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.
What I always find interesting about this debate on the Electoral College is that those calling for its abolition seem to always use the comparison of "why does (red state) Wyoming with the smallest population have so much more per-capita influence in the Electoral College than (blue state) California with the largest population." Just to be consistent, why not frame the question "why does (blue state) Vermont with the second smallest population have so much more per-capita influence in the Electoral College than (red state) Texas with the second largest population."
Those calling for abolition of the Electoral College -- or now, even the Senate, since it's apparently unfair in their minds that each state has two Senators -- should think about the law of unintended consequences. Just ask Harry Reid how well his decision to abolish the 60-vote threshold for federal judicial nominations worked out for Democrats.
The GOP wants it because it is the only way they can win and they know it. Gerrymandering is the same deal.
Give it a few years--as all those old people die off. The younger generations and a lot of the current generation is not interested in being ruled by 25% of the country who live in rural areas.
I think that the EC was necessary once-upon-a-time when communication across an entire country was slow and impractical.
I understand the concept, but I don't agree with the idea that a candidate with millions more votes overall should lose an election. But it's the winner-take-all system (used in all but 2 states) that disenfranchises voters from both sides and what I think should be modified, if anything. Over 1 million votes for DT in Massachusetts were for nothing, like over 3 Million votes for HC in Texas. Surely, a delivery of EC votes based on a percentage of the popular vote would be more balanced. This decision is up to the states, as it isn't outlined in the Constitution how the delegates decide their votes, just that they must have a process in place. It's not likely that heavy blue states would be willing to give up any of their votes, and vice-versa for heavy red states. But if a couple of swing states took the initiative to change the way they delegate, it could make a decent difference in either direction.
Hamilton wrote that the Constitution (and thus, the EC) was designed so that "the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" and "to preserve the sense of the people." I fail to see how the sense of the people is preserved when the presidency is awarded to the candidate with less votes overall.
You are right. "Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice." (https://www.historycentral.com/elect...collgewhy.html)
Based on Trump's election, I would say that Hamilton was wrong; the population was duped into electing an unqualified candidate. But that's just my opinion.
The real problem is not that we have the Electoral College, but how the number of electoral votes are apportioned. California, with a population of 39.5 million and 55 electors, gets one vote for every 718,000 people while Wyoming, population 579,000, gets one vote for every 193,000. This was a compromise between being a democracy with one vote per person versus a confederacy of states where every state has equal representation. It has been said to be a concession to smaller states, but it was also one of many concessions to slave states, who benefited dis-proportionally. Election 2016: The Real Reason the Electoral College Exists | Time
Let's just abolish States also. Have one big, homogenous country with just Federal Government rule. So NY, and CA can destroy everyone's lives, and Fundamentally Transform Amerika.
I just ask this though: Why is it that the party that consistently says "I don't want two states, CA and NY, deciding the outcome of the election" are the same people who want to hand the electoral results to the states with the least amount of population.
The ONLY wait to get a fair election, and to neuter the effects of Gerrymandered districts, is to have the PRESIDENTIAL election done by "one person, one vote". Take the partisan aspect away, because it can be applied to either side of the debate. Anything other than 1 person, 1 vote is ripe for abuse.
The POTUS is the P of the (entire) US. Nobody's vote should be discounted, nor overweighted, due to their residence. What is even worse, people who are in states that are not in contention are completely overlooked. I want my POTUS talking to ALL Americans. Not just the ones who will sway the election.
So explain why you would not want to have everyone's vote count equally? You should be happy right now, because CA and NY are really under-represented in National elections. (Oh wait, that is why you want to keep it that way. Nevermind.)
I would like to see it changed to each state does it proportionally plus 2 EC to the winner. That way it is not only 10 states that matter in the general election. Dems have to try in Texas and Reps have to try in CA.
No respect for our precious founding fathers and constitution.
Of course she wants to do away with it. She is extremely arrogant, socialist, NY liberal who wants massive tax increases.
Her goal is to have Denmark or Sweden level of taxation with Brazil or Venezuela quality services.
Glad that as long as Republicans have the Midwest, South, Florida and Texas that Socialist high-tax loving California and New York don't matter.
The Democrats will likely win the popular vote from here on out, but luckily that doesn't matter as only the electoral vote matters and that is likely to stay Republican.
The fact of the matter is that the Midwest and South are likely to become one big block of enough electoral votes for Republicans to win electoral vote landslides.
Republicans should do all they can to make the Midwest and South, so that Democratic votes on the coasts are worthless votes in a presidential election.
Utter Nonsense!
You do realize "our precious founding fathers", apparently unlike yourself, understood there would be need to alter the Constitution in the future and included provisions to do so in the document, right?
The reality is it's you showing no respect for our "precious founding fathers".
I love it when dems talk about the millions more votes Clinton received. In reality it's 2.2% of the 137.5+ million votes cast in 2016 which is hardly a sweeping majority. It's one large city. And in polls it's well within the MOE. This means that just about half of the voting public doesn't agree with you.
The EC worked exactly how it is designed to work. You only want to abolish it because it didn't happen in your favor.
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.
