End the Electoral College

Free

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

Q: Why does the U.S. have an Electoral College?

A: The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy.

FULL QUESTION:
Why does the United States have an Electoral College when it would be so easy to directly elect a president, as we do for all the other political offices?
FULL ANSWER:
When U.S. citizens go to the polls to “elect” a president, they are in fact voting for a particular slate of electors. In every state but Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the most votes (that is, a plurality) in the state receives all of the state’s electoral votes. The number of electors in each state is the sum of its U.S. senators and its U.S. representatives. (The District of Columbia has three electoral votes, which is the number of senators and representatives it would have if it were permitted representation in Congress.) The electors meet in their respective states 41 days after the popular election. There, they cast a ballot for president and a second for vice president. A candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes to be elected president.
The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
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.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
In modern practice, the Electoral College is mostly a formality. Most electors are loyal members of the party that has selected them, and in 26 states, plus Washington, D.C., electors are bound by laws or party pledges to vote in accord with the popular vote. Although an elector could, in principle, change his or her vote (and a few actually have over the years), doing so is rare.
As the 2000 election reminded us, the Electoral College does make it possible for a candidate to win the popular vote and still not become president. But that is less a product of the Electoral College and more a product of the way states apportion electors. In every state but Maine and Nebraska, electors are awarded on a winner-take-all basis. So if a candidate wins a state by even a narrow margin, he or she wins all of the state’s electoral votes. The winner-take-all system is not federally mandated; states are free to allocate their electoral votes as they wish.
The Electoral College was not the only Constitutional limitation on direct democracy, though we have discarded most of those limitations. Senators were initially to be appointed by state legislatures, and states were permitted to ban women from voting entirely. Slaves got an even worse deal, as a slave officially was counted as just three-fifths of a person. The 14th Amendment abolished the three-fifths rule and granted (male) former slaves the right to vote. The 17th Amendment made senators subject to direct election, and the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote.

dankind

pjalive21 said:

Degeneratefk said:

dankind said:

The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.

Bingo

No, not bingo...he is completely wrong...please once again has anyone besides me taken a Civics class or studied the electoral college? It was meant to serve the purpose that it did even in this election

and you say the founders were misguided? they are smarter than most people in Washington right now with the exception of people like Rand Paul

Misguided and stupid are not synonymous. Perhaps you need a thesaurus so that can you refrain from making misguided retorts.

And I imagine that most Americans who finished high school have taken a civics class in which they studied the electoral college and why it was controversially deemed necessary. (It was required in the state of Florida.)

The difference may be that some of us actually paid attention.

Free

Electoral college served it's purpose along time ago when it was created.

But the thing is, people evolve. Countries evolve. It is time to get rid of the electoral college.

lukin2006

What about your constitution, time to get rid of it ... right? Countries evolve as you say...

Get rid of the electoral college...then what a direct vote, so a few of the heavily populated states decide the election...

tbergs

lukin2006 said:

What about your constitution, time to get rid of it ... right? Countries evolve as you say...

Get rid of the electoral college...then what a direct vote, so a few of the heavily populated states decide the election...

No, but we need to adjust the constitution. The same thing happens with the 2nd amendment being invoked when it doesn't apply. If we stuck to the original constitution, only white males would be electing presidents.

dankind

The constitution is a living document!

pjalive21

PJPOWER

pjalive21 said:

Bingo.

bootleg

,” 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.”

I think we have entered this scenario.

pjalive21

bootleg said:

,” 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.”

I think we have entered this scenario.

He isnt the first....

rgambs

Not exactly bingo.

It does address a concern of mine, that it pits rural voices against urban voices.
But there are a few problems.
First, I live in a grey area and I vote with the blue areas. There are many like me. You can't just assume all rural voices will be the same.
Second, why should grey area voices be given extra weight simply due to their geographical density?
Shouldn't each voice count the same, no matter where it's from?

Then again, factions.
It's tough lol

jeffbr

rgambs said:

dankind said:

The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.

Absolutely true.

I don't know where to stand on the issue. With a popular vote everyone has a vote that is weighted exactly the same. Idealistically this is best.
In practice, that means that the elections become a match-up of urban vs rural as half the population lives in a few 10's of the thousands of counties.
City folk already think their way of life is universal and I wouldn't want that to get any worse, but I'm the first to bash the backwards, neandethal hillbillies for their political and social opinions.
This leaves me undecided.

I'm with Gambs here, for the reasons he listed. Also,direct democracy scares the shit out of me because, well, look around at who votes. I'm not happy with the results this time around, but it isn't the electoral college that created President Trump. Blame the non-voters, blame the two major parties, blame backlash against establishment politics with no good options.

I'm neither a defender of the electoral college nor am I calling for its abolishment. I just don't blame the electoral college for the results of this election. Clinton's team knew full well how to game the system and did so during the primaries. The candidate just couldn't pull in the votes in the right places for the general.

pjalive21

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

dankind said:

The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.

Absolutely true.

I don't know where to stand on the issue. With a popular vote everyone has a vote that is weighted exactly the same. Idealistically this is best.
In practice, that means that the elections become a match-up of urban vs rural as half the population lives in a few 10's of the thousands of counties.
City folk already think their way of life is universal and I wouldn't want that to get any worse, but I'm the first to bash the backwards, neandethal hillbillies for their political and social opinions.
This leaves me undecided.

I'm with Gambs here, for the reasons he listed. Also,direct democracy scares the shit out of me because, well, look around at who votes. I'm not happy with the results this time around, but it isn't the electoral college that created President Trump. Blame the non-voters, blame the two major parties, blame backlash against establishment politics with no good options.

I'm neither a defender of the electoral college nor am I calling for its abolishment. I just don't blame the electoral college for the results of this election. Clinton's team knew full well how to game the system and did so during the primaries. The candidate just couldn't pull in the votes in the right places for the general.

you my friend nailed it...trust me im not happy with what was left for options to vote and it wasn't a vote for Trump, it was a vote against the establishment and Hillary that i knew would matter the most rather than a 3rd party...i've taken tons of backlash and i accept that i just hope that this changes things moving forward and the government listens to the people

PJPOWER

bootleg said:

,” 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.”

I think we have entered this scenario.

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

dankind said:

The tragic irony here is that the misguided founders instituted the electoral college so that something like this wouldn't happen.

Absolutely true.

I don't know where to stand on the issue. With a popular vote everyone has a vote that is weighted exactly the same. Idealistically this is best.
In practice, that means that the elections become a match-up of urban vs rural as half the population lives in a few 10's of the thousands of counties.
City folk already think their way of life is universal and I wouldn't want that to get any worse, but I'm the first to bash the backwards, neandethal hillbillies for their political and social opinions.
This leaves me undecided.

I'm with Gambs here, for the reasons he listed. Also,direct democracy scares the shit out of me because, well, look around at who votes. I'm not happy with the results this time around, but it isn't the electoral college that created President Trump. Blame the non-voters, blame the two major parties, blame backlash against establishment politics with no good options.

I'm neither a defender of the electoral college nor am I calling for its abolishment. I just don't blame the electoral college for the results of this election. Clinton's team knew full well how to game the system and did so during the primaries. The candidate just couldn't pull in the votes in the right places for the general.

I agree with parts of what you say, especially about the non-voters. How can you complain about lack of representation when you did not vote...hell, write in your dog for all I care, but go vote. It's one of the only voices you have.

bootleg

pjalive21 said:

bootleg said:

,” 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.”

I think we have entered this scenario.

He isnt the first....

Probably not the first but by far the least qualified

pjalive21

bootleg said:

pjalive21 said:

bootleg said:

,” 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.”

I think we have entered this scenario.

He isnt the first....

Probably not the first but by far the least qualified

I agree who would have thought there would be someone less qualified than Chester Arthur

EdsonNascimento

bootlegger10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

i think it might be a bigger deal if it allowed for a winner with a much wider margin of the vote. it is so close, i don't see how anyone can really cry foul.

I agree. She won the popular vote but it wasn't like she won by 10%. The popular vote was basically a tie and people are acting like she got this mandate by winning the popular vote by .1% of the nation.

Exactly. And when about 50% of eligible voters vote, it's a bit more of a specious argument. The Electoral College works. We are a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy.

Free

https://actionsprout.io/39C3FE?source=share

Sign the petition: Abolish the Electoral College

unsung

EdsonNascimento said:

bootlegger10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

i think it might be a bigger deal if it allowed for a winner with a much wider margin of the vote. it is so close, i don't see how anyone can really cry foul.

I agree. She won the popular vote but it wasn't like she won by 10%. The popular vote was basically a tie and people are acting like she got this mandate by winning the popular vote by .1% of the nation.

Exactly. And when about 50% of eligible voters vote, it's a bit more of a specious argument. The Electoral College works. We are a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy.

We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is mob rule. You are right on the Representative and therefore the electoral college exists.

All talk here and everywhere else leading up to the election was 270...270...270. Period.

Not one person was on here, or on the internet hoping for a popular vote result and had the shoe been on the other foot liberals would be screaming about using electoral college.

Look at what getting participation trophies does to a young person. They can't handle defeat.

gnaztee

pjalive21 said:

pjalive21 said:

bigger picture.........

the point of the electoral college was to prevent a state like California from dominating the popular vote...the president was seen as a representative of the states of the union and not that of the people so they gave all the states a fair chance in an election...it also prevented intimidation of stealing votes from people who could be bought or bullied into changing a vote

I cannot believe how many people are questioning the electoral college, its mind boggling...no way, no how the popular vote should be the way to go

did anyone take Civics in college or read anything to do with the founding fathers???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5PbodZMA2M

You're asking the wrong question. "Did anyone take civics in college or read anything...?" Yes. Lots of us did. Stop acting like you get it and the rest of us are uninformed. Restating the reasons for it (a bit incorrectly) does not show that you know what's going on and those of us in disagreement don't. We're not arguing over what the EC is, we're arguing if it should be. The point of the electoral college was not to prevent a state like CA from dominating the vote. There was no California, or anything like it. California was Mexico, most states were similar in size, the West hadn't been explored, and it's hard to imagine Madison and Hamilton could even conceive of the kind of population differences that might arise between a California and a North Dakota.

The problem was they didn't trust the common person to vote. They wanted the EC to be able to override the will of the people. This is shown in how they set up the branches of government as well. Because they didn't trust the common people, they gave them the House of Reps. Let the "mob" throw the bums out every two years. It's why the Senate is still viewed as the more "prestigious" arm of congress with longer terms not as easily changed by the mob. The executive and judicial also have firewalls against the general population. The problem now is the EC is a rubber stamp based on popular vote by state, so it doesn't really serve the purpose as intended.

Two arguments I want to address (these come up in some of the posts since the one I'm quoting). First, the map of population distribution. The key portion of the graphic's title for me is "half the population..." Just because people are spread out in some places doesn't mean their vote should count more or less. If it truly is half the population in the map that live in cities, then the other half doesn't and it's a huge and influential block of voters in its own right. Any candidate who ignored them for the cities would be a fool.

Second argument: if the popular vote seems unfair, how is the EC any different on a state level? A few on here have stated how worthless their vote feels when their state is overwhelmingly made up of the other party. If you look at a state that doesn't have a really large city, then the rural vote (presumably conservative) will overwhelm the semi-urban (possibly progressive) vote, and candidates could ignore the smaller group of urban voters. It's not any more fair, it's simply split into states.

And it's not like states have a real commonality among their populations like they did when the EC was created. In states the size of Texas or California, it's unlikely people feel a common bond that suggests a particular president is good for "our state." The frequency with which people move across state lines (unlike the founders would likely have done or wanted to) makes populations transient in a sense, and the ability to connect via the internet means tribes come together with no regard for state borders.

Again, the arguments here are not necessarily about how the EC started, they're about whether it still make sense.