Electoral College. Just why?

[hortysir]

I'm not in favor of Chicago, NYC, SanFran, LA, Detroit, etc....deciding the President (popular vote)

 

[mvymvy]

One purpose of the EC is to curb the Tyranny of the Majority.

With the majority of the population concentrated in liberal, coastal areas, pure democracy would mean that rural, middle America areas have no voice.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only
15% of the population of the United States.
16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities.
They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

If big cities always controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

 

[mvymvy]

Those who don't get the EC do not understand American history or the Constitution.

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

With National Popular Vote, with every voter equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

Wrong it is in the Constitution and the 12th Amendment
The method for selecting the President of the United States is laid out in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Two amendments also deal with the Electoral College; the 12th in 1804- the person having the greatest number of votes, which fixed an embarrassing flaw in the original Constitution that had allowed Thomas Jefferson to tie in the College with his running mate, Aaron Burr, and the 23rd Amendment, which gives Washington D.C. electoral votes (three, the same as the least populous state, Wyoming).

Most of the founders was still alive in 1804.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

 

[Agit8r]

The Electoral College was adopted due to limitations in communication technology. The electric telegraph was still years off. It would have taken a constitutional amendment to change it, and established party machines had no interest in reworking their formulas. As well, the inherent political inertia that pushes non-pressing issues to the back burner has contributed to it not being changed

 

[mvymvy]

National Popular Vote does not give equal or fair votes to the States that have fewer populations.
The Larger Mob always wins and gives no representation to the minorities of the Nation.
This is exactly why our Founders set up our Government as a Republic where the mob does not control everyone.

One person, one vote. The candidate with the most votes wins. That's how virtually every other election in the country works.

The Electoral College does not give equal or fair votes to the States that have fewer populations. California has 55 votes, Delaware has 3.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In the current system, battleground states are the only states that matter in presidential elections. Campaigns are tailored to address the issues that matter to voters in these states.

Safe red and blue states are considered a waste of time, money and energy to candidates. These "spectator" states receive no campaign attention, polling, organizing, visits, or ads. Their concerns are utterly ignored.

The influence of ethnic minority voters has decreased tremendously as the number of battleground states dwindles. For example, in 1976, 73% of blacks lived in battleground states. In 2004, that proportion fell to a mere 17%. Just 21% of African Americans and 18% of Latinos lived in the 12 closest battleground states. So, roughly 80% of non-white voters might as well have not existed.

The Asian American Action Fund, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, NAACP, National Latino Congreso, and National Black Caucus of State Legislators endorse a national popular vote for president.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Because we're a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy - and thankfully so.

Because the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government.

 

[peach174]

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Because Republicans can't admit that George W. Bush was a huge mistake.

The electoral college is horrible. It distorts democracy.

We are not a democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

No a National Popular Vote would make us a Democracy where the majority rules over the minority.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Another product of our failed education system. Another American who is clueless about his own country's founding principles.

Why the electoral college? So that we don't become a mobocracy. So that presidential candidates don't spend all their time and resources in heavily populated areas. So that people who live in less populated areas don't become irrelevant in the election process.

This may come as a shock to you, but the last thing the founding fathers wanted was pure majority rule. They knew from their extensive study of history that the majority can be just as tyrannical as a king. They also knew that dictators often come to power by appealing to the ignorant masses with promises of getting other people's money.

 

[bripat9643]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

It isn't ever going away, so just learn to live with it.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Another product of our failed education system. Another American who is clueless about his own country's founding principles.

Why the electoral college? So that we don't become a mobocracy. So that presidential candidates don't spend all their time and resources in heavily populated areas. So that people who live in less populated areas don't become irrelevant in the election process.

This may come as a shock to you, but the last thing the founding fathers wanted was pure majority rule. They knew from their extensive study of history that the majority can be just as tyrannical as a king. They also knew that dictators often come to power by appealing to the ignorant masses with promises of getting other people's money.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doing it by district (representatives) and state (senators) winners would reflect the people, demography, and geography better, in my opinion. Pure vote is not what the Founders would recommend, though that is not really important to me.

 

[peach174]

Those who don't get the EC do not understand American history or the Constitution.

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election.

With National Popular Vote, with every voter equal, candidates will truly have to care about the issues and voters in all 50 states and DC. Part of the genius of the Founding Fathers was allowing for change as needed. When they wrote the Constitution, they didn’t give us the right to vote, or establish state-by-state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes, or establish any method, for how states should award electoral votes. Fortunately, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to enact laws allowing people to vote and how to award electoral votes.

Wrong it is in the Constitution and the 12th Amendment
The method for selecting the President of the United States is laid out in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Two amendments also deal with the Electoral College; the 12th in 1804- the person having the greatest number of votes, which fixed an embarrassing flaw in the original Constitution that had allowed Thomas Jefferson to tie in the College with his running mate, Aaron Burr, and the 23rd Amendment, which gives Washington D.C. electoral votes (three, the same as the least populous state, Wyoming).

Most of the founders was still alive in 1804.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President,

If this is not winner take all then I don't know what is and was done in 1804.

 

[hortysir]

mvymvy Where are you copying your info from?
Your replies are pretty lengthy and close together to be typed.
Forum rules tells us to link sources

 

[norwegen]

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Because Republicans can't admit that George W. Bush was a huge mistake.

The electoral college is horrible. It distorts democracy.

So what? Democracy was not a concern among the Americans.

Republicanism, sometimes indistinguishable from monarchy on both sides of the Atlantic, represented something other than a set of political institutions based on popular election. As it challenged the assumptions and practices of monarchy - hierarchy, inequality, patriarchy, patronage - it now challenges these assumptions and practices in democracy.

Hence democracy's notably innocuous presence in eighteenth-century America. Democracy wouldn't be distorted if it were not increasingly incorporated into our republic by the monarchists, Democrats, Tories, etc. It should still be of little concern.

 

[norwegen]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

If we went with just the popular vote...then politicians would just go to the big states and their major cities....that would be it.........it is bad enough the democrats do that now and win a lot of elections doing it........

This is called majority. And it is called democracy. In a democratic country majority determines the future of the whole nation and there is nothing wrong with it. Protecting majority from minorities - which is not the case in the present day United States - is more important than vice versa. How come a bunch of villages is more important than major cities?
If you are worried about rural areas check out European countryside. People seem to be satisfied with their lives without electoral college. Candidates have to address all groups of voters in order to win, even under popular vote system.

Majority rule is an assumption that supreme authority is vested in the people. In the US, supreme authority is not so vested. (Not yet, anyway.)

And such rule does not protect minority rights. It assaults them.

An electoral college was not to be a concern of the people. One, it invokes democracy, and two, the president doesn't represent the people.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Yes, but the electoral college does not have to follow the popular vote.....

Correct.

Bingo, we have a winner.

There is absolutely no directive in the US Constitution where it is written that the electors of any given state must cast their elector-ballots based on the popular vote results of their state. But the tradition, a good one, I might add, has been so strong since it started in part of the country in 1824, that I doubt that any state would ever try to go against it.

That Elector would come up dead if he voted for anybody other than the one who won the popular vote IN THAT STATE.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Since the idea of electing a presidential ticket per electors is enshrined in the US Constitution, the only way to get rid of it is either per amendment, or a brand new Constitution per Constitutional Convention.

The interstate compact is the best idea out there to neutralize the EC without having to actually undo it per amendment.

I am not for abolishing the EC, but I am for mending it.

And were the USA to some day decide to do away with the EC, then I would hope they would use an electoral jungle system like, Louisiana's, where if on election night, the winner doesn't get to 50% +1 vote, then a runoff between the top-two vote getters would be mandated. In this way, the winner would always end up with a clear majority.

Never mind a liberal state can drop out of the compact if a conservative looks like they could win. Another bullshit run around the constitution. Even a democrat governor said "fuck you" when they tried to pass that in Iowa.

Uhm, no. Your facts are not in order.

I covered all of this about 17 months ago:

Electioneering US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(posting no. 3 pertains to the Presidency)

. I don't give a shit what you say, a liberal state can opt out of the compact if a conservative looks like they could win the EC votes. I read the Bill being considered.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011

Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.

Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.

So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.

What do you think about that?

Duel when there is a tie?

 

[JFK_USA]

Yes, but the electoral college does not have to follow the popular vote.....

True but it always does and if it didn't, all hell would break loose.

Sure we don't TRULY elect the president but if there was a state that went red and its delegates voted blue, it would be an uproar and likely a constitutional amendment.

 

[dcraelin]

At the time of the founding the discrepancies in the electoral college were not so stark, that is, there were not such differences in population, The problem isnt the electoral college really its the winner take all that gives all the electoral votes from one state to the winner.

A national popular vote would be subject to real chaos if there was a close vote and the desire for a recount. Plus I think there are legal problems with the National Popular Vote idea.

also see my idea to change the power of the vote of the Senators.....small states like NH, RI, VER, Del have to much clout in the Senate...and for the same reason in the electoral college.