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.
The founding fathers hated the idea of democracy. They feared it would result in fractioning society, potentially leading to one faction overtaking the others and suppressing them (this is often called the tyranny of the majority). The solution was to have electors chose the president, rather than have it decided by popular opinion. The Electoral College, in reality, has nothing to do with giving small states a voice. Realistically, popular vote and Electoral College still makes some states not worth campaigning in, so big picture, this doesn't actually matter. California has a lot of people, and while many assume this means that the population of blue states would overtake red ones in a popular vote, this isn't necessarily accurate. No state is entirely red or blue if you look at county maps, and while blue areas may have high population density, most places in the country are red.
Needless to say, the EC exists because the founding fathers didn't trust you all to pick the president. They feared it would lead to a populist demagogue ruling over the country. That said, electors are now basically loyal party members, which some states not allowing electors to vote their conscious, so I'm personally of the mindset that a popular vote is better than our current set up, though I'd much prefer us returning to how the electoral college was meant to work.
And there you have it. The electors no longer vote in the best interests of the country, they vote along party lines.
Further, the big states do not have proportionally more electors than the smaller states. Actualy, they are underrepresented in the EC.
Ergo - we don't need the electoral collect anymore. Because it is not defending the country against demagoguery - and the monster Trump.
Bush, one could argue, did not win the popular vote and wouldn't have won FL were it not for the SC. There are opposing views on this. In any event, his win of the popular vote, if it happened, was a squeaker. Donald's loss of the popular vote was NOT a squeaker.
It kills me that for an entire year leading up to the election, all we heard from the news outlets was: "The Path to 270", over and over. All of them in the tank for Clinton, showing how she had it in the bag, the 270 electoral votes. You never heard: "The Path to Winning the Popular Vote". Not once. Now they won't shut the hell up about it.
I oftentimes wonder what would occur in Latin America, or Africa, if someone won the popular vote, but was vetoed by the Electoral College!
I can't stand these so-called "entertainers," armchair politicians, who think they can lecture us on our political system, which they know nothing about. They are just ignorant fools.
Am I correct in saying that in many countries with a parliamentary system their prime minister is also not elected by a popular vote? They are not chosen by a direct election at all in many cases I believe. They elect MP's and the MP's select the prime minister. Is a record of the popular vote totals of MP's who vote for particular PM candidates kept to ensure there is a popular vote majority among the MP's who vote for the winning candidate? If so would a lack of such a majority require a revote?
Why are we worried about California? I thought they were seceding and some of the leftovers were leaving for Canada and Mars. That means two less Democrat US Senators, 53 less Representatives (38 of which are Democrats), 55 less electoral college votes, 46% of federal land given to some other state, 251,705 federal jobs (as of 2010 census) gone, military bases gone. Then there are all of those federal contractor jobs that will be gone with the feds. Money that the federal government saves from eliminating many of those federal jobs and money the feds give to California could be used for the wall we'll have to build around it...and all of the media in California will be the Foreign Press for real...which may free up some seating space in the White House press room.
Then, of course, the candidates for President won't have to bother campaigning there saving them time and money.
A national election by popular vote would essentially eliminate the very basis for States as sovereign entities under the Constitution.
Why?
The states still send their elected reps to congress as well as senators to senate.
But if the states elect the president, why all citizens need to vote? 26 votes out of 50 win the presidency. Fast, efficient and low cost.
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.
