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.
I'm new to City Data and find it fascinating! I saw this article during the 2016 election. It explains well why the Electoral College is so important to safeguard from the hands of "mob rule".
Electoral College
The Electoral College is the system prescribed in the U.S. Constitution for selecting the President. It is not a particularly hot topic today, but it is on my mind to write about it. Every four years, when we are electing a President, the topic arises, “Should we abolish a system that makes it possible for a President to be elected by less than a majority of the voters?”
Under the Constitution, each state selects a delegation of “electors” for the Electoral College. These electors then decide who is to be President. I suggest reading the rules for yourself from Article II of the Constitution.
Here is a thought question – What is the President’s official title?
He is, “President of the United States of America”. NOTE – He is NOT President of the people! The Congress is the representative of the people.
Were we to foolishly abandon the Electoral College and elect a Chief Executive by a majority vote of all the people – what would be the result? Those few areas of the country with high populations would dominate the majority and the rest of the nation would not be represented.
The founding fathers had to find a balance between local authority and centralized authority. Our “states” are, and should be, sovereign governments. Political power, if it is not to become tyrannical, must be spread around. Each block of authority needs to be jealous and protective of its turf.
There will be give and take. Situations change – but – our system of checks and balances has worked better than any other in human history. Let us be cautious about unintended consequences of change.
“We the People” are the ones who designed and authorized the government of the United States. That government derives its authority from us! Please – Never forget that you and I were put upon this earth to be free men and women – free to follow the dictates of our respective consciences.
The government of the “United States of America” was created for the purpose of protecting that individual liberty!
I'm new to City Data and find it fascinating! I saw this article during the 2016 election. It explains well why the Electoral College is so important to safeguard from the hands of "mob rule".
Electoral College
The Electoral College is the system prescribed in the U.S. Constitution for selecting the President. It is not a particularly hot topic today, but it is on my mind to write about it. Every four years, when we are electing a President, the topic arises, “Should we abolish a system that makes it possible for a President to be elected by less than a majority of the voters?”
Under the Constitution, each state selects a delegation of “electors” for the Electoral College. These electors then decide who is to be President. I suggest reading the rules for yourself from Article II of the Constitution.
Here is a thought question – What is the President’s official title?
He is, “President of the United States of America”. NOTE – He is NOT President of the people! The Congress is the representative of the people.
Were we to foolishly abandon the Electoral College and elect a Chief Executive by a majority vote of all the people – what would be the result? Those few areas of the country with high populations would dominate the majority and the rest of the nation would not be represented.
The founding fathers had to find a balance between local authority and centralized authority. Our “states” are, and should be, sovereign governments. Political power, if it is not to become tyrannical, must be spread around. Each block of authority needs to be jealous and protective of its turf.
There will be give and take. Situations change – but – our system of checks and balances has worked better than any other in human history. Let us be cautious about unintended consequences of change.
“We the People” are the ones who designed and authorized the government of the United States. That government derives its authority from us! Please – Never forget that you and I were put upon this earth to be free men and women – free to follow the dictates of our respective consciences.
The government of the “United States of America” was created for the purpose of protecting that individual liberty!
The electoral college lost its real purpose when electors stopped making their own decision about who should be President and simply reflected the will of the majority of the voters in their state. At that point, abolition of the electoral college should have been under serious consideration. The original rules you cite under Article II were modified by a subsequent constitutional amendment.
The concept of an election is a simple one. It is that the candidate with the most votes wins. The electoral college has now prevented that from occurring twice since the year 2000. I have every reason to believe this trend will continue.
You describe the basic concept of federalism which is that under our system the federal government has certain powers and state governments have certain powers. Nothing about this power structure would be altered by abolition of the EC. Each state would still retain its sovereignty. Each state would still have two U.S. Senators. The Tenth Amendment would still exist.
Talking about "freedom" is simply raising a straw man. No one is advocating abolition of the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution has served us well. This is not to be confused with the idea that change is unnecessary. The same reasons the electoral college was created in 1789 do not exist in 2017. Communication is better. Slavery no longer exists and furnishes a reason for giving small states more political power than they would otherwise have. The Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees equal protection of the law to individual citizens did not exist in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified.
I agree it is important to protect individual liberty. This is precisely the reason Americans should never tolerate a situation where a mechanism such as the EC allows a smaller group of citizens to rule over a larger group. Its just wrong.
The concept of an election is a simple one. It is that the candidate with the most votes wins. The electoral college has now prevented that from occurring twice since the year 2000. I have every reason to believe this trend will continue.
The voters choose the electors and those with the most votes wins. That has happened in every election since 1788.
Now, we may discuss the credentials of the electors, or about how they are picked by the candidates for president, or whether there is a better way of choosing presidential electors. I think there are several better ways; as I suggested previously, I would be entirely satisfied if they were chosen by random lot from lists of all registered voters!
But no reasonable reform of the elector selection process requires a constitutional amendment.
On the other hand, under the electoral college system, all of California's and New York's votes go to a candidate who may have only won 50.1% of those state's votes. How does that make sense?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 18 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,531,868 times
Reputation: 6031
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAteacher4FOS
Every four years, when we are electing a President, the topic arises, “Should we abolish a system that makes it possible for a President to be elected by less than a majority of the voters?”
..................
Were we to foolishly abandon the Electoral College and elect a Chief Executive by a majority vote of all the people – what would be the result? Those few areas of the country with high populations would dominate the majority and the rest of the nation would not be represented.
The founding fathers had to find a balance between local authority and centralized authority. Our “states” are, and should be, sovereign governments. Political power, if it is not to become tyrannical, must be spread around. Each block of authority needs to be jealous and protective of its turf.
The problem with this argument is that the current system works that way as well. It simply does so in the hope that nothing goes wrong.
No matter how low the turn out is in California, it will always get its total electoral college vote.
But you mean that in a geographical sense. Im sorry but Wyoming and California do not have the same number of people, neither do Wyoming and even down town L.A.
where someone lives should not diminish their vote.
During the debate at the Constitutional Convention, Virginia and other southern states did not want to be ruled by New England, and New Englanders did not want to be ruled by Virginia.
So a system was created where no single state or section of the country could dominate all the others. That system is not broken so it does not need to be fixed.
1. allocation of the slave population within the voting system
2. natural disasters not interfering in the election process
3. big state vs small state
I would say all 3 of those reasons are indeed obsolete.
Words that have gone out of usage are obsolete. Horse-drawn carriages and mule teams pulling plows or wagons are obsolete. But the Electoral College is still in regular usage, so is not obsolete.
There are still big and small states, but even if all states had the same population the EC would still be a good idea. In practice it could be improved, by the states changing how the electors are chosen; but in theory it is fine.
I'm new to City Data and find it fascinating! I saw this article during the 2016 election. It explains well why the Electoral College is so important to safeguard from the hands of "mob rule".
Electoral College
The Electoral College is the system prescribed in the U.S. Constitution for selecting the President. It is not a particularly hot topic today, but it is on my mind to write about it. Every four years, when we are electing a President, the topic arises, “Should we abolish a system that makes it possible for a President to be elected by less than a majority of the voters?”
Under the Constitution, each state selects a delegation of “electors” for the Electoral College. These electors then decide who is to be President. I suggest reading the rules for yourself from Article II of the Constitution.
Here is a thought question – What is the President’s official title?
He is, “President of the United States of America”. NOTE – He is NOT President of the people! The Congress is the representative of the people.
Were we to foolishly abandon the Electoral College and elect a Chief Executive by a majority vote of all the people – what would be the result? Those few areas of the country with high populations would dominate the majority and the rest of the nation would not be represented.
The founding fathers had to find a balance between local authority and centralized authority. Our “states” are, and should be, sovereign governments. Political power, if it is not to become tyrannical, must be spread around. Each block of authority needs to be jealous and protective of its turf.
There will be give and take. Situations change – but – our system of checks and balances has worked better than any other in human history. Let us be cautious about unintended consequences of change.
“We the People” are the ones who designed and authorized the government of the United States. That government derives its authority from us! Please – Never forget that you and I were put upon this earth to be free men and women – free to follow the dictates of our respective consciences.
The government of the “United States of America” was created for the purpose of protecting that individual liberty!
The United States has become more democratic since its founding. First, land ownership as a requirement for political franchise ended. Then freed male slaves obtained political franchise (that was subsequently opposed by a century-long campaign of terror and political maneuvering). Then we started directly electing our Senators. Then (finally), women obtained political franchise. And then we assured the political franchise extended to all who reached 18 years of age. Each of these were major steps towards a more democratic republic. The electoral college is a relic of a more plutocratic republic. It's elimination will be another step towards a more democratic republic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
The electoral college lost its real purpose when electors stopped making their own decision about who should be President and simply reflected the will of the majority of the voters in their state. At that point, abolition of the electoral college should have been under serious consideration. The original rules you cite under Article II were modified by a subsequent constitutional amendment.
The concept of an election is a simple one. It is that the candidate with the most votes wins. The electoral college has now prevented that from occurring twice since the year 2000. I have every reason to believe this trend will continue.
You describe the basic concept of federalism which is that under our system the federal government has certain powers and state governments have certain powers. Nothing about this power structure would be altered by abolition of the EC. Each state would still retain its sovereignty. Each state would still have two U.S. Senators. The Tenth Amendment would still exist.
Talking about "freedom" is simply raising a straw man. No one is advocating abolition of the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution has served us well. This is not to be confused with the idea that change is unnecessary. The same reasons the electoral college was created in 1789 do not exist in 2017. Communication is better. Slavery no longer exists and furnishes a reason for giving small states more political power than they would otherwise have. The Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees equal protection of the law to individual citizens did not exist in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified.
I agree it is important to protect individual liberty. This is precisely the reason Americans should never tolerate a situation where a mechanism such as the EC allows a smaller group of citizens to rule over a larger group. Its just wrong.
We have the courts to protect individual liberty. The electoral college lost its purpose when we reached universal suffrage (over the age of 18).
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Baustian
Words that have gone out of usage are obsolete. Horse-drawn carriages and mule teams pulling plows or wagons are obsolete. But the Electoral College is still in regular usage, so is not obsolete.
There are still big and small states, but even if all states had the same population the EC would still be a good idea. In practice it could be improved, by the states changing how the electors are chosen; but in theory it is fine.
The structure of the Senate protects small states. The only way to improve the electoral college is for states to choose their electors based on the national popular vote.
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.
