End the Electoral College

know1 said:

The electoral college needs to be ended.

If it is, it won't be 5 states that will control every election. It will be the people who are voting. Not sure why people can't grasp that. Cities, states, etc. really don't mean that much any more in a world where communication, access to information and transportation are so good.

It is a bit rediculous that Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and a few others get to decide the election for everyone. Basically votes in those states have more weight (value) than votes in California, NY, Texas, Alabama where the gap is wider. And the attention those states get from the candidates is reflected. They only go to the states that are on the fence. However I also see the potential pitfalls that would come with a straight popular vote (President Kim Kardashian anyone?). So the electoral college gets put in place as another layer to try to protect against that scenario. They can vote against the popular vote if they felt it was in the best interest of the country. Well electors now is as good a time as any to invoke that right. Protect us from ourselves.

True, but Clinton's popular vote lead is now even larger than is was earier in the day.

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Go Beavers said:

True, but Clinton's popular vote lead is now even larger than is was earier in the day.

According to the people reporting that.

What? How many drinks in are you?

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
Not that many.
You need a few to understand the American election mess.
A movement to implement a plan that would elect the president based on the national popular vote, without technically eliminating the Electoral College, has been slowly spreading across the U.S. over the last decade. The plan has been introduced in 50 state legislatures and so far, 10 states as well as D.C. have passed such legislation totaling 165 electoral votes. 
The states so far that have passed the measure are only traditionally Democratic-leaning states and none is a battleground: California, Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state. And it’s passed in one chamber in 12 more states that add up to 96 electoral votes. If enough additional states also passed the plan so that they have added up to at least 270 electoral votes, the plan could actually take effect. Should they reach that magic 270 number, the states that passed the measure would give their electoral votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-raises-questions-about-the-electoral-college/

I just read that too. Not going to happen. However, are you questioning the popular vote numbers now? That's just as crazy.

What are you talking about? Do you think they're making up fake voters now to give her the popular vote? I don't really care who has the popular vote either way and wouldn't question if it was being rigged.

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

tbergs said:

What are you talking about? Do you think they're making up fake voters now to give her the popular vote? I don't really care who has the popular vote either way and wouldn't question if it was being rigged.

What am I talking about?
Americans just finished a ridiculously long election process and President-elect Trump won.
Now you guys say not really.
Which is it?

I never said not really. I was responding to your comment about "phantom" votes like the popular vote totals aren't accurate. I never questioned who has been elected by the electoral college.

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

tbergs said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

tbergs said:

What are you talking about? Do you think they're making up fake voters now to give her the popular vote? I don't really care who has the popular vote either way and wouldn't question if it was being rigged.

What am I talking about?
Americans just finished a ridiculously long election process and President-elect Trump won.
Now you guys say not really.
Which is it?

I never said not really. I was responding to your comment about "phantom" votes like the popular vote totals aren't accurate. I never questioned who has been elected by the electoral college.

And I never said that 2+1 = 4 to some.

Alright, great discussion. Have a nice night!

Well as of this moment 400,000 more people put their x in the box for Clinton and that number is likely to increase to about a million by the time California is done being counted. And Trump is likely to have received less votes than Romney or McCain so his victory in the EC is not due to a groundswell of support but rather a suppressed Clinton vote (She will receive about 4mil less total votes than Obama). There are a lot of potential reasons for a suppressed vote (part of which could be from a media and poll projected victory) but I won't dive into that here and try to keep the discussion to the EC.

Truth is I'm torn on the EC. This will be the second time in the past 20 yrs that the president will be elected by a minority of the population and that just seems wrong. However, the founders designed the EC because they were afraid that the people weren't informed enough to make such an important decision. So they put in the EC as a safeguard in case the populous went and voted for President Kardashian, or President Ted Nugent. I think that's an important thing to have in place especially as we enter move through the digital age where it's so much easier to spread misinformation.

How is President Kardashian or Nugent different than Trump? Celebrities with no political experience and no grasp of basic policy or global affairs? What, exactly, did the electoral college protect us against here?

This should be an election by popular vote. Every other office in the country is, and pretty much every other western democracy does the same.

Just a quick example (quoting math from a news talk show): Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and 300k+ people. California has 55 and 39 million people. If CA had equivalent electoral votes to WY based on population, it would have 199 electoral votes.

So, the electoral college did not protect us from a wholly unqualified candidate, nor does it fairly represent the population as a whole.

I am not crying foul for Trump winning. These are our rules, and he won. However, in a more sane system (because states have wildly differing populations), we would not be discussing how Clinton failed or Trump pulled off a miracle (or has a mandate, as idiotically stated by Paul Ryan), because more people in this country chose her.

The argument that a certain group of states would always control the election in a popular vote doesn't hold water. Say, for example, the final margin in a vote is 200K votes. That's fewer people than Wyoming has, and it overwhelmingly votes one way. The electoral college already forces candidates to focus on "swing states", and guess the extra few that might come into play. In a popular vote, they need to campaign everywhere, because they can't take a state for granted. A small state of 500K people could make a huge difference.

gnaztee said:

How is President Kardashian or Nugent different than Trump? Celebrities with no political experience and no grasp of basic policy or global affairs? What, exactly, did the electoral college protect us against here?

This should be an election by popular vote. Every other office in the country is, and pretty much every other western democracy does the same.

Just a quick example (quoting math from a news talk show): Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and 300k+ people. California has 55 and 39 million people. If CA had equivalent electoral votes to WY based on population, it would have 199 electoral votes.

So, the electoral college did not protect us from a wholly unqualified candidate, nor does it fairly represent the population as a whole.

I am not crying foul for Trump winning. These are our rules, and he won. However, in a more sane system (because states have wildly differing populations), we would not be discussing how Clinton failed or Trump pulled off a miracle (or has a mandate, as idiotically stated by Paul Ryan), because more people in this country chose her.

The argument that a certain group of states would always control the election in a popular vote doesn't hold water. Say, for example, the final margin in a vote is 200K votes. That's fewer people than Wyoming has, and it overwhelmingly votes one way. The electoral college already forces candidates to focus on "swing states", and guess the extra few that might come into play. In a popular vote, they need to campaign everywhere, because they can't take a state for granted. A small state of 500K people could make a huge difference.

Well stated.