Electoral College: Keep It or Scrap It

[Black Irish]

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

To the bolded, people keep using the "mob rule" argument, but no one has yet provided a specific example of how the Electoral College has protected us against it. Can we even agree on what "mob rule" is? Does that simply mean anything the majority wants to do? Also, how exactly does the EC protect the right of the individual by putting a largely unaccountable body that is dominated by party hacks & loyalists in between them and the candidate? And to go to the point made in my OP, the right of the individual voter gets diminished by the EC, not enhanced. I'll re-state my "Delaware Example." Delaware has gone Democrat in every presidential election since 1992. So if you're a Republican voter in Delaware, your vote hasn't counted for jack, whether the GOP candidate won or not. And that's supposed to be a good thing? The mob rules at the state level and that's okay?

The current make up of the EC may not be what the Founders had in mind, but that's what we have now. Can we change it back to what it was supposed to be? And is it worth it? The Founders were brilliant and educated men but that doesn't mean they were perfect and it doesn't mean that every idea they had is infallible. The EC may just be one of those things that sounded good in theory but is not workable in practice. And we have over 200 years of evidence to back that up.

 

[ulukinatme]

Not sure if it's been discussed, but has anyone seen the Unite for America ads running? Celebrities like Martin Sheen and Bob Odenkirk asking the Republican electoral college members to "do the right thing." They don't call out Trump in the ad, and they say they don't have to vote for Hillary, but they state the Electoral College's job to elect someone qualified for the job, quoting the Articles of Confederation I believe. Interestingly enough they're saying online that the site for Unite for America was registered from outside the US. I find it humorous that the celebs are once again trying to turn the tide here in a last ditch effort, because the last round worked so well.

I'm watching this ad during a Star Wars marathon on TNT right now. Oddly enough...if you're fastforwarding through the commercials you'll never see it, and if you try to pause the ad it immediately jumps to the next commercial instead. Before the ad comes on there's about a 2 second start of a Dish Network ad that gets cut and begins to show the United for America ad instead...but if you're fastforwarding the entire Direct TV ad is showing instead. You only see the political ad if you're watching in real time...kinda freaky if you ask me. It's like the ad wasn't meant to be there at all...

 

[Booslum31]

Not sure if it's been discussed, but has anyone seen the Unite for America ads running? Celebrities like Martin Sheen and Bob Odenkirk asking the Republican electoral college members to "do the right thing." They don't call out Trump in the ad, and they say they don't have to vote for Hillary, but they state the Electoral College's job to elect someone qualified for the job, quoting the Articles of Confederation I believe. Interestingly enough they're saying online that the site for Unite for America was registered from outside the US. I find it humorous that the celebs are once again trying to turn the tide here in a last ditch effort, because the last round worked so well.

I'm watching this ad during a Star Wars marathon on TNT right now. Oddly enough...if you're fastforwarding through the commercials you'll never see it, and if you try to pause the ad it immediately jumps to the next commercial instead. Before the ad comes on there's about a 2 second start of a Dish Network ad that gets cut and begins to show the United for America ad instead...but if you're fastforwarding the entire Direct TV ad is showing instead. You only see the political ad if you're watching in real time...kinda freaky if you ask me. It's like the ad wasn't meant to be there at all...

That's weird that you don't see it if fast forwarding. I've seen it a few times. I laugh at the Holly B-Listers...like 'merica gives a rats-arse what they think.

 

[BGIF]

Not sure if it's been discussed, but has anyone seen the Unite for America ads running? Celebrities like Martin Sheen and Bob Odenkirk asking the Republican electoral college members to "do the right thing." They don't call out Trump in the ad, and they say they don't have to vote for Hillary, but they state the Electoral College's job to elect someone qualified for the job, quoting the Articles of Confederation I believe. Interestingly enough they're saying online that the site for Unite for America was registered from outside the US. I find it humorous that the celebs are once again trying to turn the tide here in a last ditch effort, because the last round worked so well.

I'm watching this ad during a Star Wars marathon on TNT right now. Oddly enough...if you're fastforwarding through the commercials you'll never see it, and if you try to pause the ad it immediately jumps to the next commercial instead. Before the ad comes on there's about a 2 second start of a Dish Network ad that gets cut and begins to show the United for America ad instead...but if you're fastforwarding the entire Direct TV ad is showing instead. You only see the political ad if you're watching in real time...kinda freaky if you ask me. It's like the ad wasn't meant to be there at all...

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to – The Outer Limits.

.

 

[ulukinatme]

That's weird that you don't see it if fast forwarding. I've seen it a few times. I laugh at the Holly B-Listers...like 'merica gives a rats-arse what they think.

Yeah, if you fast forward it plays the whole Direct TV commercial instead, and as mentioned if you try to pause the commercial it somehow jumps to the next commercial. The only way you could see it was real time. The only reason I noticed all this is because I rewound the thing a few times to try and see who was paying for it. Really weird...

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to – The Outer Limits.

 

[Legacy]

Not sure if it's been discussed, but has anyone seen the Unite for America ads running? Celebrities like Martin Sheen and Bob Odenkirk asking the Republican electoral college members to "do the right thing." They don't call out Trump in the ad, and they say they don't have to vote for Hillary, but they state the Electoral College's job to elect someone qualified for the job, quoting the Articles of Confederation I believe. Interestingly enough they're saying online that the site for Unite for America was registered from outside the US. I find it humorous that the celebs are once again trying to turn the tide here in a last ditch effort, because the last round worked so well.

I'm watching this ad during a Star Wars marathon on TNT right now. Oddly enough...if you're fastforwarding through the commercials you'll never see it, and if you try to pause the ad it immediately jumps to the next commercial instead. Before the ad comes on there's about a 2 second start of a Dish Network ad that gets cut and begins to show the United for America ad instead...but if you're fastforwarding the entire Direct TV ad is showing instead. You only see the political ad if you're watching in real time...kinda freaky if you ask me. It's like the ad wasn't meant to be there at all...

The term "faithless electors" applies to those electors who choose not to vote for the nominee that they are bound to vote for based on the Presidential vote in their states. The two Colorado Electors who are bound to vote for Hillary Clinton have rebelled. Their appointment was by the Colorado's Democratic Party. They want to vote their conscience, as originally devised in the republican form of government with Electors. Every district would choose someone from their district to use their judgement as for the capabilities and qualifications of the nominee for President. A couple of Electors in Texas have also expressed misgivings in their bound votes - and have been subject even to death threats as well as the Republican Party pressure to lock down their votes for Trump. These Electors are calling themselves "Hamilton Electors" based on Hamilton's and Madison's compromise solution to Presidential elections. This was called their "district plan", which was republican in nature, but put the final vote closest to the hands of the people.

Thomas Jefferson:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.1 Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government."

(Any misspellings were from the original)

To have these "faithless electors" in Colorado and Texas wanting to vote - or not vote - for the nominee, but someone who their conscience feels, most qualifies as an embodiment of Jefferson's "a little bit of rebellion now and then" as well as Hamilton's embodiment in the Federalist Papers #68. The Party is very upset at them because those electors were chosen at the Republican convention by the state delegation. Madison was especially concerned that the Electors be determined and influenced by "factions", especially those of political parties and the federal government as he discusses in the Federalist Paper #10.

On 22 occasions with 177 instances, faithless electors have not cast their ballots for the nominee (Pres or VP) of the Party to whom they were bound. This has never affected the outcome of the Presidential election. Of course, this would not do so today, since should Trump fall short of 270 electoral ballots, the decision on the Presidency would fall to the Republican controlled House of Reps. Regardless, a Colorado judge has ruled they must vote for Clinton.

What's their point then? A touch of idealism or attempting to return to Hamilton and Madison's "district plan" as in the Constitution? A statement on both candidates?

Either way, the Electoral "College" and electors votes are tied to the Parties or what Madison would call "factions". Is the EC as useless as what on a bull?

Certainly, the EC is nothing like what the Founding Fathers originally devised.

Electors under siege: Members of the Electoral College have been inundated by harassing phone calls and hate mail. Many report receiving death threats. (Politico)

 

[NDgradstudent]

Certainly, the EC is nothing like what the Founding Fathers originally devised.

That the Electoral College votes for the person who won states adding up to a majority of the electors is a constitutional convention. It has never not happened in the history of the country. (There was one election, 1824, where no candidate won states adding up to a majority of electors, and so the election was decided by the House of Representatives.)

Consider a similar convention from abroad. The British monarch has to give "royal assent" to make a bill a law- in the U.K., in Canada, Australia, etc. Technically, the monarch could royal assent and prevent a bill becoming a law, but this has not been done since 1708. That the monarch grants royal assent is not a rule, but a convention. If royal assent were withheld today, it would create a constitutional crisis. Similarly, if a majority of the Electoral College were to not vote for Trump, it would create a constitutional crisis.

(So they would be well-advised not to do it.)

 

[Legacy]

That the Electoral College votes for the person who won states adding up to a majority of the electors is a constitutional convention. It has never not happened in the history of the country. (There was one election, 1824, where no candidate won states adding up to a majority of electors, and so the election was decided by the House of Representatives.)

Consider a similar convention from abroad. The British monarch has to give "royal assent" to make a bill a law- in the U.K., in Canada, Australia, etc. Technically, the monarch could royal assent and prevent a bill becoming a law, but this has not been done since 1708. That the monarch grants royal assent is not a rule, but a convention. If royal assent were withheld today, it would create a constitutional crisis. Similarly, if a majority of the Electoral College were to not vote for Trump, it would create a constitutional crisis.

(So they would be well-advised not to do it.)

Constitutional crisis sounds so extreme - but not to me. The one in 1824 - as you probably are aware - emerged from a mainly non-Party background. So the comparison is difficult. Six people ran with Jackson getting 41% of the national vote and 99 of 261 electoral votes. The House resolved the issue, electing John Quincy Adams, who got 31% of the national vote and 84 electoral votes. Nine of the twenty-four states either had no popular vote or had no ballots for one nominee or another. The electors in those states voted their consciences. New York electors, for example, voted 1 for Jackson, 26 for JQ Adams, 4 for Henry Clay, and 5 for William Crawford. All four appeared on the "Democratic-Republican" party ticket.

Can't happen today - four nominees, no party, votes split based on electors' judgements.

Consider that no nation except the U.S. has an electoral system. Those who have a national vote for President as in the U.K, France, other European countries, Australia, etc. don't end up with "mob rule" that I know of. They muddle on.

If the electors are obligated to vote for a nominee that wins their state in a winner-take-all, it risks a "constitutional crisis" when none do get a majority. Fat chance with a two party system. Why not a point system? Electors nowadays can't base their choice on their judgement? Points are applied as they are now for the number of electors. Get a majority of points and you win. No crisis.

Would that work for you?

 

[ND NYC]

Didn't realize so many of my fellow ND fans hated New York and California.

Half of you guys sound like Ted Cruz with his "New York Values" line.

Disappointing!

 

[NDgradstudent]

Didn't realize so many of my fellow ND fans hated New York and California.

Half of you guys sound like Ted Cruz with his "New York Values" line.

Disappointing!

That those states have a reduced influence on the outcome is not a reason for having the Electoral College; however, it is an added benefit.

 

[Legacy]

Abolishing the Electoral College - the Bayh-Cuellar Amendment

Abolishing the Electoral College - the Bayh-Cuellar Amendment

Efforts to abolish
Constitutional amendment
Bayh–Celler amendment
The closest the United States has come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress (1969–1971).[141] The presidential election of 1968 resulted in Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes (56% of electors), Hubert Humphrey 191 (35.5%) and George Wallace 46 (8.5%) with 13.5% of the popular vote. However, Nixon had only received 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, 43.5% to 42.9%, less than 1% of the national total.[142]

Representative Emanuel Celler (D – New York), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed Constitutional amendment which would have replaced the Electoral College with simpler plurality system based on the national popular vote. With this system, the pair of candidates who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency providing they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of President and vice president would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election. The word "pair" was defined as "two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of President and Vice President".[143]

On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted 28 to 6 to approve the proposal.[144] Debate on the proposal before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969[145] and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, by a vote of 339 to 70.[146]

On September 30, 1969, President Richard Nixon gave his endorsement for adoption of the proposal, encouraging the Senate to pass its version of the proposal which had been sponsored as Senate Joint Resolution 1 by Senator Birch Bayh (D – Indiana).[147]

On October 8, 1969, the New York Times reported that 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate". Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that 6 other states had yet to state a preference, 6 were leaning toward opposition and 8 were solidly opposed.[148]

On August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the proposal to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic Senators James Eastland of Mississippi, John Little McClellan of Arkansas and Sam Ervin of North Carolina along with Republican Senators Roman Hruska of Nebraska, Hiram Fong of Hawaii and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh indicated that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the proposal to pass the full Senate. He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican senators to support the proposal.[149] However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the proposal.[150]

On September 8, 1970, the Senate commenced openly debating the proposal[151] and the proposal was quickly filibustered. The lead objectors to the proposal were mostly Southern senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states' political influence.[150] On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, received 54 votes to 36 for cloture,[150] failing to receive the then required two-thirds majority of senators voting.[152] A second motion for cloture on September 29, 1970 also failed, by 53 to 34. Thereafter, the Senate Majority Leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, moved to lay the proposal aside so the Senate could attend to other business.[153] However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971.

The House Committee and full House passed the Amendment, President Nixon endorsed it, and it passed the Senate Committee. If it had passed the Senate, thirty of the thirty-eight state legislatures would endorse or be likely to endorse. Filibuster killed it. The 25th Amendment may have fallen short of the thirty-eight states needed to pass, but it would have been a national and statewide debates.

(Electoral College, Wikipedia) Numbers in parentheses refer to references.

 

[connor_in]

Slate was for the electoral college just 4 yrs ago

Defending the Electoral College.

 

[ACamp1900]

Slate was for the electoral college just 4 yrs ago

Defending the Electoral College.

The home team won four years ago.....

 

[Black Irish]

The home team won four years ago.....

Yep, lots of people were for it before they were against it.

 

[Legacy]

Yep, lots of people were for it before they were against it.

Gaming the Electoral College
Don't like the results? Change the rules!
(270 to Win)

(An interactive way of taking the 2012 Presidential election results and calculating the resultes by changing the way Electoral votes would be counted.)

Both U.S. maps change with using the dropdown "Select a View" as well as the totals to the right of the top map.

Romney would have won in 2012 with either "Cong District - Popular" or "Cong District - Majority"

If electoral votes were awarded proportionally, Romney would have won 21 of 55 in California in 2012. Obama would have won 17 of 38 in Texas. As it is now, does your vote for President matter if you are a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas?

 

[Black Irish]

Gaming the Electoral College
Don't like the results? Change the rules!
(270 to Win)

(An interactive way of taking the 2012 Presidential election results and calculating the resultes by changing the way Electoral votes would be counted.)

Both U.S. maps change with using the dropdown "Select a View" as well as the totals to the right of the top map.

Romney would have won in 2012 with either "Cong District - Popular" or "Cong District - Majority"

If electoral votes were awarded proportionally, Romney would have won 21 of 55 in California in 2012. Obama would have won 17 of 38 in Texas. As it is now, does your vote for President matter if you are a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas?[/QUOTE]

Cool link. It provides great perspective. I'd be more in favor of the EC if it ran on the Congressional District model. It seems that method accomplishes the twin goals of: 1.) Allowing states to keep a degree of control over the process 2.) Not alienating voters by making their votes ineffective in solid blue or red winner take all states.

Legacy is absolutely right in regard to the bolded. And it's one of my biggest problems with the EC as it stands currently. Again, I'll refer to my Delaware example in my OP. If you're a Republican in Delaware, your presidential vote hasn't counted for jack squat since 1992. Granted, the Congressional model would not fix this particular problem, since Delaware is so small it only has one at-large House member (the whole state is a Congressional district).

However, the Congressional district model would allay the fears that NY and CA will determine every election. Big states won't go monolithically blue or red based on simple majority rule of state popular vote (that dreaded mob rule). They'll be some red EC votes coming out of CA and some blue EC votes coming out of Texas. Granted, it won't fully address the problem of voters being shut out. If you are a Republican in a heavily Democrat district, your vote still doesn't count in the grand scheme. But the Congressional method certainly makes the problem less acute, and makes states more competitive. I think it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Booslum31]

Ha...heard yesterday that Border Control turned away 37,200 illegals trying to come across...IN NOVEMBER ALONE! Hell yes we need the Electoral College! And a couple walls.

 

[phgreek]

Gaming the Electoral College
Don't like the results? Change the rules!
(270 to Win)

(An interactive way of taking the 2012 Presidential election results and calculating the resultes by changing the way Electoral votes would be counted.)

Both U.S. maps change with using the dropdown "Select a View" as well as the totals to the right of the top map.

Romney would have won in 2012 with either "Cong District - Popular" or "Cong District - Majority"

If electoral votes were awarded proportionally, Romney would have won 21 of 55 in California in 2012. Obama would have won 17 of 38 in Texas. As it is now, does your vote for President matter if you are a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas?[/QUOTE]

Cool link. It provides great perspective. I'd be more in favor of the EC if it ran on the Congressional District model. It seems that method accomplishes the twin goals of: 1.) Allowing states to keep a degree of control over the process 2.) Not alienating voters by making their votes ineffective in solid blue or red winner take all states.

Legacy is absolutely right in regard to the bolded. And it's one of my biggest problems with the EC as it stands currently. Again, I'll refer to my Delaware example in my OP. If you're a Republican in Delaware, your presidential vote hasn't counted for jack squat since 1992. Granted, the Congressional model would not fix this particular problem, since Delaware is so small it only has one at-large House member (the whole state is a Congressional district).

However, the Congressional district model would allay the fears that NY and CA will determine every election. Big states won't go monolithically blue or red based on simple majority rule of state popular vote (that dreaded mob rule). They'll be some red EC votes coming out of CA and some blue EC votes coming out of Texas. Granted, it won't fully address the problem of voters being shut out. If you are a Republican in a heavily Democrat district, your vote still doesn't count in the grand scheme. But the Congressional method certainly makes the problem less acute, and makes states more competitive. I think it's a step in the right direction.

I'm ok with apportionment...as means to achieve apportionment, I'm ok with congressional district.

 

[fightingirish26]

The whole oreilly ordeal about how he admitted there was a white establishment that he wished to preserve got me thinking...the states people point to when wishing to preserve the EC are cali and new york. Cali is less than 50 percent white, while ny is less than 60 percent white. With the EC, many racial minorities have a considerably weakened vote. Doesn't sound like something that lunatic bill oreilly would want to change any time soon.

 

[Legacy]

From Bogs post in Trump Presidency thread:

Folks will never be in control of their government until they learn the following :
1) Someone with opposing views is just as valuable a neighbor and fellow citizen as those that agree with you, and the world won't end if their party gets in;

2) All governing districts should be designed by computer modeling based upon census data, and geographic location, and overseen by non partisan management;

3) The two party oligarchy is a huge limitation to running robust elections, and probably the main reason 'we are all disenchanted with the choices' every cycle. If we are going to keep two primarily worthless parties, different qualification, nomination, and selection processes should be instituted by popular mandate, (for instance, have VP candidates run separately from the top of the ticket, or select the VP as the second place vote getter in the Presidential race);

4) Make voting mandatory, and create a voting holiday. Make it on a weekend if you want, because there is no reason it need be on the first Tuesday, after the first Monday in November.

5) Eliminate conventions. Give the money a better cause. Feed the poor. Or give it to me.

6) Penalize candidates for lying, or falsifying information. All candidates should have to file a legal affidavit, response answers to a standard questionnaire, and after investigation is complete, those candidates should be legally and criminally responsible for their results. Likewise, if a candidate lies about an opponent, or their own record, they should be publically censured. (Don't say that nobody would run for office, etc. We would have better, more ethical candidates regularly, immediately.)

7) Ban anyone who has been in elected office for more that say six years, or two terms, from ever working as a lobbyist. Don't put up term limits. Just take the big bucks out of it for career politicians. If someone gets elected as a 538, then wants to take big bucks for bribing peers, let them. Just limit the time they can stay in office before they turn to a life of crime.

Thanks, Bogs!

My goals, in my words, would be:
1. Increase voter participation
2. Make the process less controlled by "factions" - parties, special interest money
3. Provide some cushioning or consideration for smaller states
4. Represent all people's opinions on issues. Get issues discussed more than they are now
5. Give voice to minority block voters in states that may have majority consistently one sided.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The focus on Clinton's popular vote margin is beside the point. The reason the margin is the biggest ever is that there are more voters today than ever. When you look at the % margin for popular vote winners/EC losers throughout history, this election does not stand out.

1824: Jackson wins popular vote by 10.44% (but with only 41%), wins plurality of EC vote, election decided in House for Adams.

1876: Tilden wins popular vote by 3% (also a majority of the popular vote), loses EC vote.

1888: Cleveland wins popular vote by 0.83%, loses EC vote.

2000: Gore wins popular vote by 0.51%, loses EC vote.

2016: Clinton wins popular vote by 2.09%, loses EC vote.

 

[Legacy]

The focus on Clinton's popular vote margin is beside the point. The reason the margin is the biggest ever is that there are more voters today than ever. When you look at the % margin for popular vote winners/EC losers throughout history, this election does not stand out.

1824: Jackson wins popular vote by 10.44% (but with only 41%), wins plurality of EC vote, election decided in House for Adams.

1876: Tilden wins popular vote by 3% (also a majority of the popular vote), loses EC vote.

1888: Cleveland wins popular vote by 0.83%, loses EC vote.

2000: Gore wins popular vote by 0.51%, loses EC vote.

2016: Clinton wins popular vote by 2.09%, loses EC vote.

Not clear to me how this justifies the EC. Perhaps the opposite. We all know the 2000 and 2016 elections. The rest are in much different times but subject to politics in the pursuit of power.

1824 - Four candidates splitting the EC votes, so the House decides it. Jackson supporters view it as robbing their candidate, because deals were made in the House to elect JQ Adams. Jackson won the plurality by about 45,000 votes (10.44%). Some states decisions on electoral votes was left to their legislatures.

1876 - Hugely disputed election, with legal battling and political maneuvering. Tilden fell one vote shy of a majority electoral vote - and won the popular vote - with twenty electoral votes in dispute in three Southern states. Many historians believe a deal was struck with those states to withdraw federal troops from the South, being finalized in the Compromise of 1877. Each candidate claimed to have won the popular vote in those three states. Those twenty EC votes from the three Southern states made Hayes the President over Tilden by one EC vote. (Also, one EC voter in Oregon was replaced and all of Oregon's three EC votes went to Hayes.) So Tilden lost by one. Tilden won the popular vote by about 264,000 votes (3%).
-- Turnout was 81%

1888 - Two major candidates, two minor ones. Cleveland won the popular vote by 100,000 (0.83%). He lost the Electoral vote by 233-168 (16.2%). The election came down to four swing states. Harrison won NY and Indiana where there was documented fraud with political parties printing ballots and paying off voters, who were managed by leader, who then distributed the money to those voters. This was termed the "Block of Five" voting with leaders managing blocks of five voters. Harrison won Indiana by 2,000 votes (0.44%) and New York by 14,000+ (1.09%). These were winner-take-all EC votes with 51 EC votes in NY and Indiana.
-- Turnout was 79%

All three of these elections to me are indications that the EC is flawed and needs to be changed or scrapped.

 

[Legacy]

National Popular Vote (all links to National Popular Vote)

President-Elect Trump Reaffirms His Long-Standing Opposition to Electoral College, and Favors A Nationwide Vote for President

In 2012, Donald Trump said, "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. ... A total sham and a travesty."

On Sixty Minutes on November 13, 2016, President-Elect Trump said:

"I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play."

State winner-take-all laws are the reason why the vast majority of voters and states are not in play in presidential campaigns. The vast majority of states and the vast majority of voters are ignored because candidates only campaign only in a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Candidates write off states where they are hopelessly behind. They take for granted states where they are safely ahead. In the 2016 general-election campaign:

Over half of the campaign events (57% of the 399 events) were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).
Virtually all of the campaign events (94%) were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).
As presidential candidate and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) pointedly observed in 2015,

"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president. Twelve states are." Video

The map below shows the number of 2016 general-election campaign events received by each state. See Map

Status of National Popular Vote Bill in Each State

 

[johnnycando]

National Popular Vote (all links to National Popular Vote)

President-Elect Trump Reaffirms His Long-Standing Opposition to Electoral College, and Favors A Nationwide Vote for President



Status of National Popular Vote Bill in Each State

Like tax law,the guy plays by the rules to come out ahead.

And that DOES make him smart. And his opponents NOT as smart.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

Like tax law,the guy plays by the rules to come out ahead.

And that DOES make him smart. And his opponents NOT as smart.

No that just means he has no principles.

 

[RDU Irish]

This thread makes my head hurt. No offense, but you have to be pretty small minded not to appreciate the difference between a democratic republic and a democracy and the integral necessity of a mechanism like the Electoral College.

If anything, allocating electors by district plus two state wide for senator seats would better implement the purpose of this system. All or nothing state allocations is more of a problem than lumping even more into a broad popular vote.

And yes, I am calling the man I voted for small minded on this issue.

 

[RDU Irish]

Equally intellectually dishonest to believe campaigns would function like they do now if instead the bogey was just overall popular vote. Midwest would be full fledged fly over country even worse than now and work would focus on the most densely populated areas. Not rocket science folks.

 

[pkt77242]

Equally intellectually dishonest to believe campaigns would function like they do now if instead the bogey was just overall popular vote. Midwest would be full fledged fly over country even worse than now and work would focus on the most densely populated areas. Not rocket science folks.

Yes and No. While parts of the Midwest would get ignored, areas such as Chicago, Indianoplis and Columbus would still see some focus. You would also have new areas gain traction such as Houston, Dallas and San Antonio. Also you would see an even bigger focus on getting out the vote in stronghold states. Republicans would actually care about turning out the votes in states like NY and CA because even if they just pick up 2% more votes in those states, it would be significant (even though they couldn't win the EC votes with that amount). Democrats would care about getting out the vote in Texas and other heavily Republican states (Alabama, GA, etc).

The parties would have to go to where the untapped resource are at. If only 30% of Democrats in Alabama vote because they know that they have zero chance of winning that state then Denocrats would spend money there. Yes the size of the state would matter but also the amount of voters that don't currently turn out in that state would matter as well.

Sorry for any typos as I did this on my phone.

 

[Legacy]

Polls Show more than 70% Support for a Nationwide Vote for President (National Popular Vote)

Each state's referendum results listed. When did 70% of Americans recently agree on anything?

 

[phgreek]

Polls Show more than 70% Support for a Nationwide Vote for President (National Popular Vote)

Each state's referendum results listed. When did 70% of Americans recently agree on anything?

can I see the actual questions?

What polling house conducted the poll?

The source seems to have a dog in the fight so to speak...so, I'm skeptical.

Doesn't mean there isn't a majority out there...just would like to see more information.

And yes I clicked through a few state results...questions remain.