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 don't necessarily oppose direct election; I just don't think much would change since the candidates would campaign 24/7 in the suburbs of most large cities and in other high density "purple" areas.
In other words, a compromise is always a compromise: Nobody will ever be perfectly happy and there will never be equal patronization or patronage.
So the question to be answered is how a different compromise is better than the compromise we have (and worth the pain of the change).
None other than Thomas Jefferson was found of saying we should have a constitutional convention every 19 or 20 years. He was very opposed to the dead having power over future generations.
"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." - Thomas Jefferson
He probably felt that the life span of commercial debts should be even shorter; very short.
The Electoral College should have been replaced with a direct popular vote years ago. Why?
1. It doesn't function the way the framers intended. They originally intended that electors would vote for the person they thought would be the best President. Electors actually vote for the person who has more votes than any other candidate in their state.
2. The same issues do not exist today that existed in 1789. Communications were difficult. There was no telegraph or television to transmit vote returns. It made sense to leave the decision of presidential selection in the hands of a body that was designed to meet in the capitol and resolve the issue. Those same communication issues do not exist today.
3. The Electoral College is skewed in favor of small population states. Someone from Cheyenne, Wyoming has about eight times the vote that someone from Los Angeles, California has. This is wrong. All votes should be equal in a country that prides itself on elections and representative democracy.
4. The Electoral College discourages candidates from campaigning in most states. Most campaigns focus on Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina because these are "swing states" with large numbers of electoral votes. Candidates do not campaign at all in most small states. If the EC were abolished, politicians would have more of an incentive to campaign in all states and pick up as many votes there as they could.
5. Because the poor and minorities are concentrated in large cities in populous states, the EC indirectly keeps these groups from having the same voice in our government that other voters have.
We may never get a constitutional amendment abolishing the EC simply because people never willing give up political power even when the current system is not just. I support proposals to create NPV or National Popular Vote. This could be done by a compact of states representing 270 or more of the 538 electoral votes.
The Constitution lays it out pretty good on how the POTUS is elected. It is the States that elect the POTUS through the process we call the Electoral College. To elect a POTUS in any other manner requires a change in the Constitution.
I support proposals to create NPV or National Popular Vote. This could be done by a compact of states representing 270 or more of the 538 electoral votes.
This process is unconstitutional, it violates Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Notice that all of these prohibitions are separated by a comma, meaning they all have their separate meanings.
No they didn't. The candidate who got the most electoral votes, won the election, as has been the case in every presidential election since 1789 (except, if I recall, 1876 where there was a tie betw. Hayes and Tilden).
The president is not elected by the people. The president is elected by the states. How many times do we have to state this, before you understand it?
The president is not elected by the states.
The president is elected by the Electors.
Actually the House of Representatives elected the President in 1800 and 1826. Neither candidate gained a majority of the Electors, throwing the election into the House. There, the Congressman for each state vote as a unit so each state actually gets one vote.
No they didn't. The candidate who got the most electoral votes, won the election, as has been the case in every presidential election since 1789 (except, if I recall, 1876 where there was a tie betw. Hayes and Tilden).
The president is not elected by the people. The president is elected by the states. How many times do we have to state this, before you understand it?
Don't be dense. I don't agree with your premise. And I'm not required to.
I have stated repeatedly that I feel true democracy in this country should be popular election of the presidency...just like it is for governors, senators, members of the house, and virtually every other elected position. If the concept of the electoral college is so wonderful, why do we use it in only that one office?
So the question to be answered is how a different compromise is better than the compromise we have (and worth the pain of the change).
Good, question. Here's an attempt at a straightforward answer.
When the US Constitution was originally formulated, many compromises were made, to assuage and mollify the various competing interests at the time. In the intervening 230 years, the operative interests have changed, living conditions have changed, civic consciousness has changed. The people who were represented in 1787 lived very differently and thought very differently from the people of today. They had very different worries and very different aspirations. It thus stands to reason, that while every big decision is necessarily a compromise, those compromises that would be effective, expeditious and wise in 2017, would be quite different from those of 1787.
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.
I like the idea.
My concern is that we still put more emphasis on land versus people. Left-leaning voters tend to live in larger cities and are more concentrated geographically. Right-leaning voters often live in deep suburbs and rural areas, typically in smaller states...and are more spread out. We need a fair system to be sure, but a candidate that wins by several million more votes shouldn't lose an election.
We shouldn't think about the Presidential Race in terms of winning states, but instead winning people. If more people vote for you, you should win.
Think of it this way: let's imagine that I'm running for a U.S. Senate seat in the state of Texas. It's a large state with lots of varied political and socioeconomic interests. A well-to-do businessman in Dallas is going to value certain issues much differently than a nurse in Brownsville or a college student in Lubbock. When running for the Senate, I don't have to win counties to determine if I win the race. It all comes down to people. Despite the fact that different counties within the state have contrasting needs and concerns, the race is about people. The presidential race should reflect that. Most people are concerned with larger states dominating but as it is, the smaller states have a disproportionate say over how elections are won.
Don't be dense. I don't agree with your premise. And I'm not required to.
I have stated repeatedly that I feel true democracy in this country should be popular election of the presidency...just like it is for governors, senators, members of the house, and virtually every other elected position. If the concept of the electoral college is so wonderful, why do we use it in only that one office?
Those are all state positions. As I said earlier, there is no popular vote for anything other than a state-level position.
The reason for that was specifically to prevent any of the branches of the federal government from being selected on either a simple popular majority or a simple regional majority.
Both of those possibilities could result in negative consequences worse than the compromise does. That was true then, it's still true today.
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.
