Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The sort of worst kept secret as to why conservatives are so madly in love with the electoral college method of electing the President?
It suppresses turnout, a condition conservatives are also madly in love with.
Listen carefully.
The argument is Gore should have won because he won the popular vote, and that the electoral college is outdated.
NOT that he should have won Florida.
If Gore had won Florida WHICH HE DIDN'T...he would have won the Electoral College.
Is that too complex for you?
So you are arguing that we should have ignored the Constitution, and the Election Process that had served us well for over 200 Years, and simply Declared Gore the winner?
Please.
You don't like the way it works, Change the law. Bush was not the First President to not win the Popular Vote but still win the Election, and he wont be the last. The Second time around he won by the Largest Margin in some time, and with over 50% of the Vote for the first time since before Clinton.
I am sure the next time the Guy you want to win, wins the College but loses the Popular Vote you will suddenly see the wisdom in our System of Balanced Powers and checks and Balances. We have Eroded States Rights quite enough think you. The EC is one of the last Remnants of what used to be a system that Balanced the Fed with States.
There seem to be some misunderstandings here. I thought Missourian was offering the 2000 election as an example of Federalist principles within the Electoral College at work. He says he did not.
Likewise, let me be clear. My problem with the Electoral College does not stem from the 2000 election, because I can abide a Constitutional result. I think the Constitution might benefit from an Amendment, but the Electoral College is a legitimate system and conservatives understandably defend it.
What I am saying is that the Bush v. Gore decision was gross, and the Supreme Court hijacked the entire electoral process, and went outside the bounds of established jurisprudence and yes, Federalism itself. Thus, I do not believe the 2000 election is a good example of the Electoral College at work, nor is it an example of why the Electoral College should be abolished.
I just did answer it................. I cannot help it if you are too___________, to think like a mature adult and do some very simple critical thinking.
-just because the EC has not been the arbiter of an election often enough for you does not mean its absent would be good, its absence would have an effect downsteam that is NOT present OR verifiable NOW, because the EC is IN PLACE and has been...so far so good?
Ipso facto- you cannot use any elections so far to say see no it won't, because its mere presence in elections past, renders that 'experiment' meaningless. So saying hey there been no use or need of it, is meaningless. ( Skinner? hello)
-The absence of the EC- we can conjecture on what MIGHT be; It would change the the structure of how the election process takes place; from who announces to run, to campaigning , to nomination, to inauguration....
can you you absorb this?
It's bullshit. Everything you said.
Governors are to the states what the president is to the country. Governors are elected by direct popular vote. Is that the WRONG way to do it?
Only because thats how their constitutions are set up. Technically a state could adopt a parlimentary system, with the legislature choosing the governor if it wants. The state constitutions rule the state, the federal one the federal.
Its the right way to do the states, as thier population is smaller and thier consitutents more uniform than the nation as a whole.
The sort of worst kept secret as to why conservatives are so madly in love with the electoral college method of electing the President?
It suppresses turnout, a condition conservatives are also madly in love with.
Please Explain how it suppresses Turn out? In Order to win a state the Candidate must win it's Popular Vote. Also Some states determine how Delegates will vote based on the % break down of votes the Candidates get. In those states people are encourage even more to vote so not only does their guy take the state but by a large margin so he/she gets more of the Delegates.
So you are arguing that we should have ignored the Constitution, and the Election Process that had served us well for over 200 Years, and simply Declared Gore the winner?
Please.
You don't like the way it works, Change the law. Bush was not the First President to not win the Popular Vote but still win the Election, and he wont be the last. The Second time around he won by the Largest Margin in some time, and with over 50% of the Vote for the first time since before Clinton.
I am sure the next time the Guy you want to win, wins the College but loses the Popular Vote you will suddenly see the wisdom in our System of Balanced Powers and checks and Balances. We have Eroded States Rights quite enough think you. The EC is one of the last Remnants of what used to be a system that Balanced the Fed with States.
There seem to be some misunderstandings here. I thought Missourian was offering the 2000 election as an example of Federalist principles within the Electoral College at work. He says he did not.
Likewise, let me be clear. My problem with the Electoral College does not stem from the 2000 election, because I can abide a Constitutional result. I think the Constitution might benefit from an Amendment, but the Electoral College is a legitimate system and conservatives understandably defend it.
What I am saying is that the Bush v. Gore decision was gross, and the Supreme Court hijacked the entire electoral process, and went outside the bounds of established jurisprudence and yes, Federalism itself. Thus, I do not believe the 2000 election is a good example of the Electoral College at work, nor is it an example of why the Electoral College should be abolished.
Basically what the SCOTUS decided in 2000 was that we could not afford to drag out the process more. The Country and the World need resolution to the Election. 200 Years of Peaceful power Transition and all. So they decided to end any further Recount and call the Election. Is that a prefect out come? No, But I think it was better than another few months of uncertainty and Hand Counting.
The sort of worst kept secret as to why conservatives are so madly in love with the electoral college method of electing the President?
It suppresses turnout, a condition conservatives are also madly in love with.
Please Explain how it suppresses Turn out? In Order to win a state the Candidate must win it's Popular Vote. Also Some states determine how Delegates will vote based on the % break down of votes the Candidates get. In those states people are encourage even more to vote so not only does their guy take the state but by a large margin so he/she gets more of the Delegates.
It suppresses turnout because in most states you can figure out who's going to win, and at that point your vote doesn't matter, because the winner takes all and the loser gets nothing.
There seem to be some misunderstandings here. I thought Missourian was offering the 2000 election as an example of Federalist principles within the Electoral College at work. He says he did not.
Likewise, let me be clear. My problem with the Electoral College does not stem from the 2000 election, because I can abide a Constitutional result. I think the Constitution might benefit from an Amendment, but the Electoral College is a legitimate system and conservatives understandably defend it.
What I am saying is that the Bush v. Gore decision was gross, and the Supreme Court hijacked the entire electoral process, and went outside the bounds of established jurisprudence and yes, Federalism itself. Thus, I do not believe the 2000 election is a good example of the Electoral College at work, nor is it an example of why the Electoral College should be abolished.
Basically what the SCOTUS decided in 2000 was that we could not afford to drag out the process more. The Country and the World need resolution to the Election. 200 Years of Peaceful power Transition and all. So they decided to end any further Recount and call the Election. Is that a prefect out come? No, But I think it was better than another few months of uncertainty and Hand Counting.
I disagree that SCOTUS should've intervened at all, but lets move on.
Upthread a lot of people were saying the Electoral College is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. But James Madison in Federalist #10 notes that the presence of representatives in Congress themselves act as a bulwark against direct democracy. The OP presented us with an option that strips the Constitution of the Electoral College. But Congress remains intact, both with representatives filtering the will of the people in the House and two Senators a State protecting the interests of smaller States in the Senate. Eliminating the EC would open up the country to third parties, and it would follow the principle of one person one vote, which is the preferred intrastate manner of election for both Senators and Representatives.
I think if we scrap the EC we still have a Republic and we're still protected against factions by the presence of representatives in Congress, and we're particularly protected by Senate representation. The advantages outweigh the dangers, it would seem.
Basically what the SCOTUS decided in 2000 was that we could not afford to drag out the process more. The Country and the World need resolution to the Election. 200 Years of Peaceful power Transition and all. So they decided to end any further Recount and call the Election. Is that a prefect out come? No, But I think it was better than another few months of uncertainty and Hand Counting.
I disagree that SCOTUS should've intervened at all, but lets move on.
Upthread a lot of people were saying the Electoral College is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. But James Madison in Federalist #10 notes that the presence of representatives in Congress themselves act as a bulwark against direct democracy. The OP presented us with an option that strips the Constitution of the Electoral College. But Congress remains intact, both with representatives filtering the will of the people in the House and two Senators a State protecting the interests of smaller States in the Senate. Eliminating the EC would open up the country to third parties, and it would follow the principle of one person one vote, which is the preferred intrastate manner of election for both Senators and Representatives.
I think if we scrap the EC we still have a Republic and we're still protected against factions by the presence of representatives in Congress, and we're particularly protected by Senate representation. The advantages outweigh the dangers, it would seem.
I have always thought of the EC more of an attempt to give the States some Power, and less about a bulwark against Direct Democracy. I am sure the Republic Could survive with out it, but IMO it further weakens the states and consolidates the power at the Fed.
The sort of worst kept secret as to why conservatives are so madly in love with the electoral college method of electing the President?
It suppresses turnout, a condition conservatives are also madly in love with.
Please Explain how it suppresses Turn out? In Order to win a state the Candidate must win it's Popular Vote. Also Some states determine how Delegates will vote based on the % break down of votes the Candidates get. In those states people are encourage even more to vote so not only does their guy take the state but by a large margin so he/she gets more of the Delegates.
It suppresses turnout because in most states you can figure out who's going to win, and at that point your vote doesn't matter, because the winner takes all and the loser gets nothing.
It's bullshit. Everything you said.
Governors are to the states what the president is to the country. Governors are elected by direct popular vote. Is that the WRONG way to do it?
Only because thats how their constitutions are set up. Technically a state could adopt a parlimentary system, with the legislature choosing the governor if it wants. The state constitutions rule the state, the federal one the federal.
Its the right way to do the states, as thier population is smaller and thier consitutents more uniform than the nation as a whole.
You obviously know nothing about states like California, New York, Pennsylvania, for starters.
What's uniformity have to do with it anyway? Why shouldn't governors be elected by an electoral process that assigns each county a number of electoral votes and then it's winner take all by county? If that's the right way to elect chief executive officers, if it's so frigging vital to the integrity of the democratic process?
Why can't anyone make a good argument for the electoral college?
I think the important thing is that the "Federalism" that everyone talks about is served by Congress that has small states having as much representation as the large ones in the Senate.
But the election for the presidency is the one time the voters themselves can have a say in who should run the country and what direction we should go in, at least in theory.
As I pointed out in my post of last night, the EC distorts this in three ways.
1) It allows situations where someone could become president after losing the popular vote. This has happened four times since the current configuration. It allows for shenannigans such as Congress, special commissions or the Supreme Court to sort out what should be a decision by the people.
2) It allows only a handful of states to decide the election, invalidating the votes of people in states which are strongly one way or the other.
3) It codifies the two-party system. How many times have you heard, "How did we get stuck with these two losers?" Well, because we only have two parties, and only a sliver of the electorate chooses them. (The people who show up at primaries.)
but history has shows that the EC strangles third parties in their cribs. The Constitutional Unionist, the Know-Nothings (Or the American Party), the Progressive Party, Dixiecrats, the Reform Party. They are around for one election, the EC makes it impossible for them to win, and then they fade away.
because on some level, people end up realizing that a third party can't win if the election gets thrown into Congress.
Please Explain how it suppresses Turn out? In Order to win a state the Candidate must win it's Popular Vote. Also Some states determine how Delegates will vote based on the % break down of votes the Candidates get. In those states people are encourage even more to vote so not only does their guy take the state but by a large margin so he/she gets more of the Delegates.
It suppresses turnout because in most states you can figure out who's going to win, and at that point your vote doesn't matter, because the winner takes all and the loser gets nothing.
That has nothing to do with the EC...that' is up to the state government.
States are not required to give all of their electoral votes to one candidate.
They can split them up by percentage of the vote.
For example in California, if the divided their votes, and Obama received 75% of the vote, they COULD choose to pledge Obama 41 of their electoral votes and give his opponent the remaining 14.
Nothing prevents them from doing that.
So, using your example that the EC suppress the vote because people know who is going to win...that is a state issue.
Nebraska and Maine DO split their electoral votes.
I think the important thing is that the "Federalism" that everyone talks about is served by Congress that has small states having as much representation as the large ones in the Senate.
But the election for the presidency is the one time the voters themselves can have a say in who should run the country and what direction we should go in, at least in theory.
As I pointed out in my post of last night, the EC distorts this in three ways.
1) It allows situations where someone could become president after losing the popular vote. This has happened four times since the current configuration. It allows for shenannigans such as Congress, special commissions or the Supreme Court to sort out what should be a decision by the people.
2) It allows only a handful of states to decide the election, invalidating the votes of people in states which are strongly one way or the other.
3) It codifies the two-party system. How many times have you heard, "How did we get stuck with these two losers?" Well, because we only have two parties, and only a sliver of the electorate chooses them. (The people who show up at primaries.)
but history has shows that the EC strangles third parties in their cribs. The Constitutional Unionist, the Know-Nothings (Or the American Party), the Progressive Party, Dixiecrats, the Reform Party. They are around for one election, the EC makes it impossible for them to win, and then they fade away.
because on some level, people end up realizing that a third party can't win if the election gets thrown into Congress.
The problem with your third party argument is that this would not stop a third party from taking over state and local governments, which for the most part does not happen. A third party would also be possible in the house, but you don't really see that either.
The main problem with 3rd parties is that at ANY level americans do not seem to support the concept. I don't think allowing direct election of the president would affect that unless a third party started at the bottom to gain support, which is not happening.
I think the important thing is that the "Federalism" that everyone talks about is served by Congress that has small states having as much representation as the large ones in the Senate.
But the election for the presidency is the one time the voters themselves can have a say in who should run the country and what direction we should go in, at least in theory.
As I pointed out in my post of last night, the EC distorts this in three ways.
1) It allows situations where someone could become president after losing the popular vote. This has happened four times since the current configuration. It allows for shenannigans such as Congress, special commissions or the Supreme Court to sort out what should be a decision by the people.
2) It allows only a handful of states to decide the election, invalidating the votes of people in states which are strongly one way or the other.
3) It codifies the two-party system. How many times have you heard, "How did we get stuck with these two losers?" Well, because we only have two parties, and only a sliver of the electorate chooses them. (The people who show up at primaries.)
but history has shows that the EC strangles third parties in their cribs. The Constitutional Unionist, the Know-Nothings (Or the American Party), the Progressive Party, Dixiecrats, the Reform Party. They are around for one election, the EC makes it impossible for them to win, and then they fade away.
because on some level, people end up realizing that a third party can't win if the election gets thrown into Congress.
The problem with your third party argument is that this would not stop a third party from taking over state and local governments, which for the most part does not happen. A third party would also be possible in the house, but you don't really see that either.
The main problem with 3rd parties is that at ANY level americans do not seem to support the concept. I don't think allowing direct election of the president would affect that unless a third party started at the bottom to gain support, which is not happening.
Well, that's not true, because NY has a Conservative Party, a Liberal Party and an Independent Party, which sometimes support the two major parties and sometimes nominate canidates of their own.
Let's say for instance that Romney beats Perry, and the TEA Party gets so upset with him when he shows his true liberal colors that they separate. Let's say that the 80 TEA members of Congress form their own caucus. Then let's say the TEA Party nominated Michelle Bachmann and she got 35% of the vote to Romney's 33 and Obama's 30.
None of them get a clear majorit of 269 in the EC. So it gets tossed into Congress. Each state gets 1 vote based on who is in the majority in the congressional delegation. The TEA don't hold the majority in any delegation, so they either join with the GOP (which votes Romney) or Dems (who vote Obama).
Neither party is held in high regard right now, and rightfully so. But we'll never get a third party that is viable nationally.
Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?
Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.
It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.
California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.
Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?
Do we need it anymore? Gallup polls have show than the American people prefer Direct Elections for President over the indirect Electoral College.
It used to be necessary, back when we couldn't talk to each other by picking up a phone and we didn't have nationwide 24/7 news coverage.
California just became the latest state to vote to give all their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote, joining seven other states that have done so.
Is this the beginning of the end for the EC?
The EC should NOT be eliminated - but I think changes are in order. We should amend the Constitution to be more specific about how the electors are chosen, and eliminate winner-take-all. A system like Nebraska's would make more sense. - Winner of the state wide vote gets 2 electors, and the remaining electors are split up between the winners of the congressional districts.
That's not generally true. The 14th amendment grants Congress certain powers over how states conduct elections.It would be unconstitutional for the Federal Government to involve itself in how states administer elections..
The power to choose electors is, but a Constitutional amendment can change that..that is a power specifically granted by the Constitution to the states.
2) An equal protection law suit decided by the Supreme Court.
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]One is unlikely and two, while more plausible, would also probably fail.
