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.
Besides if you had popular vote then Major population centers such as NYC and LA area would basically make the election decisions. Not good, not fair, and not wise if you think about it
Is that different than now, when basically Florida and Ohio (or perhaps this time around Michigan and Pennsylvania) make the election decisions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
This is really the cruz of it. I deliberately stayed out of this conversation simply because I wanted to hear everyone's opinion.
Some opinions are very distressing. Some actually suggest that people in cities are inferior to people in rural areas or small states and should have less voice in picking the president. Others seem to think that because the Founding Fathers put the electoral college in the Constitution in 1789 that it is sacred and cannot be touched. I would remind these people that they also allowed many other injustices to exist. They tolerated slavery and made no provision for women to vote. Some of the opinions are nothing more than veiled racism against minorities.
Its really about political power when it comes down to it. Those who have more power than others are determined to hang on it, no matter how little logical justification there is for their opinion.
For the second time in just sixteen years, the candidate who has fewer popular votes than his opponent will be taking office. This is quite a message to send to the world. America is constantly telling other countries that they need to be democratic and they need to respect human rights. Yet, in our own country, the majority does not determine the outcome of elections. The outcome of the presidential race is instead determined by a formula that was developed over 225 years ago. As an American, there is much that I am proud of. I am not proud though of the electoral college. It is an eighteenth century anachronism. If we were truly the people whom we claim to be, we'd get rid of it. The fact that we do not shows abundant hypocrisy and unwillingness to abide by the same standards we ask the rest of the world to observe.
Your points about how this country has changed in 225 years are well taken. Unfortunately, it will probably take another 225 years to get rid of the electoral college.
I mostly agree with this, but it probably would not have been as simple in 2000 or now because in both cases the popular vote winner did not get 50% (i.e. a majority) of the vote. So do we let the election stand or do we do an expensive, time consuming runoff like happens in most smaller elections based on popular vote when neither candidate gets 50+%? And especially in 2000 when the popular vote difference was even closer than now, how timely/expensive would a recount of an election of 120 MILLION plus votes be (as opposed to one of just a couple of (albeit big) counties in Florida, as should've happened in 2000)?
I am completely for abolishing the Electoral College, but these have to be considered. And for the record, I loathe Trump with a passion and did not and would never vote for him, so this is not me saying this because it "helped" him.
Is that different than now, when basically Florida and Ohio (or perhaps this time around Michigan and Pennsylvania) make the election decisions?
I mostly agree with this, but it probably would not have been as simple in 2000 or now because in both cases the popular vote winner did not get 50% (i.e. a majority) of the vote. So do we let the election stand or do we do an expensive, time consuming runoff like happens in most smaller elections based on popular vote when neither candidate gets 50+%? And especially in 2000 when the popular vote difference was even closer than now, how timely/expensive would a recount of an election of 120 MILLION plus votes be (as opposed to one of just a couple of (albeit big) counties in Florida, as should've happened in 2000)?
I am completely for abolishing the Electoral College, but these have to be considered. And for the record, I loathe Trump with a passion and did not and would never vote for him, so this is not me saying this because it "helped" him.
Why does everyone that discusses dismissing the EC totally avoid or dismiss the issue with state representation and sovereignty that is shared via a careful system of compromise, the "union" of states that is the very foundation of this county and the constitution? Not only via the presidential election, but just about every part of daily life. Every single one of you simply gloss over it. Is it that you simply don't "get it"?
Look at the flag - do you see one star? You see 50. What does that represent to you?
Why does everyone that discusses dismissing the EC totally avoid or dismiss the issue with state representation and sovereignty that is shared via a careful system of compromise, the "union" of states that is the very foundation of this county and the constitution? Not only via the presidential election, but just about every part of daily life. Every single one of you simply gloss over it. Is it that you simply don't "get it"?
Look at the flag - do you see one star? You see 50. What does that represent to you?
The majority of the states were never sovereign. And the 14th basically changed the whole nature of the relationship between the Feds and the States.
The Constitution is simply flawed in giving the 13 small states a veto over amendments. Less than 10% of the US population can block an amendment. Absurd.
If the EC had such merits, it would have been copied and implemented across other democracies.
It hasn't because, it isn't.
Other democracies take different approaches besides popular vote, the most common method seems to be a constitutional monarchy:
England - constitutional monarchy, formally has no election for head of state
Netherlands - constitutional monarchy, formally has no election for head of state
Germany - electoral college (the last time they used the popular vote referendum method, Hitler was chosen).
Spain - constitutional monarchy, formally has no election for head of state
Switzerland - leader elected by Parliament
Vatican - elected by cardinals
Belgium - constitutional monarchy, formally has no election for head of state
Italy - leader elected by Parliament
Israel - elected by parliament
Albania - elected by parliament
Denmark - constitutional monarchy, formally has no election for head of state
Greece - elected by parliament
Hungary - elected by parliament
India - electoral college
In the constitutional monarchies, the method of election of a leader of an executive branch (i.e. prime minister) is so varied as to be confusing: some are appointed by the king or queen, some are chosen by a separate "president", some by the parliament, some are simply appointed by the party with the largest majority voted in office and then approved by the king/queen (UK for instance).
The majority of the states were never sovereign. And the 14th basically changed the whole nature of the relationship between the Feds and the States.
The Constitution is simply flawed in giving the 13 small states a veto over amendments. Less than 10% of the US population can block an amendment. Absurd.
The US constitution and the founding fathers adapted a "shared sovereignity" between the federal governments and state governments (it is irrelevant what they were before they joined the union). You mentioning the 14th amendment proves my point, thank you - the US Constitution is a living document that is continuously being tweaked. And it seems rather than flawed (again we refer to the 14th amendment), it is working as intended.
Why does everyone that discusses dismissing the EC totally avoid or dismiss the issue with state representation and sovereignty that is shared via a careful system of compromise, the "union" of states that is the very foundation of this county and the constitution?
That's what the Senate is for -- equal representation for each state, regardless of size. Logically, to counterbalance the power of the states in the Senate, the President should be chosen by popular vote. Checks and balances.
I don't know why people think the Founding Fathers are infallible. They made mistakes; the fact that the Constitution has been amended 27 times is testament to that. In truth the Electoral College was a messy, awkward compromise that was shaped by the politics of their time and was not a timeless masterpiece of governmental design.
Logically an electoral college with winner-take-all votes in each state results in the largest number of "wasted votes." Likewise, a national popular vote results in exactly zero wasted votes, every vote counts. Getting rid of the EC is long overdue and would make the government more balanced in terms of states vs. people.
So 80% of the US population lives within 200 miles of the coast -- then add the population of the Great Lakes and Midwest region cities and you are looking at the population that pays the lion's share of taxes, is the home of the great majority of our military fighting in our wars, and is the primary region for past and future infrastructure projects. Whatever states' rights reasoning there might have been 200+ years ago is irrelevant in the 21st century. That cat left the bag over 100 years ago and we are still debating the worthiness of a quaint solution to a 18th century problem. The Constitution starts out "We the people..." not "We the states..."
Logically an electoral college with winner-take-all votes in each state results in the largest number of "wasted votes." Likewise, a national popular vote results in exactly zero wasted votes, every vote counts. Getting rid of the EC is long overdue and would make the government more balanced in terms of states vs. people.
It's already balanced states vs. people - California gets a whopping 55 votes, Montana gets a measly 3.
Every vote CAN count, it doesn't have to be "winner take all". It's up to the states to decide how they want to partition there electorate votes. For example: California can have 35 go to Hillary and 20 go to Trump (more or less, based on the last election).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins
The Constitution starts out "We the people..." not "We the states..."
And what does it end with? "We the people....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United STATES of America." The sovereinity is from the people, I get that. The aticles of the confederacy I think listed something like "we the states...". But I am glad it didn't - the bill of rights is focused on individual, not collective, rights. I don't see it conflicting with anything we are discussing however.
Listen, a lot of you on here are arguing the merits of the electoral college, and whether you believe it is a flawed or effective system. I'm not going to give an opinion on that and there are solid points to be made on both sides.
But please, PLEASE stop using the "Hillary won the popular vote" argument. It is completely irrelevant, and was not the game that was being played. Both sides knew this, and neither Hillary nor Trump was attempting to win the popular vote. They were trying to win the most EC votes. Whether you think that is wrong or not is another discussion, but it is the fact of the matter.
If the goal had been to win the popular vote, both parties would have campaigned very differently, voter turnout would have been different, etc, etc. There would have been vast numbers of people in states dominated by the opposing party that would have voted but didn't because they knew their state was not going to flip. Saying Hillary won the popular vote is like saying the Jets got 20 first downs and the Colts got 14, but the colts won 21-14. The name of the game wasn't to get 1st downs, and if it had been, both team's strategies would have differed greatly.
Listen, a lot of you on here are arguing the merits of the electoral college, and whether you believe it is a flawed or effective system. I'm not going to give an opinion on that and there are solid points to be made on both sides.
But please, PLEASE stop using the "Hillary won the popular vote" argument. It is completely irrelevant, and was not the game that was being played. Both sides knew this, and neither Hillary nor Trump was attempting to win the popular vote. They were trying to win the most EC votes. Whether you think that is wrong or not is another discussion, but it is the fact of the matter.
If the goal had been to win the popular vote, both parties would have campaigned very differently, voter turnout would have been different, etc, etc. There would have been vast numbers of people in states dominated by the opposing party that would have voted but didn't because they knew their state was not going to flip. Saying Hillary won the popular vote is like saying the Jets got 20 first downs and the Colts got 14, but the colts won 21-14. The name of the game wasn't to get 1st downs, and if it had been, both team's strategies would have differed greatly.
Still, in defense of those guys, whatever the motivation (and I am sure it is the "sore loser" factor) - I have to respect that this discussion has been thankfully more historical than political, and those that went there have probably been "moderated".
No one got the majority overall popular vote in this most recent election by the way. In a sense, when taking popular vote - no one 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.
