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.
It needs to be changed. I think the next time the democrats are in control they will do something to get rid of it.
As a voting american, I hate the electoral college. I feel my vote doesn't matter as much. I'm just voting for my state to vote. And I think a lot of people feel the same way. If you know you're state is voting a certain way, it keeps people from going to the polls.
And, each vote matters less in large population states, which is not right. It doesn't make votes equal.
As long as we're discussing possible reforms, let me toss out one that is somewhat original.
Skip the elections entirely. Instead, in each state, their electors would be selected by a random drawing of all registered voters in the state. They would then be sequestered like jurors sometimes are, for a set period of time, while they discuss the pros and cons of every candidate -- either in their home states or all meeting together at an isolated location away from media influence. Putting all 538 electors together would ensure that eventually they would give 270 votes to a single candidate. And there would be none of this foolishness about the popular vote as the best way to pick a president.
As long as it's the states that decide to adopt this procedure, it would meet constitutional requirements.
The electoral college works as intended. In 2016 the the margin of victory by HRC in California would have decided the election. We don't need one state deciding who will be the president. So 2016 is a perfect example of why we need the EC. Just because you don't get what you want does not mean you need to start monkeying around with the Constitution.
The dem's need to look at how they ended up with HRC as the candidate and the super delegate scam. Perhaps with Sanders they would have won even with the EC system in place.
That would leave rural voters out. The proportional vote is the best of all worlds.
I don't agree with this at all. If the Electoral College were gone, candidates would have to court voters everywhere, not just voters in states that are "in play". Right now, it is pretty pointless for a Republican to campaign in California or a Democrat to campaign in Texas. If every vote truly mattered, candidates would have to appeal to the majority of us, and a candidate would still court votes in a state that his party was likely to lose. Now, those states get little or no attention apart from the national ads that run everywhere.
Elections should be about the will of the majority of the people, not about winning states.
I don't agree with this at all. If the Electoral College were gone, candidates would have to court voters everywhere, not just voters in states that are "in play". Right now, it is pretty pointless for a Republican to campaign in California or a Democrat to campaign in Texas. If every vote truly mattered, candidates would have to appeal to the majority of us, and a candidate would still court votes in a state that his party was likely to lose. Now, those states get little or no attention apart from the national ads that run everywhere.
Elections should be about the will of the majority of the people, not about winning states.
Exactly. The electoral college tends to pit one state against another. Trump could try to punish blue states because he knows they would never vote for him anyway, so being the childish, vindictive person that he is, he could make things more difficult for people those states.
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.
The EC is just fine the way it is. All candidates, especially ones from the major parites know the rules and the breakdown of the EC very well.
Don't forget that a certain point, many in the Hillary & Co camp were worried that with her negatives and Trumps pop culture popularity, would mean he might win the so called "popular vote" (which means nothing), but that she would still win the one that counted.
You can bet dollars to donuts that had Hillary won the EC, most of those who cannot let go of the fact she lost, would be extolling the virtues of the EC.
All I know is the collective wisdom of the Founding Fathers far exceeds any thinking of intellectuals we have today.
Much of the FF's wisdom was born of history and their own personal hardships/experiences. Today, intellectuals and malcontents pontificate from ivory towers, thinking change is always better and needed.
I think this video really explains to the average person devoid of a good understanding of the EC, what it is really all about;
Exactly. The electoral college tends to pit one state against another. Trump could try to punish blue states because he knows they would never vote for him anyway, so being the childish, vindictive person that he is, he could make things more difficult for people those states.
Come on, please do not be naive.
Politics is hardball and always has been. Many a governor and other representatives have been rewarded or scolded based on their states support (or lack thereof).
Also, the state where the potus hails from tends to get better treatment than other states. This is just a fact of life and human nature, not a hypothetical that should be guarded against. It has always happened and will continue as long as our republic survives.
Originally Posted by fred44 View Post
Exactly. The electoral college tends to pit one state against another. Trump could try to punish blue states because he knows they would never vote for him anyway, so being the childish, vindictive person that he is, he could make things more difficult for people those states.
LOL WTH.
How does the Electoral College "pit one state against the other?" LOL
Do you guys research ANYTHING?
The vote allocation represents the CONGRESSIONAL SEATS. Each state chooses electors, totaling in number to that state's combined total of senators and representatives. There are a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus the three electors for the District of Columbia.
Hence: A REPUBLIC. NOT A COMMIE DEMOCRACY.
And in case you missed it - "BLUE STATES" already voted for Him THIS YEAR. That's how he 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.
