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.
This thread appears to be going off topic. The egregious institution of slavery is not the subject of this debate, and whether or not the Electoral College played any historic role in sustaining that institution is not pertinent to the issues surrounding the Electoral College today.
The NBER has circulated a "working paper" on this topic, titled:
"How Likely Is It That Courts Will Select the US President"?
Working papers are designed to elicit comment and have not been peer reviewed.This paper is based on a University of Texas study, to which there is a link, at the link.
Bottom line, the case is made that in a close election (20,000 votes) in a single pivotal state, the probability of the national election being decided by the courts is greater than 1 in 10. In practice the EC is about 40 times more likely than the NPC to generate situations where a small number of ballots determines the presidency.
Ok, back to the topic
This proposal is unconstitutional .... but nobody ever calls it for what it is
12th Amendment ... the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice...
Not sure what that even means, doesn't even make sense - the presidential election IS the ONLY election that is held that covers the entire country in one role.
Am I missing something? Are there other elections in America with that scope? Do we have an elected national dog catcher or something?
The reason for the electoral college are explained in previous threads in this forum. I will add something however - the electoral college is a good compromise as it considers the population of a state as well as gives minority representation to less populated states. Thus CA has a whopping 55 electoral votes while Montana only has 3. State representation had to be considered as the entire structure of our government was based on a compromise between the state and federal government. The ability to compromise, something that people don't get today. See - the founding fathers were smarter than you.
Remember also, a state has the option of using a "winner take all" approach or dividing up electors by proportion of popular vote. What does your state do? If you don't agree, then take it to your state government.
I went to college. I have two degrees. I understand how the electoral college works. And I still maintain that it needs to be abolished. A NATIONAL election should not be decided by individual states. Federal laws do not affect an individual in one state more than another. So a person's vote in one state should not affect the election more than someone else's in another state.
Some things I've observed. First, the vast majority of the people who support the electoral college lean Republican. The reason they support it is because they know damn well that they would have a heck of a time winning the election otherwise. The fact is, MOST people in this country don't have the same views. Nationally elected positions should reflect that and be representative of the majority of the population. Second, I find it completely ironic that the same supporters of the electoral college, by and large, do not support affirmative action, which is pretty much the same concept. Finally, if it's so great, why isn't there a push to do the same thing on a state level? Take Pennsylvania, for example. A disproportionately huge proportion of the state's population resides in the Phila and Pittsburg areas. Why not level the playing field for the rural areas? Make an electoral system based on counties. I don't see anyone demanding that.
I went to college. I have two degrees. I understand how the electoral college works. And I still maintain that it needs to be abolished. A NATIONAL election should not be decided by individual states. Federal laws do not affect an individual in one state more than another. So a person's vote in one state should not affect the election more than someone else's in another state.
Some things I've observed. First, the vast majority of the people who support the electoral college lean Republican. The reason they support it is because they know damn well that they would have a heck of a time winning the election otherwise. The fact is, MOST people in this country don't have the same views. Nationally elected positions should reflect that and be representative of the majority of the population. Second, I find it completely ironic that the same supporters of the electoral college, by and large, do not support affirmative action, which is pretty much the same concept. Finally, if it's so great, why isn't there a push to do the same thing on a state level? Take Pennsylvania, for example. A disproportionately huge proportion of the state's population resides in the Phila and Pittsburg areas. Why not level the playing field for the rural areas? Make an electoral system based on counties. I don't see anyone demanding that.
Federal laws can effect some states more than others, it certainly does.
But, we can turn it around using your same language - the vast majority of the people who condemn the electoral college and want to go with the popular vote lean democrat. The reason is because they know damn well that they would have an easier time winning the election.
But, the pathway to winning an election works the same for whoever is running. It's a level playing field. You don't change the rules to win an election, you change the way you campaign, change your party platforms, change your candidate, etc.
I went to college. I have two degrees. I understand how the electoral college works. And I still maintain that it needs to be abolished. A NATIONAL election should not be decided by individual states. Federal laws do not affect an individual in one state more than another. So a person's vote in one state should not affect the election more than someone else's in another state.
Some things I've observed. First, the vast majority of the people who support the electoral college lean Republican. The reason they support it is because they know damn well that they would have a heck of a time winning the election otherwise. The fact is, MOST people in this country don't have the same views. Nationally elected positions should reflect that and be representative of the majority of the population. Second, I find it completely ironic that the same supporters of the electoral college, by and large, do not support affirmative action, which is pretty much the same concept. Finally, if it's so great, why isn't there a push to do the same thing on a state level? Take Pennsylvania, for example. A disproportionately huge proportion of the state's population resides in the Phila and Pittsburg areas. Why not level the playing field for the rural areas? Make an electoral system based on counties. I don't see anyone demanding that.
Agreed, as we are seeing play out today, the elections are coming down to rural vs urban, with urban areas leaning democratic. The urban areas are growing and will continue to grow. If the election was based on popular vote, the Democrats would have held the Presidency since Bill Clinton, and that is not going to change. I don't believe that there is any chance that 2/3's of the states would ratify the constitution to abolish the electoral college, especially the red states when they figure out that all elections would be decided, as previously pointed out, by the major cities.
Federal laws can effect some states more than others, it certainly does.
But, we can turn it around using your same language - the vast majority of the people who condemn the electoral college and want to go with the popular vote lean democrat. The reason is because they know damn well that they would have an easier time winning the election.
But, the pathway to winning an election works the same for whoever is running. It's a level playing field. You don't change the rules to win an election, you change the way you campaign, change your party platforms, change your candidate, etc.
It would be an improvement, under our current system president is picked every 4 years by a small minority, we call them swing states. and obviously if democrats keep winning the popular vote they must be pretty good at campaigning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal
I went to college. I have two degrees. I understand how the electoral college works. And I still maintain that it needs to be abolished. A NATIONAL election should not be decided by individual states. Federal laws do not affect an individual in one state more than another. So a person's vote in one state should not affect the election more than someone else's in another state.
Some things I've observed. First, the vast majority of the people who support the electoral college lean Republican. The reason they support it is because they know damn well that they would have a heck of a time winning the election otherwise. The fact is, MOST people in this country don't have the same views. Nationally elected positions should reflect that and be representative of the majority of the population. Second, I find it completely ironic that the same supporters of the electoral college, by and large, do not support affirmative action, which is pretty much the same concept. Finally, if it's so great, why isn't there a push to do the same thing on a state level? Take Pennsylvania, for example. A disproportionately huge proportion of the state's population resides in the Phila and Pittsburg areas. Why not level the playing field for the rural areas? Make an electoral system based on counties. I don't see anyone demanding that.
good point. I live in texas just look at the sea of red, but 46.4% of the population voted for democrats that's almost half the population of the state, a quick look at the map and you figure out almost half the population of Texas lives in just a handful of cities those blue dots surrounded by a sea of red are Austin, Houston, El Paso, san Antonio, and surrounding areas, you know, our major cities. and most of that sea of red are little drivethru towns, and far out suburbs where people drive 2-3 hours everyday to go to work in those blue dots.
Agreed, as we are seeing play out today, the elections are coming down to rural vs urban, with urban areas leaning democratic. The urban areas are growing and will continue to grow. If the election was based on popular vote, the Democrats would have held the Presidency since Bill Clinton, and that is not going to change. I don't believe that there is any chance that 2/3's of the states would ratify the constitution to abolish the electoral college, especially the red states when they figure out that all elections would be decided, as previously pointed out, by the major cities.
So you thing some guy in Buford Kentucky's vote should count MORE than some gumba in NYC?
instead of every individual persons vote counting equally.
It would be an improvement, under our current system president is picked every 4 years by a small minority, we call them swing states. and obviously if democrats keep winning the popular vote they must be pretty good at campaigning.
Democrats winning the popular vote indicates they are good at delivering a message that favors only select high population states such as California. That is not "pretty good" because of course we don't elect our president that way.
Swing states are not the only way to win. A candidate needs to change his message to "flip" over otherwise states that tend to vote one way. Trump did this in 2016. Apparently Biden was able to do this in Arizona. It's all fair.
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.
:strip_exif(true):strip_icc(true):no_upscale(true):quality(65)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gmg/NNMDIAMVONEL5GYYMQWE2YBJIE.png)
