The Purpose of the Electoral College

[wihosa]

The Electorl College was created because the Framers were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority". As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Well, Trump is the exact person that Hamilton was speaking of. It is ironic that he "won" the Electoral College and lost the popular vote "bigly". The Framers were afraid of such a person coming to power via the popular vote, but that is no reason the Electoral College can't perform the function it was created for. There are only minor financial penalties in some states for Electors who don't vote the way their states voted. In the other states Electors are unrestricted.

The Elector College should perform the duty it was created for as a check on an unrestrained demagogue and deny this dangerously conflicted man the office he will likely destroy.
I'm not saying they should elect Clinton, or even a Democrat, but most Americans who voted did not want Trump and he has already shown himself unfit for the office.

Otherwise the Electoral College should be abolished, if the Electors can't now do what they were empowered to do, then what is their purpose?

What the Founding Fathers had in mind when they established the electoral vote, was to ensure a president was not elected by the big population centers of New York, Boston and Philadelphia, but rather by majority support across all of the 13 colonies! Fast forward to today and it means a vote in Wyoming is as important as one cast in California. The 2016 election worked as it was designed. Trump had support in the Midwest, South and Southwest. Hillary's support came from mainly the East & West coast's. I f you were to overlay election results by counties on the electoral map, it would be a sea of red across the country! The news media's obsession with the popular vote means nothing! If we elected president's by popular vote, presidential candidate's would only campaign in the 10 states with the biggest population and would never set foot in states like Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, etc. The calls to change the constitution are a waste of time! For those who don't know, it would be a mountain to steep to climb, because it would require approval of 2/3 of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that is ever going to happen?

It's not the land mass that elects Presidents, its people. Most people who voted didn't want Trump and Clinton got 2.5 more votes and counting!

 

[kaz]

the electors each state gets for their congressmen should count as individual votes for the congressional voting district they represent, and the 2 senatorial electors each state gets, both small and large are what gives smaller states the advantage over big populated states....THIS was the founder's intent, and NOT to make it a winner takes all electors where state citizens are disenfranchised....

They didn't say electors represent districts, they only used that as a calculation to determine how many votes a State gets. Once again, your claims are sourceless and none of my reading on the subject supports your claims

 

[kaz]

The Electorl College was created because the Framers were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority". As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Well, Trump is the exact person that Hamilton was speaking of. It is ironic that he "won" the Electoral College and lost the popular vote "bigly". The Framers were afraid of such a person coming to power via the popular vote, but that is no reason the Electoral College can't perform the function it was created for. There are only minor financial penalties in some states for Electors who don't vote the way their states voted. In the other states Electors are unrestricted.

The Elector College should perform the duty it was created for as a check on an unrestrained demagogue and deny this dangerously conflicted man the office he will likely destroy.
I'm not saying they should elect Clinton, or even a Democrat, but most Americans who voted did not want Trump and he has already shown himself unfit for the office.

Otherwise the Electoral College should be abolished, if the Electors can't now do what they were empowered to do, then what is their purpose?

What the Founding Fathers had in mind when they established the electoral vote, was to ensure a president was not elected by the big population centers of New York, Boston and Philadelphia, but rather by majority support across all of the 13 colonies! Fast forward to today and it means a vote in Wyoming is as important as one cast in California. The 2016 election worked as it was designed. Trump had support in the Midwest, South and Southwest. Hillary's support came from mainly the East & West coast's. I f you were to overlay election results by counties on the electoral map, it would be a sea of red across the country! The news media's obsession with the popular vote means nothing! If we elected president's by popular vote, presidential candidate's would only campaign in the 10 states with the biggest population and would never set foot in states like Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, etc. The calls to change the constitution are a waste of time! For those who don't know, it would be a mountain to steep to climb, because it would require approval of 2/3 of the Senate and ratification by 3/4 of the states! Does anyone seriously think that is ever going to happen?

It's not the land mass that elects Presidents, its people. Most people who voted didn't want Trump and Clinton got 2.5 more votes and counting!

At this rate, Clinton could win a few thousand years after the term ends!

BTW, no one ran for the popular vote, moron. You're just changing the rules after the election because you lost

 

[wihosa]

How many of the agricultural and mineral resources would be produced without the machinery and technology which comes from the oh so dependent cities?

Where did the iron come from that made the buildings that are in the city? Where do industrial centers get their resources?

Not real hard to figure out here bed wetter. You're really to stupid for any further attention, unless I choose to ridicule you again at some point in the future.

Well at least you're good at something, calling names.

By the way, when you accused me of being stupid the correct word should have been too, as in also, not "to".

 

[Care4all]

the electors each state gets for their congressmen should count as individual votes for the congressional voting district they represent, and the 2 senatorial electors each state gets, both small and large are what gives smaller states the advantage over big populated states....THIS was the founder's intent, and NOT to make it a winner takes all electors where state citizens are disenfranchised....

They didn't say electors represent districts, they only used that as a calculation to determine how many votes a State gets. Once again, your claims are sourceless and none of my reading on the subject supports your claims

they voted by district, choosing electors...each district could choose 1....is my understanding?

 

[kaz]

How many of the agricultural and mineral resources would be produced without the machinery and technology which comes from the oh so dependent cities?

Where did the iron come from that made the buildings that are in the city? Where do industrial centers get their resources?

Not real hard to figure out here bed wetter. You're really to stupid for any further attention, unless I choose to ridicule you again at some point in the future.

Well at least you're good at something, calling names.

By the way, when you accused me of being stupid the correct word should have been too, as in also, not "to".

The perfect word for arguing Hillary won the popular vote when no one ran on that is "stupid."

There were tens of millions of Republicans in big blue States with little incentive to vote for President while Democrats are well oiled machines there leaving little on the table.

You have no idea what would have happened if we had the popular vote. But either way, it sure as fuck makes no difference now when no one ran on it. Trump won according to the rules we have. He sure the shit could have won if the rules were different than they are.

But ... they ... are ... not.

Grow up and take something for the butt hurt. I recommend an ice bath and lots of Preparation H

 

[kaz]

the electors each state gets for their congressmen should count as individual votes for the congressional voting district they represent, and the 2 senatorial electors each state gets, both small and large are what gives smaller states the advantage over big populated states....THIS was the founder's intent, and NOT to make it a winner takes all electors where state citizens are disenfranchised....

They didn't say electors represent districts, they only used that as a calculation to determine how many votes a State gets. Once again, your claims are sourceless and none of my reading on the subject supports your claims

they voted by district, choosing electors...each district could choose 1....is my understanding?

Here is the original system.

US Constitution, Article II, section 1: Electors are chosen by the states “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"

 

[Pogo]

What the Founding Fathers had in mind when they established the electoral vote, was to ensure a president was not elected by the big population centers of New York, Boston and Philadelphia, but rather by majority support across all of the 13 colonies!

Actually there were no "big population centers" as now, since most Americans lived in rural areas, not cities.
No Junior, what they had in mind in large part was slavery and protecting the power of slave states --- that's how Virginia got to be the largest and most influential state in EV terms --- by counting its slaves as three-fifths of a person, and got to dominate the first five POTUSes ..... except for POTUS 2 (Adams) the only one not from Virginia. When they saw there was still a way a Northerner could get elected that's when the "winner take all" format was adopted and we were back to Presidents who were slaveholders from the South.

Fun facts.

Fast forward to today and it means a vote in Wyoming is as important as one cast in California

Actually what it means is in neither state is an individual vote worth a bucket of warm spit. Because the state is already decided and it's going to tell Congress that "everybody here voted red (blue)" and everybody who didn't can go sit on a tack. They may as well not vote at all, and many don't.

If we elected president's by popular vote, presidential candidate's would only campaign in the 10 states with the biggest population and would never set foot in states like Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, etc.

Again --- does not follow at all. What would actually happen is candies would spend their time where they would get the most return. That means not going to places where you already have the EC vote, but rather places where you don't, where people never see you. That puts a Clinton in Alabama. It puts a Rump in Oregon. Because those are untapped for them. Think about it.

 

[kaz]

Actually what it means is in neither state is an individual vote worth a bucket of warm spit. Because the state is already decided and it's going to tell Congress that "everybody here voted red (blue)" and everybody who didn't can go sit on a tack. They may as well not vote at all, and many don't.

No one is saying everyone in North Carolina voted for Trump, that's in your mind. What you object to is you voted and lost. Democrats don't accept defeat. It's just not possible in your demented mind that you didn't win. You can't handle it. Government is God's gift and you want the gifts Democrats promised to give you

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

Actually there were no "big population centers" as now, since most Americans lived in rural areas, not cities.
No Junior, what they had in mind in large part was slavery and protecting the power of slave states --- that's how Virginia got to be the largest and most influential state in EV terms --- by counting its slaves as three-fifths of a person, and got to dominate the first five POTUSes ..... except for POTUS 2 (Adams) the only one not from Virginia. When they saw there was still a way a Northerner could get elected that's when the "winner take all" format was adopted and we were back to Presidents who were slaveholders from the South.

Fun facts.

What credible evidence do you have to support your assertion, or is it just your assumption? None of my research even suggests that anything you attest is accurate.

There actually were large population centers in colonial America.

"The four largest cities in Colonial-era America were Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY, Boston, MA and Charleston, SC."
Major Cities in Colonial America

Notice that only one of those cities is a slave state.

As far as the 3/5 of a person goes, it was deemed as such precisely to reduce the impact of the slave states on the Presidential election process.

The slave states claimed the slaves were property, and they also wanted to count them as persons. The non-slave states said they couldn't have it both way, so they compromised and decided to only count a slave vote as 3/5 of a vote, thus the 3/5 of a person was born. The northern abolitionists also saw it as a shot at ending slavery. (American Government: Roots and Reform; O'Connor, Sabato, & Yanus; Pearson Education, Inc, 2016)

 

[Pogo]

What credible evidence do you have to support your assertion, or is it just your assumption? None of my research even suggests that anything you attest is accurate.

There actually were large population centers in colonial America.

"The four largest cities in Colonial-era America were Philadelphia, PA, New York, NY, Boston, MA and Charleston, SC."
Major Cities in Colonial America

Notice that only one of those cities is a slave state.

Notice that my post read, and we quote,
"there were no "big population centers" as now, since most Americans lived in rural areas, not cities"

I enlarged the qualifier you ignored. And the rest of it --- still standing.

Maybe you didn't notice since you didn't write the post I was answering but the poster who actually DID write it was trying to make the case, and again I quote,

"What the Founding Fathers had in mind when they established the electoral vote, was to ensure a president was not elected by the big population centers of New York, Boston and Philadelphia, but rather by majority support across all of the 13 colonies!​

Whelp --- no, it wasn't. As has been thoroughly examined in the "EC is a disaster for democracy" thread and countless others.

As far as the 3/5 of a person goes, it was deemed as such precisely to reduce the impact of the slave states on the Presidential election process.

No Hunior. The slave states got that inserted to INFLATE their numbers, which made Virginia the most powerful EC player, which gave us eight of the first nine Presidential Administrations headed by slaveholders from the South --- specifically from..... wait for it.................... VIRGINIA. The only exception was John Adams, POTUS 2 from Massachusetts, whereupon the EC process was morphed to "winner take all" so as to ensure that wouldn't happen again any time soon. And it didn't --- the next three POTUSes in a row were all from, again, Virginia. The state with the most Electrical Votes, and only having that status because it was counting exactly 60% if its slaves as population to represent while giving exactly 0% of them the right to vote.

The slave states claimed the slaves were property, and they also wanted to count them as persons. The non-slave states said they couldn't have it both way, so they compromised and decided to only count a slave vote as 3/5 of a vote, thus the 3/5 of a person was born. The northern abolitionists also saw it as a shot at ending slavery. (American Government: Roots and Reform; O'Connor, Sabato, & Yanus; Pearson Education, Inc, 2016)

How the fuck would that "END slavery"?

 

[Boss]

The Electorl College was created because the Framers were afraid of the "tyranny of the majority". As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Well, Trump is the exact person that Hamilton was speaking of. It is ironic that he "won" the Electoral College and lost the popular vote "bigly". The Framers were afraid of such a person coming to power via the popular vote, but that is no reason the Electoral College can't perform the function it was created for. There are only minor financial penalties in some states for Electors who don't vote the way their states voted. In the other states Electors are unrestricted.

The Elector College should perform the duty it was created for as a check on an unrestrained demagogue and deny this dangerously conflicted man the office he will likely destroy.
I'm not saying they should elect Clinton, or even a Democrat, but most Americans who voted did not want Trump and he has already shown himself unfit for the office.

Otherwise the Electoral College should be abolished, if the Electors can't now do what they were empowered to do, then what is their purpose?

I disagree. HILLARY was who Hamilton was talking about. The electoral system is designed for the benefit of the states, so that smaller states have somewhat equal representation. If you didn't have the EC, politicians would simply focus on the needs and desires of city-dwellers because that's where the votes are. Rural people would simply be ignored because they wouldn't have the votes to do anything.

It's funny how much of a hypocritical position liberals have to take on this... just months ago, all we heard was how Trump couldn't win because Hillary had this impenetrable "Blue Wall" in the EC. If the scenario were reversed and Trump won the popular vote but Hillary won the most electors, you would have no problem whatsoever with the EC. It's ONLY because your bitch didn't win that you are complaining.

If we're going to dismantle the EC, why not dismantle the Senate? It's the same thing, right? Why should Wyoming get two senators like California?

Here's the thing you need to remember... We don't live in a Nation State. We are a nation of STATES. Each State is represented in our government. The fact that one state has millions and millions more people in it, doesn't negate the importance of all the states that don't have millions and millions.

Now... If we want to make a change, I would be okay with altering the EC so that states can split their EC votes between candidates. In other words, California's 55 electors would be divided between Trump and Hillary based on percentage of the popular vote. And... IF we make a change like this, we need to also mandate that no election results can be announced until all polls are closed nationwide, including Alaska and Hawaii.

As for this call for Electors to deny Trump the presidency... you've got to be out of your fucking mind. It's not going to happen, but even if it did, you'd start a fucking Civil War. Do you REALLY want to do that?

 

[Pogo]

If you didn't have the EC, politicians would simply focus on the needs and desires of city-dwellers because that's where the votes are. Rural people would simply be ignored because they wouldn't have the votes to do anything.

STILL does not follow. You can keep parroting the same line over and over but that doesn't make it logical.

Now... If we want to make a change, I would be okay with altering the EC so that states can split their EC votes between candidates. In other words, California's 55 electors would be divided between Trump and Hillary based on percentage of the popular vote. And... IF we make a change like this, we need to also mandate that no election results can be announced until all polls are closed nationwide, including Alaska and Hawaii.

Now you're agreeing that the EC is a fucked-up system and making it into a simple direct proxy. In that case, what's the point of having a middleman, if the EC is simply going to reflect what the voters already decided?

As for this call for Electors to deny Trump the presidency... you've got to be out of your fucking mind. It's not going to happen, but even if it did, you'd start a fucking Civil War. Do you REALLY want to do that?

Why would it do that?
It would be completely Constitutional. Do you understand that?

The simple fact is, the EC is free to vote for whoever it wants, including people who didn't even run for President, let alone get any number of votes.

 

[Boss]

The slave states claimed the slaves were property...

No they didn't!!!! The US Supreme Court RULED this!

 

[Boss]

STILL does not follow. You can keep parroting the same line over and over but that doesn't make it logical.

Well, I don't know what you think isn't logical.... The combined cities of New York and Los Angeles have more people than some entire states. All across the Midwest, there are farms which take up thousands and thousands of acres and very sparse population. What you would have with a popular national vote would be a political favoritism toward high population centers. Fuck everyone else, they wouldn't matter. So your presidential candidates would go to LA and NYC, Miami, Chicago... and they would promise them the moon and stars. They wouldn't waste precious campaign time or resources visiting anywhere else.

Now you're agreeing that the EC is a fucked-up system and making it into a simple direct proxy. In that case, what's the point of having a middleman, if the EC is simply going to reflect what the voters already decided?

No, I am NOT agreeing that at all. I said IF you're going to make a change. The difference is, the EC would still represent the state's interests. Why would you think it's fair for California to determine every election? I think States still matter and they are important. That's the whole purpose of the Senate, is it not?

 

[Boss]

Why would it do that?
It would be completely Constitutional. Do you understand that?

Should we go down the list of things that were deemed "Constitutional" but were totally the wrong thing to do? Just because it CAN be done Constitutionally, doesn't make it right. If you overturned the election this way, you'd start a fucking Civil War. Guaranteed!

 

[Dot Com]

OP just now has a problem w/the election process

Sent from my VS425PP using Tapatalk

 

[Pogo]

Why would it do that?
It would be completely Constitutional. Do you understand that?

Should we go down the list of things that were deemed "Constitutional" but were totally the wrong thing to do? Just because it CAN be done Constitutionally, doesn't make it right. If you overturned the election this way, you'd start a fucking Civil War. Guaranteed!

Again, my question is -- why? Why would you expect such a war?

There have been several POTUSes given office when they were not the first choice of the voters. None (zero) of them resulted in a civil war.

And how would it be "overturning the election" anyway? The election doesn't actually happen until December 19.

 

[Pogo]

STILL does not follow. You can keep parroting the same line over and over but that doesn't make it logical.

Well, I don't know what you think isn't logical.... The combined cities of New York and Los Angeles have more people than some entire states. All across the Midwest, there are farms which take up thousands and thousands of acres and very sparse population. What you would have with a popular national vote would be a political favoritism toward high population centers. Fuck everyone else, they wouldn't matter. So your presidential candidates would go to LA and NYC, Miami, Chicago... and they would promise them the moon and stars. They wouldn't waste precious campaign time or resources visiting anywhere else.

Using a PV system would by definition eliminate the bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states". Consequently ALL those states that are already locked by the EC system (and only by that) are ignored by candidates, because they either have the state's EVs locked up already (which makes campaigning here a waste of time), or they have no shot at them (which makes campaigning there a waste of time).

With that off the table, suddenly it's not a waste of time. Rump goes to California. Clinton goes to Oklahoma. They'll exploit areas where they have a shot to cultivate voters they don't have now --- voters who have never met them because their state is not "in play" --- another bullshit abstract that would not exist without the Electrical College dividing people up. "In play" (aka "batteground" aka "swing") is a euphemism for "unlike most states, you guys will actually have a vote that means something, at least until the vote is counted". Everybody else --- the locked states --- are out of play. Voters there get to watch and nothing else.

You also have no basis to conclude that turnout will be higher in high population areas than low ones.

Now you're agreeing that the EC is a fucked-up system and making it into a simple direct proxy. In that case, what's the point of having a middleman, if the EC is simply going to reflect what the voters already decided?

No, I am NOT agreeing that at all. I said IF you're going to make a change. The difference is, the EC would still represent the state's interests. Why would you think it's fair for California to determine every election? I think States still matter and they are important. That's the whole purpose of the Senate, is it not?

I DON"T think "California determines every election", and there's no way to make that argument either. That's another parroted myth that can't be supported. A voter in California is exactly the same number of voters as a voter in Tilden Nebraska --- ONE.

IF you convert the EC process to a simple microcosm of what that state's popular vote was --- then you have the same end result as a direct popular vote anyway, so ............ what's the point? So in effect yes you are agreeing to that, because having the EC vote as the voters did, is the same thing as having the voters do it. It's just an extra step to get to the same place.

 

[Boss]

Again, my question is -- why? Why would you expect such a war?
There have been several POTUSes given office when they were not the first choice of the voters. None (zero) of them resulted in a civil war.

That is not true. The EC vote has never overturned the legitimate result of the elections. In all of US history, there have only been about 127 electors who switched their votes.

You would get a war because the 60 million people who voted for Trump wouldn't stand for it. But it's like I said to start with... this is a pipe dream that is not going to happen. You can fool yourself into thinking it might... some people thought Gary Johnson could be elected president.

Guess what? In January, Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as the 45th President of the US. The chance for you to prevent that has come and gone. If you wanted to stop it, you should have turned out to vote on November 8th. You clearly had the numbers, you just didn't show up at the polls and vote.