Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a very sad and disappointing thread. There are too many people here who are not willing to even see the opposing points made by some posters. I understand your position. It's a valid position, but not one that I agree with. It seems to me that you too quickly and totally dismiss the position of a slight majority people in the United States. I would like you to think about that. More people believe that the EC should be changed than believe that it should remain the same.
There is a place in our society for continuity and traditions.
But there is also place and time for change.
Why do I refer to the Founding Fathers as the Floundering Fathers. On the one hand, the overall government that they put together is quite amazing. But on the other hand, since they didn't do away with slavery, they perpetuated an issue that they kicked the can down the road, and led to the Civil War. So while I respect much that the FF did, they caused some huge problems. And while I respect the system they developed, I don't believe that when two centuries have passed that we should take a look at what works well in this country and what does not serve our best purposes. And the Electoral College -- to me -- is outmoded and does not reflect the general approach this nation has toward elections, which is one man, one vote. Humans voting is to me more important than entities (states) having their way.
As "for" abolition as I am, I don't think the Founding Fathers could have abolished slavery in the same stroke that they created a federal government.
The idea of a federal government may look cool now, but it was not cool back then. Despite the fact that at that time even southerners agreed slavery was a sin, the Founders would not have gotten the southern states on board with an abolition of slavery. The money was already so good they were willing to go to hell for it.
In the past nine months since the election we have hard that the electoral college is flawed. Two out of the last five elections saw a different popular vote than the electoral vote, that is simple to understand. But is it a symptom of the system and we should just leave it or should we fix the system? And if we chose to fix it, what do we do?
I say yes. It let's only 10% of the voting populous truly decide the president since they live in swing states. If you live outside of a swing state, what is the use in voting? My suggestion, tie electoral votes to the state's popular vote. So you win 60% of state's popular vote, you get 60% of the votes. For states with 5 votes, that would be 3 votes going to a given candidate.
I propose we double the Senators to 4 per state and increase the EC accordingly. This would allow low population states like Wyoming and Montana a greater weight in the election of the President and reduce the impact of Cali even further.
Trust me on this, if you lived in Wyoming, you'd be tired of the people in NY (and other populous states) dictating what Wyoming needs to do for itself.
I don't know about you, but when I go to the polls I vote for several seats that are up for election. I vote whether there's a presidential race or not. ALWAYS. The cost to count the vote for one extra office on the ballot is minimal.
What none of you explain is why a person in Wyoming should have more of a vote than a person in a large city in a populous state. Are people in Wyoming or Delaware or Alaska inherently better people than people who live in cities? Are they inherently more valuable and more deserving of a say in who is elected to the highest office in our land than those in big cities? That is certainly the implication that those who defend the outmoded EC system cast during their arguments.
The Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution prohibits us from being denied the equal protection of the laws. If my vote does not have the same political power that your vote has I am being denied the equal protection of the laws.
Essentially, the device of the EC allows a smaller group of people to rule over a larger group of people. This principle is contrary to how an election is supposed to work. In an election, a majority or a plurality determines who wins the race. The only political office in the United States where one can be elected without receiving more votes than his/her opponent is that of president. This hasn't been much of an issue until recently because until 1876, the candidate with the most votes had always won a majority in the electoral college as well. However, we have now seen the winner of the minority of popular votes prevail in two presidential elections in the last sixteen years. There is no reason to believe that this trend will not continue. I see its as a serious threat to a country that prides itself on fair elections.
The electoral college is outmoded. It was outmoded a long time ago. It probably should have been eliminated back in 1912 when we moved to a direct vote for senatorial elections. Whether we use NPV or a constitutional amendment, the EC belongs in the trash can of history.
What none of you explain is why a person in Wyoming should have more of a vote than a person in a large city in a populous state. Are people in Wyoming or Delaware or Alaska inherently better people than people who live in cities? Are they inherently more valuable and more deserving of a say in who is elected to the highest office in our land than those in big cities? That is certainly the implication that those who defend the outmoded EC system cast during their arguments..
The Founding Fathers were dealing with a bunch of independent States. Back then, people considered themselves Virginians or New Yorkers or Marylanders or Georgians. There was no United States few people were interested in such a thing.
Nobody from Virginia or Georgia was interested in being subsumed into a federal entity in which New York would have greater influence just because they had more people. Nobody from New Jersey, with its larger population, was interested in being subsumed into a federal entity in which Virginia would have more influence just because it was also a state.
If that was going to happen, there would never have been any agreement on a federal government.
Just like the two houses of the Legislative Branch form a compromise of population versus state equality in the union, so is the system that selects the head of the Executive Branch.
That basic situation has not changed. Montana is never going to accept a situation in which as a state it will always have less influence in national affairs than New York.
I propose we double the Senators to 4 per state and increase the EC accordingly. This would allow low population states like Wyoming and Montana a greater weight in the election of the President and reduce the impact of Cali even further.
And that gives undue power to smaller states. They have their voices heard in the Senate, and more power per presidential vote than most states. To give more electoral votes across the board due to more senators is asinine. The issue is too much power on those states and too much attention to swing states. A proportional electoral vote to the state's percentages like i suggested, would be more than fair at removing the lack of incentive to vote in set states, removing the power of small states, not risk gerrymandering with congressional districts proposals and also give an importance to all states, not just the swing states.
And that gives undue power to smaller states. They have their voices heard in the Senate, and more power per presidential vote than most states. To give more electoral votes across the board due to more senators is asinine. The issue is too much power on those states and too much attention to swing states. A proportional electoral vote to the state's percentages like i suggested, would be more than fair at removing the lack of incentive to vote in set states, removing the power of small states, not risk gerrymandering with congressional districts proposals and also give an importance to all states, not just the swing states.
The swing states are a mix of large and small states, Florida has 29 electoral votes, New Hampshire has only 4.
What makes a swing state is the precariousness of its choice. Changing the electoral system would not prevent swing states.
And that is why nobody wants to open the Pandora's Box of a constitution convention.
Agreed; radical change is always fraught with danger. But at the very list, we could behold the current system with humility, recognizing that it's flawed - instead of going around with chest-thumping conceit, that the "founding fathers" were demi-gods of unassailable wisdom, unrivaled and unequaled ever again, and that their vision is immutable and eternally perfect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1
Conservatives claim "people don't elect presidents. States do".
Indeed.
I appreciate the rationale for putting a safety-valve or filter between raw popular emotion and pivotal decisions affecting the nation. There's ample reason for why public policy at the federal level is not decided by plebiscite. We don't hold a referendum on whether to raise or lower the defense budget, or what to do about healthcare. Witness the fiasco when a plebiscite was held, with Brexit in the UK.
But the current electoral college scheme is mathematically flawed. Instead of mediating and softening the public will, it distorts it. It abets abuse, by allowing narrow majorities in some places, to overwhelm huge majorities in others. It shunts aside non-swing states from the debate, so that for example in California or Texas, presidential candidates hardly even make an appearance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
As "for" abolition as I am, I don't think the Founding Fathers could have abolished slavery in the same stroke that they created a federal government.
Which advances the point, that some compromises made in 1787 were expedient, necessary and perhaps even brilliant - but look positively silly and asinine now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
What makes a swing state is the precariousness of its choice. Changing the electoral system would not prevent swing states.
The principal problem with the electoral college is winner-takes-all, in all but 2 of the states. If instead exactly one presidential elector is assigned per one congressional district, we'd solve that problem, without delving into radical experiments.
The Electoral College was created as a direct result of slavery.
The southern states objected to electing the president with a direct popular vote because a large portion of the southern population were slaves and as such could not vote. The southern plantation owners feared that the North would always dominate a popular vote because there were more white voters in the north. The three-fifths compromise was brokered to allow the southern states to count slaves as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of calculating the number of presidential electors.
The stated purpose of the Electoral College, to accommodate slavery as an institution, as long since evaporated. It is time to send the Electoral College into the dust bin of history where it belongs.
The Electoral College was created as a direct result of slavery.
Wrong, but you know this already having been corrected many times by many posters.
I just wonder why you keep repeating this false narrative over and over despite historical evidence to the contrary?
My guess is that you are for changing the EC, and figure if you can somehow tie it's origins to slavery, it will be easier to defeat.
I could go on and on, but I will just post your favorite video to help educate others not familiar with the EC, and your attempts to demonize it;
But the current electoral college scheme is mathematically flawed. Instead of mediating and softening the public will, it distorts it. It abets abuse, by allowing narrow majorities in some places, to overwhelm huge majorities in others. It shunts aside non-swing states from the debate, so that for example in California or Texas, presidential candidates hardly even make an appearance.
<snip>
The principal problem with the electoral college is winner-takes-all, in all but 2 of the states. If instead exactly one presidential elector is assigned per one congressional district, we'd solve that problem, without delving into radical experiments.
There would be little reason for candidates to campaign in states with an obvious voting likelihood.
Swing states--states in which the popular vote is in contention--would still be swing states.
And there is no "abuse"--the system works as it should to prevent heavily populated states from having permanent dominance over less populated states.
There is no reason Montana or Wyoming should agree to give up power to New York or California.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
