Electoral College: Keep It or Scrap It

[Guest]

This is a bit tangential to the electoral college issue, but why should a vote's weight matter more/less if you're in a population center? Shouldn't all votes be equal?

Read the worldwide history of abuses of those in cities against agrarian societies. Summed, those who live in cities try to bully those in agrarian areas (or less populous ones) by 'democratic socialism' or communistic principals. This is the express reason why the founding fathers built in the electoral college - to prevent concentrations of power in certain high population centers from ruling over and ignoring the people who populate the rest of the areas. In other words, the founding fathers put the electoral college in as a check and balance on popular rule, aka mob rule, which has its roots in democratic socialism (read Socrates and Aristotle's writings on government for reference).

The country was not setup as a democracy, which is a sham. Aristotle, and many other historical writers, say democracy as a first step to socialism because they both involve mob rule and the eventual concentration of power into a few elite ruling the many. In fact, in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers (see Amazon for both books), this is a very open topic of debate as to whether the country should even have a Constitution and the eventual push into centralized power. The final agreement between the founders was to setup many checks and balances in the Constitution to prevent his from happening.

In fact, the Constitution is designed to protect the individual from mob rule and is setup as a Republic. There is not one mention of 'democracy' or 'mob rule' in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights. That is fact. Democracy is espoused wittingly by those militant minority who want to concentrate power and take the rights of the few, expressly against the wishes of the founding fathers. Others spout about the merits of democracy because they believe it lead to freedom when most historical philosophers have proven the opposite. That is due to various brain washing techniques used in public debate and that have invade our school textbooks to rewrite history to our children.

That is precisely why the electoral college exists to prevent population centers, mob rule, and group think from persecuting the small individual. That is also why juries have been given rights of nullification - but you will find very few people in this day and age who understand the right of jury nullification (the denunciation of a standing law by the jury during trial) because judges have lied over the ages and told juries they never had that right. But one look at the Constitution proves they do.

Lots of tricks to centralize power and weaken the Constitution - but those of us who have actually studied the history, read the papers of the debate at the time, and read the actual Constitution and Bill of Rights understand why the government was setup as it was.

And now you know "the rest of the story..."

Cheers!

 

[Guest]

There is more dairy production in California than any other state, more LDS members in California than any state other than Utah, and more Hispanics in California than any other state....and their vote is pretty meaningless considering how Blue the state will likely be.

If you want to win a national popular vote you have to build a coalition of anyone and everyone, not selectively choose your policies based on 1) corn and soybean farmers of Iowa, 2) Libertarian-leaning Conservatives of New Hampshire, 3) blue collar workers specifically in Ohio, etc.

A candidate wouldn't "appeal to a half dozen major urban centers," they simply don't have to population to get to 50%. They would need to spread their message, and their policies, nation-wide in an effort to simply drive votes from anyone equally.

I opposed the electoral college before 2016 and frankly the election didn't discourage or encourage my opinion one way or the other. It's strictly philosophical. If you think arbitrary political boundaries should decide the leader of the free world, that's your opinion. If you think citizens of the nation as a whole should, that's an opinion I share. I don't give a flying fuck what the Founders compromised on in the 18th century, we're a far more unified and "smaller" country now given the impacts of technology on our cultures.

You have just proven you do not understand history. That is why I would ignore your opinion in the debate until you ground yourself in history - without understanding past wrongs, one cannot hope to prevent future ones. I suggest you read the debate at the founding of our nation (see Amazon for Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers). The debate will probably shock you because you will realize everything we are talking about now, regardless of our technological development, were precisely the topics debated back then and for the exact same reasons. Just because the world has more people now does not water down the arguments - in fact I think it strengthens them proportionately!

 

[EddytoNow]

For those who would argue the electoral college is needed to protect the rights of smaller or rural, less populated states, I'd like to suggest those states are already given a balance against dominance by populous, larger states through the make-up of the U.S. Senate. Nothing gets done without the Senate's approval, and every state has two Senators regardless of size or population. The Senate acts as the balancing force to prevent smaller states or less populous states from being overwhelmed by those that are larger. A Senator from California or New York has a vote no more and no less powerful than that of a Senator from every other state, no matter how small that state's population. And since they are selected by a state-wide vote, Senators must campaign throughout their state, not just the gerrymandered local districts that create false majorities of those elected locally.

The President should represent the whole country, and he or she should campaign and be elected by the popular vote, not an artificial, out-dated electoral majority.

 

[phgreek]

For those who would argue the electoral college is needed to protect the rights of smaller or rural, less populated states, I'd like to suggest those states are already given a balance against dominance by populous, larger states through the make-up of the U.S. Senate. Nothing gets done without the Senate's approval, and every state has two Senators regardless of size or population. The Senate acts as the balancing force to prevent smaller states or less populous states from being overwhelmed by those that are larger. A Senator from California or New York has a vote no more and no less powerful than that of a Senator from every other state, no matter how small that state's population. And since they are selected by a state-wide vote, Senators must campaign throughout their state, not just the gerrymandered local districts that create false majorities of those elected locally.

The President should represent the whole country, and he or she should campaign and be elected by the popular vote, not an artificial, out-dated electoral majority.

Couple things:

interesting definition of the "whole" country...like that could only mean a head count.

Given the growth in Presidential powers, and the willingness/ability to do things through EO, AND couple that with the ability to appoint folks with a simple majority, it is likely the SCOTUS will eventually be dangerously progressive or conservative...SO, a purely popular vote for president could have the effect of implementing a true Democracy...ERRRR. No Bueno, IMHO.

 

[Legacy]

As for "the growth of Presidential powers" through Executive Orders, the highest number of EOs by President was understandably by Presidents during wars. FDR - 3,721. Woodrow Wilson - 1,803.

Over the last seventy-five years, EOs have, in general, been decreasing. Eisenhower - 484. Reagan - 381. Nixon - 346. Clinton - 364. GW Bush - 291. Obama - 260. (All two term Presidents, except Nixon) (Link)

Obama signed just over 50% of the number of EOs as Ike and about 70% of the number of EOs as Reagan.

 

[phgreek]

As for "the growth of Presidential powers" through Executive Orders, the highest number of EOs by President was understandably by Presidents during wars. FDR - 3,721. Woodrow Wilson - 1,803.

Over the last seventy-five years, EOs have, in general, been decreasing. Eisenhower - 484. Reagan - 381. Nixon - 346. Clinton - 364. GW Bush - 291. Obama - 260. (All two term Presidents, except Nixon) (Link)

Obama signed just over 50% of the number of EOs as Ike and about 70% of the number of EOs as Reagan.

So expansion is somehow tied to numbers...as opposed to content and intent.

 

[Guest]

For those who would argue the electoral college is needed to protect the rights of smaller or rural, less populated states, I'd like to suggest those states are already given a balance against dominance by populous, larger states through the make-up of the U.S. Senate. Nothing gets done without the Senate's approval, and every state has two Senators regardless of size or population. The Senate acts as the balancing force to prevent smaller states or less populous states from being overwhelmed by those that are larger. A Senator from California or New York has a vote no more and no less powerful than that of a Senator from every other state, no matter how small that state's population. And since they are selected by a state-wide vote, Senators must campaign throughout their state, not just the gerrymandered local districts that create false majorities of those elected locally.

The President should represent the whole country, and he or she should campaign and be elected by the popular vote, not an artificial, out-dated electoral majority.

This is balderdash. There are many checks and balances in the Constitution, ALL of them considered equally important by the founding fathers. Not one of them was considered adequate in and of themselves; rather, the Constitution signers very carefully considered each power granted and checked within the Constitution needed to balance the rights of people against the state. There is absolutely no reason to take away or marginalize any of the rights established to protect the people in the Constitution. Each one is created for a specific purpose; the electoral college is a check on the election of the executive branch. The Senate and House are checks in the legislative branch.

 

[Legacy]

Couple things:

interesting definition of the "whole" country...like that could only mean a head count.

Given the growth in Presidential powers, and the willingness/ability to do things through EO, AND couple that with the ability to appoint folks with a simple majority, it is likely the SCOTUS will eventually be dangerously progressive or conservative...SO, a purely popular vote for president could have the effect of implementing a true Democracy...ERRRR. No Bueno, IMHO.

Trump Embraces Executive Orders to Avoid Congressional Gridlock:
Here are 13 policies Trump has proposed that he could accomplish without help from Congress.

Donald Trump may be one of Barack Obama's toughest critics, but when it comes to the president's use of executive orders to circumvent Congress, the Republican sees him as a role model.

Trump has already promised to be as aggressive as Obama on executive orders on a wide range of issues. Early in his campaign, for instance, he vowed to use the power of the pen to give all cop killers the death penalty. More recently, in his response to the shooting death of 49 people inside an Orlando gay club this month, he pledged to use executive power to implement one of his signature proposals: A temporary ban on Muslim immigration (even though the shooter was born in New York).

 

[phgreek]

Trump Embraces Executive Orders to Avoid Congressional Gridlock:
Here are 13 policies Trump has proposed that he could accomplish without help from Congress.

The price of Tea in China is at $12/500g...Shrug. My point has NOTHING to do with Trump...Or Obama, except to say the expansion is there, and apparently Trump wants to keep doing it...kinda my point.

The expansion of presidential power has occurred and is likely to continue, and the supreme court appointees are clearly more political, and a simple majority could likely suffice to seat a SCOTUS nominee...the potential for problems is already there.

If the presidential election were by popular vote, this creates a situation where a party could land a president from the same party for a very long period of time...and without an apolitical SCOTUS, it would not matter what or how the rest of government came to be in their seats. The move to popular vote would move to make the United States a straight Democracy IN EFFECT. If people can't see the practical issue with that...I again shrug.

IMHO enough people would see the writing on the wall....and I think this would rapidly lead to regional fractures and secession.

 

[NorthDakota]

IMHO enough people would see the writing on the wall....and I think this would rapidly lead to regional fractures and secession.

Yep. Need to give the smaller states a reason to stick around. Taking away their electoral power sounds like a kick in the balls that would just alienate people.

 

[Black Irish]

Yes, the Founding Fathers were learned men who thought long and hard about the type of government they were constructing. And both "The Federalist Papers" and "Anti-Federalist Papers" give us great insight on the debates these great men were having and should be required reading.

BUT, at some point we have to look at the practical effects of a system they created versus the theoretical basis for it. As it stands, I don't see how the EC is providing the voters with any positive results (feel free to insert "it kept us from President Al Gore" joke here). At best, the EC is falling into state-by-state lockstep with the majority vote in each state, so it's only echoing the popular vote. At worst, the EC creates a strange scenario where one candidate gets more citizens of this country to vote for him than the opponent, but still can't win. That sounds like a rigged game to me and I don't see the practical good in it. Again, I invite someone to give me a concrete example of how the august Electoral College has saved this republic from teetering on the brink of chaos because of the dreaded "mob rule." The theory behind the EC has not borne out in any meaningful way but we see the real flaws in it. As much respect as I have for the Founder's intent, I'm not in favor of holding onto something like the EC, which does nothing to enhance the quality our presidential voting process, just because the Founders created it.

And to those who fear that getting rid of the EC would allow NYC and Los Angeles to determine our presidential elections, how is that hyperbolic example too far off from what we have now, just on the state level? If a presidential candidate wins a simple majority of popular votes in just the 4 most populous states (California, Texas, NY, & FL) that candidate is more than halfway to Electoral College victory with 151 EC votes. If a candidate wins a simple majority in the 11 biggest states alone, he gets the whole enchilada with 270 EC votes. Too bad for the other 39 states, I suppose.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You have just proven you do not understand history. That is why I would ignore your opinion in the debate until you ground yourself in history - without understanding past wrongs, one cannot hope to prevent future ones. I suggest you read the debate at the founding of our nation (see Amazon for Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers). The debate will probably shock you because you will realize everything we are talking about now, regardless of our technological development, were precisely the topics debated back then and for the exact same reasons. Just because the world has more people now does not water down the arguments - in fact I think it strengthens them proportionately!

I actually lol'd at this.

 

[Legacy]

Intent of the Electoral College

Intent of the Electoral College

The initial intent of the Framers, and most prominently, Hamilton and Madison - two of the most prominent architects of the Constitution- was to form a system that would be republican with the citizens electing representatives to vote for a President. These electors would be from the citizens's district, knowledgeable about a candidate's qualifications and vote independently for the candidate who could best guide the country under the restrictions of the separation of powers.

In fact, there was no national popular vote for the first nine Presidential elections, only electors voting. Hamilton noted that the criteria for electors in Hamilton's Federalist Paper #68 were:
-- The electors meet only within their own specific states to select the president.
-- No individuals who have "too great devotion of the President in office"
-- No individuals who currently hold elected positions within the government may serve as electors.

In Federalist #10, James Madison describes the process of the choice of electors would guard against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. Madison defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

In short, while delegating much of the power to states, Hamiliton and Madison intent for Electors would be:
- Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis.
- Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
(from Article II, Section 1, Clause 3) This was the "district plan".

By 1800, eleven states instead of the "district plan" choose the President by a vote of the state legislatures. Hamilton and Madison were, to say the least, upset at this evolution (or devolution) so much so that they spoke out against it. Hamilton even began writing an Amendment to the Constitution which would mandate that states return to the "district plan" to best reflect the will of local areas and to protect against undue influence by state governments who might be politically motivated as they had carefully crafted Article II to protect against the influence of the federal government or persons beholden to lawmakers - and what Madison might call a faction.

National political parties did not come into existence until 1820.

Historians on this board should certainly comment for any necessary clarifications.

 

[Black Irish]

The initial intent of the Framers, and most prominently, Hamilton and Madison - two of the most prominent architects of the Constitution- was to form a system that would be republican with the citizens electing representatives to vote for a President. These electors would be from the citizens's district, knowledgeable about a candidate's qualifications and vote independently for the candidate who could best guide the country under the restrictions of the separation of powers.

In fact, there was no national popular vote for the first nine Presidential elections, only electors voting. Hamilton noted that the criteria for electors in Hamilton's Federalist Paper #68 were:
-- The electors meet only within their own specific states to select the president.
-- No individuals who have "too great devotion of the President in office"
-- No individuals who currently hold elected positions within the government may serve as electors.

In Federalist #10, James Madison describes the process of the choice of electors would guard against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. Madison defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

In short, while delegating much of the power to states, Hamiliton and Madison intent for Electors would be:
- Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis.
- Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
(from Article II, Section 1, Clause 3) This was the "district plan".

By 1800, eleven states instead of the "district plan" choose the President by a vote of the state legislatures. Hamilton and Madison were, to say the least, upset at this evolution (or devolution) so much so that they spoke out against it. Hamilton even began writing an Amendment to the Constitution which would mandate that states return to the "district plan" to best reflect the will of local areas and to protect against undue influence by state governments who might be politically motivated as they had carefully crafted Article II to protect against the influence of the federal government or persons beholden to lawmakers - and what Madison might call a faction.

National political parties did not come into existence until 1820.

Historians on this board should certainly comment for any necessary clarifications.

Thank you for posting and providing historical context. Reps. Based on this, it seems like the original intent of the Electoral College was virtually dead on arrival. It hasn't functioned as intended for over 200 years. So the original plan changed very dramatically and very quickly and what we have now is a shell of what the Founders had in mind. Ditching the EC isn't going to be an affront to the Founders and take down the valued safeguard they put in place. That safeguard has been effectively dismantled already.

 

[connor_in]

Since this thread is about the electoral college, is this where we put the articles/discussion of the death & violence threats the electors are getting and the videos of celebrities begging electors to not vote for DJT even though they're "not asking you to vote for Hillary"?

 

[phgreek]

Thank you for posting and providing historical context. Reps. Based on this, it seems like the original intent of the Electoral College was virtually dead on arrival. It hasn't functioned as intended for over 200 years. So the original plan changed very dramatically and very quickly and what we have now is a shell of what the Founders had in mind. Ditching the EC isn't going to be an affront to the Founders and take down the valued safeguard they put in place. That safeguard has been effectively dismantled already.

So you took the fact that the specific original design was abandoned to mean it is ok to run over any of the intent...in whatever embodiment it exists in now.

What we have isn't a straight popular vote count to determine president. Is that closer to what the founders had in mind, or is a Straight popular vote count what they had in mind? Is a straight popular vote THE THING the were trying to avoid?

 

[Legacy]

So you took the fact that the specific original design was abandoned to mean it is ok to run over any of the intent...in whatever embodiment it exists in now.

What we have isn't a straight popular vote count to determine president. Is that closer to what the founders had in mind, or is a Straight popular vote count what they had in mind? Is a straight popular vote THE THING the were trying to avoid?

I favor the intent of the authors of the Constitutions to institute such a republic with its safeguards over what the EC has become. Flipping the argument around what do you think the chances would be if they were presented with a Presidential election model that we have now? How would they react to having a slate of electors appointed by the Parties whose vote was bound by statewide voting in winner-take-all electoral votes?

 

[Woneone]

I favor the intent of the authors of the Constitutions to institute such a republic with its safeguards over what the EC has become. Flipping the argument around what do you think the chances would be if they were presented with a Presidential election model that we have now? How would they react to having a slate of electors appointed by the Parties whose vote was bound by statewide voting in winner-take-all electoral votes?

My guess would be they would, as the Electoral College was adjusted since it's inception to adjust with an ever changing country, they would do so again. Tweek, not discard.

I find it funny that this discussion comes on the heels of someone who, according to the Politico article, ran such an inept campaign that cost her a loss in the electoral college by very slim margins in states she needed to carry.

Since the objective of EC was originally to try to insulate these elections from political influence, I wonder how they'd view the absolute bullshit that is taking place in regards to this hacking nonsense. Having a White House spokesman stand there and suggest the President-Elect knew of the hacking, when they can't actually put forth a concrete case that it was in fact the Russian Government (Go read a tech blog that WASN'T contracted by the DNC. Sure, it may have been someone in that region, but to suggest it was Putin to make sure Trump one is nothing but hog wash at this point). Yea, we need to brief the electors. Na, not trying to steer, just inform. Yea...

If this were outside the election season, and someone questioned the validity of the EC, sure, the discussion should continue. But at this point, if the Ghost of Hamilton appeared and said, "Yea, stay with the Electoral College. That's what we intended, and it's working just fine", he'd be accused of being in line with Putin, probably leaked the emails himself, and possessed Comey to announce the second investigation.

 

[Guest]

I actually lol'd at this.

Thanks for condescending note. Not that I care what you think (I am indifferent), but shows an important aspect of your personality to others (not arguing the point, etc).

Cheers mate.

 

[Guest]

Thank you for posting and providing historical context. Reps. Based on this, it seems like the original intent of the Electoral College was virtually dead on arrival. It hasn't functioned as intended for over 200 years. So the original plan changed very dramatically and very quickly and what we have now is a shell of what the Founders had in mind. Ditching the EC isn't going to be an affront to the Founders and take down the valued safeguard they put in place. That safeguard has been effectively dismantled already.

Disagree. The electoral college protects against mob rule and in the interests of the individual, which is what a Republican form of government is. A few key notes is that individuals, by way of the Magna Carta, Articles of Confederation, and Constitution are 'sovereign' meaning they have absolute jurisdiction over themselves and not the government. The government serves the people and is the agent of the 'People' so long as the people will it to be.

At any time, the People (as in single or more than one person) may deny the government the right to rule simply by asserting sovereignty over it. But, the government was designed to have many limitations on power as to limit it's growth and containing it to specific powers while in operation for the people. The electoral college is one of the key checks against democratic, or mob rule, which the framers were very strongly against. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and the reasons for doing so have not diminished over time. The logic is as sound today as it was before, because it was based upon the whole of human history and experience with governance of the people. Such lessons do not just 'disappear' as a year passes.

Another note is that the Constitution does not refer to 'citizens'. When a 'person' elects to become a 'citizen', it inverts the relationship and allows the government sovereignty over the person who has abdicated his/her rights and not objected to the government taking power, as in a democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy. In such instances, popular vote (or no vote) is typically the fashion of the government. The Constitution did not setup such a government, and relinquishing ANY rights in the Constitution has the effect of giving up the People's sovereignty to the government and becoming eventual subjects to such government.

That is why none of the rights granted by 'God or Nature's God', as noted in the Constitution, should ever be done by the free People who are sovereign in their own right. To do so leads to eventual slavery.

The Constitution is, in fact, a contract with the government that can be revoked any any time by 'The People' that have, by their power, 'established' the government without giving up their individual God-given rights in doing so. The legal term, 'establish', does not indicate the People have given away any rights in the process of authorizing a form of government to act as the agent of their will.

Ref:
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm
Sovereignty of the People
Habeas Corpus
Republic vs. Democracy

Black's Law Dictionary - Free Online Legal Dictionary

 

[Legacy]

At any time, the People (as in single or more than one person) may deny the government the right to rule simply by asserting sovereignty over it. But, the government was designed to have many limitations on power as to limit it's growth and containing it to specific powers while in operation for the people. The electoral college is one of the key checks against democratic, or mob rule, which the framers were very strongly against. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and the reasons for doing so have not diminished over time. The logic is as sound today as it was before, because it was based upon the whole of human history and experience with governance of the people. Such lessons do not just 'disappear' as a year passes.

Another note is that the Constitution does not refer to 'citizens'. When a 'person' elects to become a 'citizen', it inverts the relationship and allows the government sovereignty over the person who has abdicated his/her rights and not objected to the government taking power, as in a democracy, oligarchy, or monarchy.

That is why none of the rights granted by 'God or Nature's God', as noted in the Constitution, should ever be done by the free People who are sovereign in their own right. To do so leads to eventual slavery.

The Constitution is, in fact, a contract with the government that can be revoked any any time by 'The People' that have, by their power, 'established' the government without giving up their individual God-given rights in doing so. The legal term, 'establish', does not indicate the People have given away any rights in the process of authorizing a form of government to act as the agent of their will.

I believe I mistakenly wrote "citizen" since we now make that distinction. I'm sure you are correct that, as far as voting and other rights, the Framers regarded all persons who had permanent residence in the nation as possessing all rights and privileges guaranteed in the Constitution.

Here are the electoral counts in states and their populations now:

Rocky Mountain, Great Plains and Alaska

Wyoming - 582,658 - 3 Electoral Votes
Montana - 1,015,511 - 3
S. Dakota - 844,877 -3
N. Dakota - 723,393 - 3
Nebraska - 1,868,576 - 5
Idaho - 1,612,136 - 4
Kansas - 2,893,957 - 6
Colorado - 5,268,367 - 9
Oklahoma - 3,850,568 - 7
Alaska - 735,132 - 3

Total (10 States) - 19,406,095 - 46 Electoral Votes
New York - 19,651,127 - 29 Electoral Votes
(Equivalent population totals)

--- For every 677,625 people in New York, there is one electoral vote.
--- For every 421,871 people in those ten states, there is one electoral vote.


Six Southern States
Arkansas - 2,959,373 - 6
Mississippi - 2,991,207 - 6
Kentucky - 4,395,295 - 8
Louisiana - 4,625,470 - 8
S. Carolina - 4,774,839 - 9
Alabama - 4,833,722 - 9

Total (6 states) - 24,579,906 - also 46 Electoral votes (same electoral vote total as ten RM,GP states)

--- For every 534,345 people in these six states, they have one electoral vote.
--- (For every 677,625 people in New York, there is one electoral vote.)

So, since the People of New York, for instance, have those rights that are God-given and the Constitution is a contract with the people, shouldn't changes, which create imbalances that impinge on those rights, be corrected?

Here's another comparison, using California:
Those sixteen states (RM&Southern) have a total population of 43,986,001 and 92 electoral votes.
California has a population of 38,332,521 and 55 electoral votes.

--- For every 478,108 people in those sixteen states, they have one electoral vote.
--- For every 696,954 people in California, they have one electoral vote.

Someone's vote in those sixteen states (ten Rocky Mtn, etc + six Southern) is worth 1.45 times a Californian's vote. (696,954/478,108 if my math is correct)

As you said, the People "relinquishing ANY rights in the Constitution has the effect of giving up the People's sovereignty to the government and becoming eventual subjects to such government." Voting to determine the makeup of that government is an essential right, which should not be undermined by any process. The electoral imbalances occurring over two hundred years of growth and expansion and drawing state lines should be something that we can recognize and consider rectifying. Without doing so, aren't the people of NY and California, for instance, becoming subjects to that government and sacrificing their sovereignty?

 

[GowerND11]

^So, isn't the solution to tweak the EC like mentioned before? Maybe we need to add more representatives in larger states to better represent the people in a smaller population pool, thus raising the number of EC votes that state gets?

It's as if people are saying there is a leak on the boat, but instead of making the repairs they are screaming burn it!

 

[connor_in]

They do re-align the electoral college from time to time, post census. The number of house reps a state has can change based on changes in the states population. However, 1) this is for the house of representatives only and every state will get at least one; 2) this does not effect the senate where all states are equal and thus get 2 senators. As the big states keep getting bigger, the small states will not drop below 3, and since the total number is locked at 538, the proportions can continue to be off and by possibly more in the future if people keep disproportionately keep moving to the already larger states.

 

[GowerND11]

They do re-align the electoral college from time to time, post census. The number of house reps a state has can change based on changes in the states population. However, 1) this is for the house of representatives only and every state will get at least one; 2) this does not effect the senate where all states are equal and thus get 2 senators. As the big states keep getting bigger, the small states will not drop below 3, and since the total number is locked at 538, the proportions can continue to be off and by possibly more in the future if people keep disproportionately keep moving to the already larger states.

I know this. I'm saying literally add more Reps to the House. We have 435 of them. As the population has grown, the number of Reps hasn't since 1963, when it was actually decreased by 2.

I'm not a fan of big government, but that seems to be a better solution than scrapping everything.

 

[NorthDakota]

I know this. I'm saying literally add more Reps to the House. We have 435 of them. As the population has grown, the number of Reps hasn't since 1963, when it was actually decreased by 2.

I'm not a fan of big government, but that seems to be a better solution than scrapping everything.

Don't think the states would go for that.

 

[GowerND11]

Don't think the states would go for that.

You're probably right, but I pose that only because it seems to fix the issue of disproportionate representation across the states. Is any solution fair? No, but, while I'm in favor of keeping the EC, I can see that argument.

 

[connor_in]

You're probably right, but I pose that only because it seems to fix the issue of disproportionate representation across the states. Is any solution fair? No, but, while I'm in favor of keeping the EC, I can see that argument.

The fact that every state gets 2 in the senate (thus equal representation there) will always throw the proportionality off at least a bit, right?

 

[GowerND11]

The fact that every state gets 2 in the senate (thus equal representation there) will always throw the proportionality off at least a bit, right?

I'm not good enough at math to try and give an accurate answer, but possibly. However, maybe not. If California gains 5 new reps (spit balling here), compared to Wyoming gaining 1, that would be a net gain for a larger state. The math would have to be done to ensure what I'm saying is true, but that's my theory.

 

[Black Irish]

So you took the fact that the specific original design was abandoned to mean it is ok to run over any of the intent...in whatever embodiment it exists in now.

What we have isn't a straight popular vote count to determine president. Is that closer to what the founders had in mind, or is a Straight popular vote count what they had in mind? Is a straight popular vote THE THING the were trying to avoid?

Is it okay to "run over the original intent?" If the original intent barely made it out of the gate, then we need to look at it. I think the intent was well-meaning, but the EC probably wasn't the best way to go about it. Are EC voters supposed to be activists? Are they supposed to correct the flaws that the unwashed mob made when they cast their individual votes? I'd say no. As far as I can tell, the EC is not a deliberative body. Electors carry out the wishes of the majority of voters in their respective states. If a state goes Democrat, the Democrat Electors get to cast their vote. That's one of the problems I have with the EC. One of the biggest defenses is that it prevents "mob rule" aka, direct democratic voting; simple majority rule. But all but 2 states are set up so that their state Electors get to vote based on which party's candidate receives a simple majority of popular vote. So direct popular vote resulting in simple majority victory, the dreaded "mob rule," is okay at the state level, but becomes a big problem at the national level? This where the logical wheels come off the bus for me.

We have other systems in place to help even the playing field for states (e.g. the Senate, the voting system for amending the Constitution). I just don't see how the EC is doing much to protect the states in its current form. Can it be fixed? Maybe, but I don't see how without causing serous problems. Since the EC has not worked as the Founders intended almost from the start, we'd have to have a massive "do-over" and essentially start from scratch.

 

[GowerND11]

Is it okay to "run over the original intent?" If the original intent barely made it out of the gate, then we need to look at it. I think the intent was well-meaning, but the EC probably wasn't the best way to go about it. Are EC voters supposed to be activists? Are they supposed to correct the flaws that the unwashed mob made when they cast their individual votes? I'd say no. As far as I can tell, the EC is not a deliberative body. Electors carry out the wishes of the majority of voters in their respective states. If a state goes Democrat, the Democrat Electors get to cast their vote. That's one of the problems I have with the EC. One of the biggest defenses is that it prevents "mob rule" aka, direct democratic voting; simple majority rule. But all but 2 states are set up so that their state Electors get to vote based on which party's candidate receives a simple majority of popular vote. So direct popular vote resulting in simple majority victory, the dreaded "mob rule," is okay at the state level, but becomes a big problem at the national level? This where the logical wheels come off the bus for me.

We have other systems in place to help even the playing field for states (e.g. the Senate, the voting system for amending the Constitution). I just don't see how the EC is doing much to protect the states in its current form. Can it be fixed? Maybe, but I don't see how without causing serous problems. Since the EC has not worked as the Founders intended almost from the start, we'd have to have a massive "do-over" and essentially start from scratch.

Because that is the will of the state's voters. Not the voters of the nation. The state is electing the President, not the people.