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.
All of you saying the EC protects the small states don't know where people in America actually live.
There are 50 states. Of the lower half #'s 26-50, only 3 are swing states - Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.
New Mexico used to be a swing state fairly recently but now it's not.
No one goes to the other small states now and no one will go if there wasn't an EC. As it is, damned Iowa and New Hampshire have far too much say in our politics as it is and I'll be happy if they get less attention. Along with getting rid of the EC, I'd reform the primary system to remove their outsized influence in choosing our presidential candidates.
The swing states are mostly populous. There are about 15 swing states and they are all in the top 20 (except Colorado, which is #21). In Colorado's case, it became a swing state because of population growth.
That's a distraction, and the same argument could be made about literally any part of our constitution. "They supported slavery, so we shouldn't have Free Speech, Freedom to assemble, unreasonable search and seizure..."
Ridiculous.
The EC was installed to insure that simply the most populous areas wouldn't decide the outcome of an election.
Federalist Paper 39 explains that the purpose of the House was to represent based on population, the senate based on States, and the EC a combination of the two.
Just because the EC was a good idea in 1789 doesn't mean it is today. If only some people could recognize the changes in America.
As we all know, many people were upset at the last election. Specifcially at the fact that Trump lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.
I have no horse in this race as I didn’t vote but it’s an interesting concept.
Does the electoral college prevent some average Joe blow from being elected? Should America get rid of the electoral college? We all know they won’t, but hypothetically speaking. Ironically enough, Trump supports it:
I don't think the electoral college should be disbanded but I understand what tickyul is saying.
I am independent but lean to the Right yet I live in a predominantly Democrat state that just keeps voting in the same bums. I see my vote for a Republican as a protest to the status quo.
I have this feeling that if Hillary had won we wouldn't be hearing a peep about collusion, interference in our elections and no questions about changing how voting is counted.
Untrue. 1. My first choice for candidate was NOT Hillary Clinton, although I voted for her in effort to keep this incompetent imbecile out of office. (I can also name 20 actual Republicans I would have voted for over Trump, and I am an independent)
2. It's unfair, antiquated and un-democratic. (with a lower case "c")
3. I have been agaist the EC since I was a Republican Nixon supporter.
Untrue. 1. My first choice for candidate was NOT Hillary Clinton, although I voted for her in effort to keep this incompetent imbecile out of office. (I can also name 20 actual Republicans I would have voted for over Trump, and I am an independent)
2. It's unfair, antiquated and un-democratic. (with a lower case "c")
3. I have been agaist the EC since I was a Republican Nixon supporter.
Ironically enough, there was an effort to reform the EC in 1969 that would have moved us to proportional allocation. President Nixon supported it and it passed the House but died in the Senate.
The fear at that time was George Wallace, who's goal as a 3rd party candidate was to create a constitutional crisis by deadlocking the EC without a majority, but also the House, and thus killing civil rights by demanding a president who wouldn't enforce it.
The only way I think we can get rid of the EC, or at least reform it, is in one of 2 scenarios -
1) 3rd party candidates can actually win some EV's, prevent a majority in the EC and force the House to decide the president, and they choose the person who got fewer votes, maybe a lot fewer. It could easily happen if we have a Republican House but a 3 or 4-way election. I doubt that many Americans even know that the constitution has that provision and probably wouldn't like it at all.
It could happen. Imagine that Trump hadn't won the RNC & runs as an independent. Then Bernie Sanders had joined the Green party after losing the DNC. In that situation of Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush vs. Donald Trump vs. Bernie Sanders, no one wins 270 votes. The top two electoral vote getters advance to get voted on by the House. That could easily be a situation in which the 3rd or even 4th runner up in the popular vote became president. People would flip out.
2) A Democrat wins the electoral college but not the popular vote. It nearly happened with John Kerry had he won Ohio in 2004. The Republicans would amend the Constitution the next day.
The states elect the POTUS. That's what the constitution calls for because it's what the Founding Fathers wanted -- a republic. States don't have the power they used to have, but let's not take away what little they have remaining.
It's bad enough that Wyoming and Alaska (my current and former homes) have to run much of their states based on what politicians in NY or CA think is best, now we hear about how we have too much power. (Huh?)
Odd that residents of the big states aren't also harping that Wyoming shouldn't be allowed to have two U.S. Senators. Or even one Representative, for that matter.
You want to know what it's like being ruled by the few states with high populations? Consider how you'll feel when India and China announce the U.S. shouldn't have a say in world politics because we're just a sparsely populated frontier. The main difference is that THEY don't have a World Constitution to follow, whereas we do have a U.S. Constitution.
This is clearly unequal representation. If we keep the electoral colllege, then we need to make some changes with regard to how many electors some states get.
This idea of unequal representation is drive by the mistaken belief that we have a national election for President. We don’t. We have separate state elections for electors. In your state, your vote has equal weight with every other vote in your state. Comparing a vote in WY with a vote in FL is ridiculous as they are in completely separate elections.
It should've been discarded long long ago. In what other election would voters find it acceptable for the loser to win? What's remarkable is how the issue isn't even discussed (besides here); instead we get endless nonsense about "Russian meddling."
Who wins a football game? The team that gains the most yardage, or the team that scores the most points? Both are perfectly acceptable metrics for determining the winner, but only one matters.
The correct metric for the Presedential election is electoral votes, not popular votes. There has never been a Presidential election where “the loser” won.
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.
