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.
The electoral college should remain. It stops the majority from oppressing the minority. Just because the majority of people believe something doesn't make them right. The majority of the country used to believe blacks were only 2/3rds of a person; that didn't make them right. When you take away the electoral college you get a pure democracy where the only thing that matters is what the bulk of society wants. It ignores the needs of those in the minority. People just have to remember they may not always make up the majority. One day, the minority of today could make up the majority tomorrow all those people who vehemently oppose the electoral college now will be outraged later and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
Yes, because there are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond (or Staten Island) & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!
Yes, because there are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond (or Staten Island) & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country!
I answered the question wrong, you quoted me before I corrected it.
The US has evolved over the years into a democratic republic a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_republic
ELECTORAL COLLEGE
History Revisited - - -
The function of the original Electoral College was to prevent partisan politics from entering the executive branch (which was the case in parliamentarian systems - the party in control gets to fill the executive offices - prime minister and on down the line). Partisanship was acceptable in the legislative process, but non-partisan execution of the law was required.
How the Electoral College originally operated -
The local folks would select an ELECTOR (whose judgment they trusted) who would convene with other ELECTORS (in the college) to vote for two candidates - not a team. The most popular would be president, and his next most popular (and rival) would be vice-president.
If it hadn't been amended into uselessness by the 12th amendment, the E.C. would eliminate many abuses.
To name just a few:
[] Candidates for president and vice president would not need "campaign contributions" (legal bribes) nor be independently wealthy nor be picked by a political party.
[] There would be no need to campaign to the people at large - they don't vote for the candidates, only Electors.
[] There would be no incessant and annoying advertisements for candidates (and no PACs, etc)
[] Without the 12th amendment, partisan political parties would not have gained control over the appointees in the executive branch. Remember, the most popular candidate and his rival would be the P + V.P. (Imagine the "fun" with THE DONALD and Hillary?).
[] In fact, the function of the V.P. was to be an annoying "Fly on the wall", to counter any partisan or improper behavior by the Prez. That is why there were no specific duties mentioned for the V.P. in the Constitution. His original job was to be the PITA, monitoring the Prez. (“Vice” was a double entendre?)
Unfortunately, it worked too well, and George Washington disliked John Adams, (his V.P.) immensely and urged amending the operation of the Electoral College. Bad move.
Once the office was a "team vote," that implied PRIOR agreement between candidates, then power shifted to the partisan parties who fielded the teams... and made each ELECTOR pre-choose who he would vote for... which defeated the whole purpose of electing someone whose judgment you trusted to elect the COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
Possible improvements:
Instead of the Electors voting for two candidates, they can only vote for one. Again, the candidate with a majority (or a plurality) and the next most popular candidate are chosen for president and vice-president.
The E.C. can convene and hold hearings for prospective candidates to appear for public examination and scrutiny of their past behavior.
BTW - America is promised a republican form not a democratic form of government, where a majority can legally oppress a minority.
In fact, the founders did not like democracy, and only specified a populist vote for the representative for the House. The other offices were not to be filled by a popular majority vote. The state governments were to select their senators, and the Electors of the Electoral College would choose the president and vice president.
The ills of democracy are not cured by 'more' democracy.
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.
