Suppose the Electoral College in Dec Works as the Founders Intended

[RetiredGySgt]

Ya we should make it so only 6 States matter in an election. That will SURE FIX THINGS.

 

[Flopper]

...Although I like the popular vote, getting rid of the Electoral College does not have to mean going to a popular vote...

Correct.

Eliminating the Electoral College does not necessarily mean shifting to a Popular Vote.

It's merely my contention that it should.

We no longer need to mimick the Holy Roman (German) Imperial Elector system of the Middle Ages.

Technology has made it - including our own 200+ year-old expanded/adapted variation - entirely pointless and obsolete.

Keep it on ice against a time when the nation might suffer a massive EMP burst and all the technology shuts down, maybe, but... barring that... it's just not needed any longer...

An unnecessary over-complication...

Too many moving (and suspect and faulty) parts...

Less is More...

Because of our political structure, we will probably never have the popular vote. People that live in less populated states will continue to have a disproportionately larger voice in the election of the president than people in highly populated states.

 

[Kondor3]

...Although I like the popular vote, getting rid of the Electoral College does not have to mean going to a popular vote...

Correct.

Eliminating the Electoral College does not necessarily mean shifting to a Popular Vote.

It's merely my contention that it should.

We no longer need to mimick the Holy Roman (German) Imperial Elector system of the Middle Ages.

Technology has made it - including our own 200+ year-old expanded/adapted variation - entirely pointless and obsolete.

Keep it on ice against a time when the nation might suffer a massive EMP burst and all the technology shuts down, maybe, but... barring that... it's just not needed any longer...

An unnecessary over-complication...

Too many moving (and suspect and faulty) parts...

Less is More...

Because of our political structure, we will probably never have the popular vote. People that live in less populated states will continue to have a disproportionately larger voice in the election of the president than people in highly populated states.

All the more reason to continue advocating for change...

 

[candycorn]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

But that would not be the originalist or contextualist view. You need to be consistent.

So who said that I was any of those things?

The nice part about being an Independent and Centrist is that you can be to the right of Attila the Hun on some things, to the left of Karl Marx on others, and right down the middle of the road, on most things...

Cafeteria Political Philosophy... pick and choose, as you think best suited to the moment and scenario...

In a political context... Consistency is for creatures of habit, and other partisan hacks and dullards... best to remain flexible, and open to a wide array of ideas...

Next batter, please...

=======================================

Time to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the Popular Vote...

The technology is there...

Time to do it...

A lot of truth to that. However, I disagree with getting rid of the EC because it would shift campaigning to only the highly populated areas of a few states. I think the winning position is to amend the Constitution to where the President Elect must get the majority of Electoral Votes as well as the plurality of popular votes. If not, the provisions of the 12th amendment kick in.

Although I like the popular vote, getting rid of the Electoral College does not have to mean going to a popular vote.

After the vote in each state is tallied, the number of electors for each state can be assigned, certified by the state and sent to the House of Representatives for confirmation. It would work the same as it does now, except we skip the electoral college step which will assure that electoral votes all go to right candidate as determined by the voter. Faithless electors become a thing of the past.

Thus the electoral college would be gone but we would still have the same rotten system where a vote from Montana or North Dakota is worth 18 times as much as a vote from California.

You won’t get much argument from me that the founding fathers and framers got a lot right and they got a lot wrong. And I believe the first men to tell you that would be the framers themselves. However the EC is what they got right.

Value (relative to your “worth” argument) is a fleeting quality. At the time of framing, there were more rural states than there were highly populated ones and certainly there were no states that had a 54 to 3 ratio of electors over the rural states. Thusly they could have perhaps envisioned a situation like California or Texas but you cannot plan for everything. If you wished to put a constitutional limit on how much pull a state can have, I would listen to that. I’ve been to California several times. I’ve been to Nevada several times. I’ve been through New Mexico several times. And yes, I’ve been to Texas several times. The 4 states could not be any more different in terms of population density. I would imagine that in the next census, you’ll see California have up near 60 electoral votes. In 2030???? Maybe breaching 60. Texas could have well over 40 by that time. So could Florida. Three States; 140 electoral votes or well over 1/2 way to the Presidency. Eventually, the system will be clearly untenable. But we’re not there yet.

 

[Flopper]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

But that would not be the originalist or contextualist view. You need to be consistent.

So who said that I was any of those things?

The nice part about being an Independent and Centrist is that you can be to the right of Attila the Hun on some things, to the left of Karl Marx on others, and right down the middle of the road, on most things...

Cafeteria Political Philosophy... pick and choose, as you think best suited to the moment and scenario...

In a political context... Consistency is for creatures of habit, and other partisan hacks and dullards... best to remain flexible, and open to a wide array of ideas...

Next batter, please...

=======================================

Time to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the Popular Vote...

The technology is there...

Time to do it...

A lot of truth to that. However, I disagree with getting rid of the EC because it would shift campaigning to only the highly populated areas of a few states. I think the winning position is to amend the Constitution to where the President Elect must get the majority of Electoral Votes as well as the plurality of popular votes. If not, the provisions of the 12th amendment kick in.

Although I like the popular vote, getting rid of the Electoral College does not have to mean going to a popular vote.

After the vote in each state is tallied, the number of electors for each state can be assigned, certified by the state and sent to the House of Representatives for confirmation. It would work the same as it does now, except we skip the electoral college step which will assure that electoral votes all go to right candidate as determined by the voter. Faithless electors become a thing of the past.

Thus the electoral college would be gone but we would still have the same rotten system where a vote from Montana or North Dakota is worth 18 times as much as a vote from California.

You won’t get much argument from me that the founding fathers and framers got a lot right and they got a lot wrong. And I believe the first men to tell you that would be the framers themselves. However the EC is what they got right.

Value (relative to your “worth” argument) is a fleeting quality. At the time of framing, there were more rural states than there were highly populated ones and certainly there were no states that had a 54 to 3 ratio of electors over the rural states. Thusly they could have perhaps envisioned a situation like California or Texas but you cannot plan for everything. If you wished to put a constitutional limit on how much pull a state can have, I would listen to that. I’ve been to California several times. I’ve been to Nevada several times. I’ve been through New Mexico several times. And yes, I’ve been to Texas several times. The 4 states could not be any more different in terms of population density. I would imagine that in the next census, you’ll see California have up near 60 electoral votes. In 2030???? Maybe breaching 60. Texas could have well over 40 by that time. So could Florida. Three States; 140 electoral votes or well over 1/2 way to the Presidency. Eventually, the system will be clearly untenable. But we’re not there yet.

I understand your point as to why we should not have a popular vote but why should we have an electoral college. Why not just have the state assign the number of electors, certify the count and send it to the House of Representatives for conformation. There is no reason to have electors voting.

 

[whitehall]

The only time they complain about the Electoral College is when their candidate loses.

 

[JQPublic1]

The only time they complain about the Electoral College is when their candidate loses.

If a candidate has won the popular vote and loses because the EC deems otherwise the electorate would feel cheated. The Will of the People has been nullified but legally there is no recourse. The only options are but to act outside of the law or just grumble.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The only time they complain about the Electoral College is when their candidate loses.

If a candidate has won the popular vote and loses because the EC deems otherwise the electorate would feel cheated. The Will of the People has been nullified but legally there is no recourse. The only options are but to act outside of the law or just grumble.

The President has NEVER been elected by popular vote EVER. Not since day one.

 

[Kondor3]

The only time they complain about the Electoral College is when their candidate loses.

If a candidate has won the popular vote and loses because the EC deems otherwise the electorate would feel cheated. The Will of the People has been nullified but legally there is no recourse. The only options are but to act outside of the law or just grumble.

The President has NEVER been elected by popular vote EVER. Not since day one.

Then it's long overdue...

 

[JQPublic1]

The only time they complain about the Electoral College is when their candidate loses.

If a candidate has won the popular vote and loses because the EC deems otherwise the electorate would feel cheated. The Will of the People has been nullified but legally there is no recourse. The only options are but to act outside of the law or just grumble.

The President has NEVER been elected by popular vote EVER. Not since day one.

why did you feel the need to say something every body knows? We know the popular vote is really meaningless but the EC vote usually coincides with it and everybody is happy. Only 4 times was a candidate pronounced the winner after having lost the popular vote.

 

[FA_Q2]

If it every happened, t

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

Nothing the Damn SC could do, that's the way it is setup and electors in the past didn't go along with the vote.

If it ever happened, I think we can kiss the electoral college goodbye.

Yes, you would see a huge backlash against it.

I do not think it will ever happen though. You pointed out that faithless electors are not all that uncommon BUT none of those has ever swung an election.

 

[FA_Q2]

The electors will follow the vote in their states, even if it is the Donald who wins the vote.

So, lets turn it around. It won’t happen but lets say that HRC’s slot machine server actually spits out an e-mail showing that she was telling a Chinese official a state secret in return for a hefty continued donation to the CGI. Its an open and shut case. When asked by the media, she takes the 5th.

And it comes down on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. After the people have voted and after she had won.

You don’t think some electors would have a good reason not to vote for her?

Nope, I do not think they should. As you pointed out, congress has the power to take care of that situation and that is where the rightful action would be - impeach her and remove her from office if that is the case.

 

[FA_Q2]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

But that would not be the originalist or contextualist view. You need to be consistent.

So who said that I was any of those things?

The nice part about being an Independent and Centrist is that you can be to the right of Attila the Hun on some things, to the left of Karl Marx on others, and right down the middle of the road, on most things...

Cafeteria Political Philosophy... pick and choose, as you think best suited to the moment and scenario...

In a political context... Consistency is for creatures of habit, and other partisan hacks and dullards... best to remain flexible, and open to a wide array of ideas...

Next batter, please...

=======================================

Time to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the Popular Vote...

The technology is there...

Time to do it...

A lot of truth to that. However, I disagree with getting rid of the EC because it would shift campaigning to only the highly populated areas of a few states. I think the winning position is to amend the Constitution to where the President Elect must get the majority of Electoral Votes as well as the plurality of popular votes. If not, the provisions of the 12th amendment kick in.

I don't really see the functional difference if that was what happened to what we have now where the focus is only on a few states that are up for grabs and the massive majority of the country is ignored entirely. I also do not agree with the assessment that only a few places would matter.

in a popular vote setting, a vote is worth the same if it is from Vermont or California. Where potential presidents would campaign is where they thing they can influence the most votes possible. Sure, that is going to lean to a few densely populated areas but I don't think campaigns will be anywhere near as narrow as they are today as everywhere will have value and possible voters. The system as it stands now means that there is literally zero reason to campaign in CA, the absolute most populous state, simply because a candidate cannot gain anything there at all. It will go democrat and whatever is spent there (time or money) will gain them nothing.

That CANNOT be said about anywhere in the nation at all if the vote was a popular vote. Wherever a candidate campaigns, they will be attracting votes.

 

[JQPublic1]

If it every happened, t

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

Nothing the Damn SC could do, that's the way it is setup and electors in the past didn't go along with the vote.

If it ever happened, I think we can kiss the electoral college goodbye.

Yes, you would see a huge backlash against it.

I do not think it will ever happen though. You pointed out that faithless electors are not all that uncommon BUT none of those has ever swung an election.

Yes they have, several times.

 

[Kondor3]

...in a popular vote setting, a vote is worth the same if it is from Vermont or California...

Well said.

 

[mvymvy]

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.


With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

 

[mvymvy]

States do not send delegates to Washington to chose a president. Each state’s winning presidential electors travel to their State Capitol

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.

 

[mvymvy]

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

After the 2012 election, Nate Silver calculated that "Mitt Romney may have had to win the national popular vote by three percentage points on Tuesday to be assured of winning the Electoral College."

 

[mvymvy]

The only time they complain about the Electoral College is when their candidate loses.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

 

[mvymvy]

Because of our political structure, we will probably never have the popular vote. People that live in less populated states will continue to have a disproportionately larger voice in the election of the president than people in highly populated states.

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

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before 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.

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 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. 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.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

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.