the Constitution dictates. End of story.

 

[ChrisL]

Read and learn, neo libs.

Donald Trump’s election with fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton has raised again the question of why the presidency is decided through an Electoral College and not a popular vote. Mr. Trump himself said in a recent interview said that a popular vote seems more sensible.

Many people who are currently calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, however, don’t realize the chaos that would result.


Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones.

This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president.

Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.


The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.


There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.

Of course, we could graft a run-off system onto our Constitution; the two top candidates in, say, a 10-person race, would then run against one another for the presidency. But that could easily mean that the American people would have a choice between a candidate of the pro-choice party and a candidate of the pro-gun party. If you thought the choice was bad this year, it could be far worse.

Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.

Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

I guess I should bring this to the attention of theDoctorisIn. There is your answer to why we have and keep an electoral college system.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The US Constitution makes the whole thing a moot point:

Article I, section 10, clause 3

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Read and learn, neo libs.

Donald Trump’s election with fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton has raised again the question of why the presidency is decided through an Electoral College and not a popular vote. Mr. Trump himself said in a recent interview said that a popular vote seems more sensible.

Many people who are currently calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, however, don’t realize the chaos that would result.


Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones.

This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president.

Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.


The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.


There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.

Of course, we could graft a run-off system onto our Constitution; the two top candidates in, say, a 10-person race, would then run against one another for the presidency. But that could easily mean that the American people would have a choice between a candidate of the pro-choice party and a candidate of the pro-gun party. If you thought the choice was bad this year, it could be far worse.

Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.

Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

I guess I should bring this to the attention of theDoctorisIn. There is your answer to why we have and keep an electoral college system.

I appreciate that you actually answered my question.

But I'm not convinced that a popular vote would somehow negate everything that currently reinforces the two-part system, and everything else that guy mentioned is nonsense.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Here's a challenge:

Make a logical, argument for why we should use the electoral college without mentioning "democrats".

That is what the Constitution dictates. End of story.

That is not an answer to my question.

 

[ChrisL]

Read and learn, neo libs.

Donald Trump’s election with fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton has raised again the question of why the presidency is decided through an Electoral College and not a popular vote. Mr. Trump himself said in a recent interview said that a popular vote seems more sensible.

Many people who are currently calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, however, don’t realize the chaos that would result.


Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones.

This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president.

Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.


The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.


There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.

Of course, we could graft a run-off system onto our Constitution; the two top candidates in, say, a 10-person race, would then run against one another for the presidency. But that could easily mean that the American people would have a choice between a candidate of the pro-choice party and a candidate of the pro-gun party. If you thought the choice was bad this year, it could be far worse.

Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.

Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

I guess I should bring this to the attention of theDoctorisIn. There is your answer to why we have and keep an electoral college system.

I appreciate that you actually answered my question.

But I'm not convinced that a popular vote would somehow negate everything that currently reinforces the two-part system, and everything else that guy mentioned is nonsense.

What is nonsense? I am tired of you people just brushing off things that actually make sense to continue on with your braindead ideas.

 

[cnm]

And while you’re at it why keep all of these senators and congress members around?

I understand they're helping you in your race to the bottom...

 

[cnm]

If this trend continues, huge sections of the country will never see a presidential candidate, will never see presidential campaign ads (unless they're on a national channel), and, most disturbingly, will lose their ability to impact the election outcome.

Prairies are people too.

 

[Care4all]

Subversion of the US Constitution and its defined means of electing our president is an act of treason against the United States. The compac will be held unconstitutional as it subverts the intent of each area having an equal vote. This keeps population centers from becoming dictatorial to the rest of the US. We have never been a popular vote democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

If they do this each states governor needs to be removed from power and kept from ever holding office again..

Subversion occurred early on, by the states....

when some states changed their rules to WINNER TAKES ALL electors of the state.... then other states joined in and did the same....

the founders created the set up for electors to REPRESENT the US House of Representatives, and the US Senate....

each state is given 1 elector for every congressmen/congressional district and 1 elector for each Senator.

as example, California has 53 Congressmen, and 2 Senators, so with electors they are allotted 53 electors plus the 2 electors, so they have a total of 55 Electors.

Let's say a majority of california's congress critters agree with each other on a bill they are voting on....say 30 of the critters vote YES to pass this bill, the other 23 congress critters vote NO on this bill in Congress..... The Congress does NOT change the 23 congress critters who voted NO to voting YES just because the majority/30 of Calif's congressmen wanted the bill to pass....

This is what many of our states decided to do by changing the elector's votes to WINNER TAKES ALL..... they basically shunned the 23 who voted no, (Or in the case with electors, voted for the 'other' candidate), and forced them to vote yes....

THIS is what has screwed up the electoral college... but the 'rules' allowed them to do it and change it.....so, we are stuck with it...

JUST AS what is happening now with Connecticut, and the other 10 states that have the same rule..... that their state electors will go to the national popular vote winner..... agree it is a subversion, of who their citizens voted for.... BUT so was the way the rule was before this new change....

the right way to do it, is how Maine does it.....which I explained in the earlier post.

They are not talking about winner take all states. They are talking about looking at the national vote and declaring their votes going to whom ever wins the national level popular vote.

May I suggest reading the pact...

i corrected my post before reading yours and had added NATIONAL popular vote....

This is a NATIONAL election, and when states changed their rules for electors in their state to ALL GO TO the winner of their state instead of how the people in their state voted....was the first subversion from who their citizens voted for in this national election.

It should be, they send electors to the Electoral College Vote,

PROPORTIONATELY to how their citizens voted.... instead of sending their electors to the Electoral College Vote, and FORCING ALL OF THEM to vote for only 1 candidate.

As example if Clinton won 52% of their state's popular vote and Trump won 48% of their state's popular vote, and say their state had 100 electors plus the 2 extra electors representing senators..... 52 of their elector's sent to the electoral college vote... would vote for Clinton, and 48 of their electors at the Electoral College Vote, would vote for Trump....and their 2 extra electors would also go to Clinton because Clinton won their State's overall popular vote.....

This method above, is not a subversion, and is how it should be and was initially....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Read and learn, neo libs.

Donald Trump’s election with fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton has raised again the question of why the presidency is decided through an Electoral College and not a popular vote. Mr. Trump himself said in a recent interview said that a popular vote seems more sensible.

Many people who are currently calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, however, don’t realize the chaos that would result.


Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones.

This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president.

Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.


The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.


There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.

Of course, we could graft a run-off system onto our Constitution; the two top candidates in, say, a 10-person race, would then run against one another for the presidency. But that could easily mean that the American people would have a choice between a candidate of the pro-choice party and a candidate of the pro-gun party. If you thought the choice was bad this year, it could be far worse.

Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.

Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

I guess I should bring this to the attention of theDoctorisIn. There is your answer to why we have and keep an electoral college system.

I appreciate that you actually answered my question.

But I'm not convinced that a popular vote would somehow negate everything that currently reinforces the two-part system, and everything else that guy mentioned is nonsense.

What is nonsense? I am tired of you people just brushing off things that actually make sense to continue on with your braindead ideas.

The only legitimate argument that the author of that piece made was the idea that a popular vote would, through a proliferation of "third" parties, result in Presidents elected with 20% pluralities in six-way races.

He also answered his own question - make a top-2 runoff as the final election - and his argument against it there is particularly weak. There aren't enough one-issue voters to have that much of an effect.

 

[ChrisL]

Read and learn, neo libs.

Donald Trump’s election with fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton has raised again the question of why the presidency is decided through an Electoral College and not a popular vote. Mr. Trump himself said in a recent interview said that a popular vote seems more sensible.

Many people who are currently calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, however, don’t realize the chaos that would result.


Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones.

This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president.

Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.


The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.


There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.

Of course, we could graft a run-off system onto our Constitution; the two top candidates in, say, a 10-person race, would then run against one another for the presidency. But that could easily mean that the American people would have a choice between a candidate of the pro-choice party and a candidate of the pro-gun party. If you thought the choice was bad this year, it could be far worse.

Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.

Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

I guess I should bring this to the attention of theDoctorisIn. There is your answer to why we have and keep an electoral college system.

I appreciate that you actually answered my question.

But I'm not convinced that a popular vote would somehow negate everything that currently reinforces the two-part system, and everything else that guy mentioned is nonsense.

What is nonsense? I am tired of you people just brushing off things that actually make sense to continue on with your braindead ideas.

The only legitimate argument that the author of that piece made was the idea that a popular vote would, through a proliferation of "third" parties, result in Presidents elected with 20% pluralities in six-way races.

He also answered his own question - make a top-2 runoff as the final election - and his argument against it there is particularly weak. There aren't enough one-issue voters to have that much of an effect.

All of his points are valid, and that is why the founders (who actually knew what was going on and invented the process) came up with the idea and eventually agreed upon it, that it was the most fair way to run a presidential election.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

OP needs to read up on good ole supremacist acts of gerrymandering and redlining districts. Maybe he'll come to his senses....but I doubt it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Read and learn, neo libs.

Donald Trump’s election with fewer popular votes than Hillary Clinton has raised again the question of why the presidency is decided through an Electoral College and not a popular vote. Mr. Trump himself said in a recent interview said that a popular vote seems more sensible.

Many people who are currently calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, however, don’t realize the chaos that would result.


Two elements of the “Great Compromise” among the large and small states led to the ratification of the Constitution. A House of Representatives would reflect the popular vote—disadvantaging the small states—but a Senate would give the small states equal representation with the large ones.

This idea was carried through to the Electoral College, where each state’s allocation of electoral votes is simply the total of its representation in the House and Senate. This again gave the smaller states some additional power in the important choice of the president.

Leaving aside the fact that a deal is a deal, there are very practical reasons why we will always need the Electoral College under our current constitutional system.


The most important is that we want the presidential election to settle the question of legitimacy—who is entitled carry on the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the person who receives the most electoral votes becomes the president, even if he or she does not receive either a plurality or a majority of the popular vote.

In the election of 1992, Bill Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was the duly elected president, despite the fact that he received only a plurality (43 percent) of the popular votes. A third party candidate, Ross Perot, received almost 19 percent. In fact, Bill Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in either of his elections, yet there was never any doubt—because he won an Electoral College majority—that he had the legitimacy to speak for the American people.

This points to the reason why the Electoral College should remain as an important element of our governmental structure. If we had a pure popular vote system, as many people who are disappointed with the 2016 outcome are now proposing, it would not be feasible—because of third party candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Even in 2016, for example, although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, she only received a plurality (48 percent)—not a majority; third party candidates took the rest.

If we abandoned the Electoral College, and adopted a system in which a person could win the presidency with only a plurality of the popular votes we would be swamped with candidates. Every group with an ideological or major policy interest would field a candidate, hoping that their candidate would win a plurality and become the president.


There would candidates of the pro-life and pro-choice parties; free trade and anti-trade parties; pro-immigration and anti-immigration parties; and parties favoring or opposing gun control—just to use the hot issues of today as examples.

We see this effect in parliamentary systems, where the party with the most votes after an election has to put together a coalition of many parties in order to create a governing majority in the Parliament. Unless we were to scrap the constitutional system we have today and adopt a parliamentary structure, we could easily end up with a president elected with only 20 percent-25 percent of the vote.

Of course, we could graft a run-off system onto our Constitution; the two top candidates in, say, a 10-person race, would then run against one another for the presidency. But that could easily mean that the American people would have a choice between a candidate of the pro-choice party and a candidate of the pro-gun party. If you thought the choice was bad this year, it could be far worse.

Those who complain now that it is unfair for Donald Trump to become president when he received fewer votes than Hillary Clinton have not considered either the implications of what they are proposing or the genius of the Framers.

Why We Need the Electoral College | RealClearPolitics

I guess I should bring this to the attention of theDoctorisIn. There is your answer to why we have and keep an electoral college system.

I appreciate that you actually answered my question.

But I'm not convinced that a popular vote would somehow negate everything that currently reinforces the two-part system, and everything else that guy mentioned is nonsense.

What is nonsense? I am tired of you people just brushing off things that actually make sense to continue on with your braindead ideas.

The only legitimate argument that the author of that piece made was the idea that a popular vote would, through a proliferation of "third" parties, result in Presidents elected with 20% pluralities in six-way races.

He also answered his own question - make a top-2 runoff as the final election - and his argument against it there is particularly weak. There aren't enough one-issue voters to have that much of an effect.

All of his points are valid, and that is why the founders (who actually knew what was going on and invented the process) came up with the idea and eventually agreed upon it, that it was the most fair way to run a presidential election.

The "electoral college" was, more so than most clauses in the Constitution, the end result of months of debate and comprise between sides as polarized as politics are today.

I am not arguing in favor of a national popular vote. I don't know if it's a good idea or a bad one. I asked for a logical argument for our current system, and you provided me one, which again, I appreciate. I responded to it logically.

 

[Care4all]

by the Republican and Democrats in state legislators passing rules on the electors in their states to go to WINNER TAKES ALL,

they blocked the ability for any 3rd party candidate from ever winning. They secured the 'President', to be in today's world, a two party system....either a Democratic Party win, or a Republican Party win....3rd party winning is a near impossibility.