Has the time come to abolish the Electoral College???

2015-08-01T17:13:03-04:00

What is the purpose of a popular vote by the American public IF a select group of people can negate that popular vote and choose someone else? IT HAS HAPPENED.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Aug 1 at 2015 5:18 PM

2015-08-01T17:18:49-04:00

Remember that our system was designed as a Republic, not a Democracy.
We have checks and balances on everyone, including on the people. The people are as corruptible as those in office. The electoral college is a useful check that also serves as a reminder of the existence and importance of the States. We effectively have 50 presidential elections, not just one.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Aug 1 at 2015 5:20 PM

2015-08-01T17:20:50-04:00

The EC assures us that NYC, LA, and Chicago are not the only votes that will matter............

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Aug 1 at 2015 5:25 PM

2015-08-01T17:25:33-04:00

I fear the mis guided vote of the masses, too many tend to vote for who promises to give them the most. But, at the same time, the EC can be manipulated to some degree. Hmmmm, which do I fear more?

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2015 7:20 PM

2015-08-01T19:20:48-04:00

People need to understand the wisdom of our founding fathers. The more of their wisdom we counteract the more troubled our nation will be.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Aug 1 at 2015 7:42 PM

2015-08-01T19:42:23-04:00

I think we are ignoring the Founding Fathers at our own peril. We are already well beyond the enumerated Federal powers and we are now teetering on the precipice of a tax burden on producers so great as to start driving them out of the country or to stop producing.
The purpose of the Electoral College is to make sure geographic representation in the Republic and in this case, I like the Constitution the way it is.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Aug 1 at 2015 8:42 PM

2015-08-01T20:42:03-04:00

The EC isn't perfect, but removing it would pretty much disenfranchise every "fly over state." Besides, this has only happened 4 times, the last being 2000. You do wonder how different the last 15 years would have been if Bush had lost though.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Aug 1 at 2015 9:07 PM

2015-08-01T21:07:00-04:00

No. If a state has 20 electoral votes. Using this as an example. The person with the majority gets two votes and the 18 go to the majority winner in each congressional district. Then in California we would start electing a candidate that the people want. Not someone that San Fransisco liberals want. I know democrats do not like the electoral college.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Aug 1 at 2015 9:31 PM

2015-08-01T21:31:03-04:00

No, the need to protect the many smaller, and less populous States from the large populations of a few big States is as important today, as it was when the Constitution was written.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 1 at 2015 9:42 PM

2015-08-01T21:42:38-04:00

Once again I am proud of the first responses to this question. They are the product of good citizens who understand the purpose of the Electoral College. Yes, it is absolutely necessary to give all people an equal voice in selecting the President. This is one of the few bright spots in my day which is, as usual, marred with the insanity that dominates the news

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Aug 1 at 2015 10:30 PM

2015-08-01T22:30:28-04:00

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member I said yes, but would the popular vote give all the sates a fair shot at electing the next President? Either way the biggest states with the most electoral votes are going to have the biggest populations as well and will carry the President. What are some of the recommendations for replacing it?

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Aug 1 at 2015 11:23 PM

2015-08-01T23:23:26-04:00

Yep. http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-trouble-with-the-electoral-college.html

The Trouble with the Electoral College

Script: In a fair democracy everyone’s vote should count equally, but the method that the United States uses to elect its president, called the electoral college, violates this principle by making sure that some people’s votes are more equal than others. The Electoral College is, essentially, the 538 votes that determine who wins the presidency. If these votes were split evenly across the population every 574,000 people would be represented by...

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2015 4:30 AM

2015-08-02T04:30:24-04:00

It is an archaic system that was merely set up en lieu of speedy communication. In fact it is as antiquated as putting fires atop mountain ridges and sending messages by casting bottles in the ocean.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 2 at 2015 6:32 AM

2015-08-02T06:32:55-04:00

At the very least all states should have equal votes, much like each state has an equal number of senators.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Aug 2 at 2015 1:47 PM

2015-08-02T13:47:12-04:00

Some people are forgetting that a Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2015 2:41 PM

2015-08-02T14:41:15-04:00

We are a republic, NOT a democracy. The problems that our country faces nowadays is because many, including those in government have forgotten that.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%"- Thomas Jefferson

I think it's best we heed his advice. We're already seeing the consequences of ignoring it.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2015 9:08 PM

2015-08-02T21:08:53-04:00

Yes, it is time. In the days when they couldn't tally the vote and had to have electors take the vote of their area to a central location, the Electoral College may have served a purpose, but with the technology at our disposal today, that's far from the case, and the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness, way outlived it.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Aug 3 at 2015 6:13 AM

2015-08-03T06:13:12-04:00

I have never heard so many good things about the electoral college thank you for sharing and educating me

Response by TSgt Scott Hurley made Aug 4 at 2015 7:39 AM

2015-08-04T07:39:04-04:00

The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent the large states, the states with the most population, from telling the rest of the country what it can and can not do. If it is done away with, the only states that will matter to the election are the same states that have the most electoral college votes as it stands right now. So having the electoral college prevents those states from giving the election to anyone that is popular. I know that there have been presidents that won the electoral college vote, but lost the popular vote.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 12:45 AM

2015-08-12T00:45:11-04:00

All that knowledge and research, and you still asked the question of "How can we truly be a democratic society...." And that's where I realized that you missed the boat you so desperately want to rock. We are NOT a democracy. We are a Republic, despite popular opinion to the contrary. Is the system perfect? No. But neither is a pure democracy. Keep the system, it's worked since our founding, and will continue to work in the future.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Aug 12 at 2015 12:46 AM

2015-08-12T00:46:21-04:00

Yes,the electoral vote is a democratic way to offset the general vote.

Response by CPO Joseph Grant made Aug 12 at 2015 12:59 AM

2015-08-12T00:59:40-04:00

I don't know where you were educated but never to have been taught about our electoral system really worries me. You do realize that our founding fathers tried to ensure that the smaller states populations were given protection against the larger states? I assume you understand that we are a country made up of states, actual political entities. If you want to do away with the electoral college then you need to revamp the government and constitution.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 12 at 2015 1:12 AM

2015-08-12T01:12:12-04:00

Personally I prefer a popular vote for President of the United States and the Vice President. It would great if the top two positions in the USA government were decoupled so that each person would be voted up based on their own. Since the VP serves as President if the President is killed or dies it would be great if somebody qualified on their own merits occupied the VP position versus the current system where the VP is basically brought in on the coattails of the President elect. Popular vote is good enough for each US Senator and member of the House of Representatives. Granted this would require a constitutional amendment to actually accomplish. There has been a move towards a constitutional convention and a significant number of states have already voted in favor of a constitutional convention. Once convened, the constitutional convention is generally obligated to consider all amendments which meet the requirements. COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C., LTC John Shaw, SGM Mikel Dawson, SGM Steve Wettstein, CPT L S, GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, SSgt Private RallyPoint Member SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4", SGT Randal Groover, SGT Forrest Stewart, SGT Robert Hawks, SPC Private RallyPoint Member

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 1:14 AM

2015-08-12T01:14:31-04:00

I say keep the electoral college but make it proportional rather than winner take all; but to give the states some credit, the overall winner of the state gets a bonus. That way you have the best of both worlds!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 1:31 AM

2015-08-12T01:31:41-04:00

I didn't respond to the survey because there wasn't an answer that fit.

What I will say is your vote does count. Only a couple states have ever gone against the popular majority in their state in splitting electoral votes.

The system could probably be revised, but it also works. The more glaring issue is that we have had the same two parties for what seems like forever. This is being overcome by some senators and representatives however.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 2:32 AM

2015-08-12T02:32:24-04:00

Same question I asked two weeks ago.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 3:28 AM

2015-08-12T03:28:28-04:00

This is a good discussion.

My own opinion has to side with Hamilton, why? Nationally about 10% (average, higher in some places) are high school dropouts, 30% of those that do (or don't) graduate high school drop out of college within their first year.

Let's just say that that 30% actually graduated HS, (but who are we kidding, anyone can get into college these days with enough $$) that would mean 40% of the population is uneducated as far as documentation.

Now, you may say "I don't need a stinking diploma or cert to know what's going on!" And you may be right, you may be educated and understand the inner workings of politics, but you have no real proof- in the military, everything important is documented, in law, everything follows precedence (aka- documentation). Everything we are in the big scheme of things comes down to documenting what we have accomplished. If someone is street savvy enough to know what is wrong in the world then what do they have to show for their efforts?

Now, back to my original arguement, how many of those that actually finish their degree have the meat and potatoes to back it up? Well there are no exact numbers, but only 22% of students from for-profit schools actually graduate, and over 70% of those graduates are treated the same as or worse than high school dropouts, sorry if you are a Pheonix or whatever, but your resume will wind up in the shredder once an employer sees that crap degree you have.

Of course as touched on earlier, the military counts as education. But to what extent? Yes, you are educated, but in what field? Did the Army teach you about politics? Maybe. Did it teach you what a Fillibuster is? Probably not, so it's still limited, but valuable information that can at the very least develop you critical thinking skills.

So, back to your theory that everyone's voice should be equally heard- no, they shouldn't- some people are stupid, and that's fine, let them be stupid; if you don't think people are stupid, then you need a Facebook profile- people grieved over Cecil the friggin lion more than the four Marines and the Sailor killed in Chattanooga. Do you really want their voices heard equally with yours?

If people had their way, Brad Pitt would be president as a write-in, with a turd sandwich as his VP, because a bunch of idiots thought it would be funny.

If you don't believe me, fine- Socrates, in the middle of Greece during the birth of Democracy and the father of modern philosophy can explain it better, when he explained, and I am paraphrasing of course, that Democracy as you would have it doesn't work because people fall into trends and tend to vote on what's popular rather than prudent (example: prohibition, the stupidest trend that lasted for 13 years as a friggin amendment to the constitution because too many stupid people had a voice), his reasoning? Lack of an educated public. Wow. Imagine that, I should have been a philosopher rather than a historian. He also stated that those trends would encourage the emergence of a demagogue (someone with self interests that rises to power and screws over the public for self gain, I'll let your imaginations wander for examples on that one).

Herodotus, the father of history, agreed with him "a multitude of rulers is not a good thing. Let there be one ruler, one King." And this was what the brightest minds in the most enlightened era came up with.

In conclusion, people as a whole are too stupid and Ill-informed to make such an important decision. It may disgust you, but the fact that the illiterate moron has the same voice as that of a doctor of political science disgusts me more-so. I can't even trust the dependa in front of me at the PX wearing way too much perfume to make up her mind on which shooters she's going to buy, let alone vote. If you actually made it to the end, thanks for reading, and I hope I didn't piss too many people off.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 12 at 2015 6:22 AM

2015-08-12T06:22:34-04:00

A straight Democractic system (1 man, 1 vote) is just as flawed (if not more flawed than) the Electoral College system.

The Electoral College system ensures that smaller states have "some" say in the election of our President, which if it didn't exist, they just wouldn't. Candidates would just limit themselves to major population centers and be done with it.

That isn't to say it doesn't have flaws, and can't be refined, but True Democracy is an absolutely horrible system, and there is a reason we don't have one.

The major flaw with the EC system is the "winner take all" in the States as of right now. If we got rid of that, and had proportional representation, it would likely fix the majority of People's complaints while still keeping the safeguards as intended. You wouldn't have CA or TX or NY having too much power, while RI or DE have none.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 12 at 2015 7:54 AM

2015-08-12T07:54:57-04:00

It's better than any other system anyone has come up with

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Aug 12 at 2015 9:19 AM

2015-08-12T09:19:25-04:00

Popular vote should be the decising factor and I believe they should wothhold the results until all of the states that had a chance to vote. Post the results the following day after all states from the East Coast to the West Coast have voted. Keep the press and the news out of it for a day - wishful thinking!!

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Aug 12 at 2015 9:37 AM

2015-08-12T09:37:54-04:00

Plenty of differing opinions, here is mine. Leave it alone. The system works. While it would be nice to imagine that my own particular vote counted, it would be ineffective as a Nation to vote that way, because to win, all you would need to do was campaign in the population dense areas, and boom, the dude in Louisiana, Arkansas, Rhode Island, Alabama, Mississippi, the Carolinas, Nebraska, Wyoming etc don't have a say in the election, hence the Electoral Vote. There should be no way that the Electoral vote can differ from the Popular vote of the State it comes from, that I agree with. If the State wants to vote for an idiot, then that is who the Electoral votes should go to. And in my experience, we elect idiots on occasion.

Response by SPC Robert Patrick made Aug 12 at 2015 9:52 AM

2015-08-12T09:52:12-04:00

The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The reason we are not a True democracy is so that no one group can have complete and total control over all other groups. Hence why we have the Electoral College. Each state is awarded so many votes based on their population. And each Electorate in the states cover certain cities, counties or regions of the state. Higher Populated states are going to have more electoral votes than a lower populated state. If a candidate wins the majority of the electoral votes in the state they win the state. Your vote does count. Our system is more impartial than a true democracy. Under a true democracy minorities would be at the mercy of the majority. When broken down into regions you add a bit more diversity to the votes and how each district will vote. It sucks when it does not work in our favor and its great when it does. The reality is this method keeps the country honest.

By you not voting and encouraging other not to vote you take away your power to influence what goes on in the country.

Take this into account 11.6 million people lived in Ohio in 2014, and Ohio has 18 Electoral votes. Now consider this, President Obama won Ohio with just under 2.7 million votes while Mitt Romney had just under 2.6 million votes. Now consider that that not all eligible adults voted there were about 1 million eligible voters who did not vote. That would mean that Ohio which was a close race to began with could have still went to either candidate.

The point I am trying to make is your vote does count. It is what allows our system to work the way it does allowing different parties to get elected with the changing of the times.

(I use Ohio as an example because it is my home state.)

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Aug 12 at 2015 10:04 AM

2015-08-12T10:04:52-04:00

I think you would get more voters to turn out if they felt their vote MATTERED. Because of the additional layer of the Electoral Collage, the vote does not really matter in the same way. I also believe that Voter ID should be a requirement to help prevent voting fraud.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Aug 12 at 2015 12:44 PM

2015-08-12T12:44:44-04:00

I've always pondered this question. Number 1 - I vote because if you don't vote you have no right to complain, no matter the system. Being from Idaho I've always known my vote has almost no pull in the election of the Pres. There are 4, two for each district of the state. In the popular vote the States with the most people will have the most say if done by popular vote. To me the electoral college is ok IF: Electoral voters are determined by voting senatorial districts, and each electoral person is legally bound by the popular vote of that district to vote for president as the district voted. So for each state it isn't winner take all, if the whole state voted republican except one district which voted democrat or what ever, then the electoral person of that district is legally bound to cast that district's vote for that person. In this way our votes would count.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 3:22 PM

2015-08-12T15:22:21-04:00

I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college, and can stand behind that. If we didn't, the larger states (i.e. California, Texas) would have the potential to pick the president even if the rest of the country disagreed. However, as part of this system, it should be MANDATORY that whoever is voting on our behalf to go along with the popular vote, regardless of rather they agree or not. I completely agree with you that it is bogus the way it is now. I also feel that my vote is pointless and does not matter and have refused to vote the last several elections because of it.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Aug 12 at 2015 6:02 PM

2015-08-12T18:02:53-04:00

I think that it needs to be changed. First, the electoral college representatives while supposed to vote according to who won the popular election could conceivably cast their vote a different way. Second, it seems a like it does take some of the power away from the people.

I think that what needs to happen is that the electoral votes should be divided based on the popular vote. Take Florida (I live here so it is not a slam against any past voter issues), 29 electoral votes. Say the D candidate get 40 percent of the vote, The R candidate get 33 percent, and one small party candidate gets 25% with the remaining two percent spread out among several I candidates. Then by what I suggest, 12 would go to the D, 10 would go to the R, 7 to the third party candidate. and the others who made up that remaining 2 percent would not receive any electoral votes. This way the electoral college vote would be more reflective of the actual will of the people. Apply that to Texas a R heavy state. Say the R gets 70%, the D gets 20%, the strong small candidate gets 7% and the other 3% is split among the remaining I candidates. 27 electoral would go to the R, 8 would go to the D, 3 would go to the strong small candidate, and none would go to the remaining candidates. So in those two states the Electoral split would be 37 for the R, 20 for the D, 10 for the strong small candidate. Under the current system, the R would receive all 38 from Texas, but none from Florida. Under the system I would suggest, the split would show the true will of the people. It would change the outcome of some elections. In states like Florida where more of the state geographically is conservative, but the population centers are more liberal, the divide would allow the conservative minded people to actually feel as if their vote counted toward the election rather than the winner take all system we have now.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 13 at 2015 6:21 AM

2015-08-13T06:21:33-04:00

I have been saying this same thing for years, disestablish the Electoral College and make it a truly popular vote.

However, if it were a popular vote I don't think much would change, until people change. People as a whole need to learn to think for themselves and stop voting a certain way because that's how the media says they should vote.

A few examples I can think of:

people who vote straight party tickets. Nothing pisses me off more than a person who will refuse to vote for a candidate because they're from a different political party, or will vote for a person only because of their political party. My parents voted for Obama only because he's a Democrat, even though he goes against everything they believed in.

People who vote for somebody bases solely on the color of their skin or won't vote for a person because of the color of their skin. Again I have to use Obama as an example of this. My Mother in Law voted for Obama strictly because of the color of his skin (she is black herself). I also knew a few people who "weren't going to vote for some black guy..."

People who vote for whoever their party shoves at them. Think about Hillary Clinton's commanding lead in the Democrat race or Donald Trump's own Republican race lead.

I also do not like the idea that a candidate will generally not worry about the states that only get 3 or 4 electoral votes. "Why should I campaign in Alaska? They only get 3 votes!"

But I do agree that

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Aug 18 at 2015 12:08 PM

2015-08-18T12:08:42-04:00

Yes, proof of voter eligibility being a necessity, leave it to the people to elect their representatives.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Sep 29 at 2015 3:15 PM

2015-09-29T15:15:18-04:00

The Electoral system tends to have a moderating effect on Presidential candidates. Popular vote leads to mob rule

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 29 at 2015 6:48 PM

2015-09-29T18:48:18-04:00

Good question, PFC Aaron Knapp. I say it's antiquated and should be done away with. Maybe it was necessary when people traveled by horseback. We have INSTANT communication nowadays. There is absolutely NO NEED for the electoral college.

Response by Cpl Clinton Britt made Sep 30 at 2015 9:34 AM

2015-09-30T09:34:16-04:00

It should be up to the people. That is why a lot of people don't vote because we feel that it doesn't matter

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Sep 30 at 2015 12:42 PM

2015-09-30T12:42:19-04:00

I think it should be kept but modified. The Presidential election is not, nor was it intended to be, a single, nationwide election but separate elections amongst the several states. Personally, I'd like to see the allocation process of electoral votes modified, though. Our current winner takes all system distorts the results and, in my opinion, depresses voter turnout. I think it also contributes to polarization. I'd much rather see electoral votes divvied up in the following manner; the 2 electors for the Senators go to whoever wins the popular vote in a state with the votes for the representatives being divided proportionally based upon the percentage of the total vote each candidate receives.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Sep 30 at 2015 10:52 PM

2015-09-30T22:52:03-04:00

Why cant we go back to the tried and true system where money cant buy a vote and politicians were clean and meant what they said, not just a bunch of smoke and mirrors?? May the best person win, instead of the corruptest and richest??

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 5 at 2016 11:21 PM

2016-03-05T23:21:18-05:00

Although, that is pretty much how it is already, and if you don't think so, you have a lot to learn. Popular vote could go totally in favor of one candidate, and the Electoral College can go the complete opposite direction if they want to just because they are in a bad mood.

Response by PFC Aaron Knapp made Mar 6 at 2016 4:43 AM

2016-03-06T04:43:12-05:00

Just so you know who is really picking out Next President....

Election Day is scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Who are the Electors?

What are the qualifications to be an Elector?
The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of Electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. As a historical matter, the 14th Amendment provides that State officials who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid and comfort to its enemies are disqualified from serving as Electors. This prohibition relates to the post-Civil War era.

Each state’s Certificates of Ascertainment confirms the names of its appointed electors. A state’s certification of its electors is generally sufficient to establish the qualifications of electors.

Who selects the Electors?
The process for selecting Electors varies throughout the United States. Generally, the political parties nominate Electors at their State party conventions or by a vote of the party’s central committee in each State. Each candidate will have their own unique slate of potential Electors as a result of this part of the selection process.

Electors are often chosen to recognize service and dedication to their political party. They may be State-elected officials, party leaders, or persons who have a personal or political affiliation with the Presidential candidate.

On Election Day, the voters in each State choose the Electors by casting votes for the presidential candidate of their choice. The Electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the candidates running for President, depending on the procedure in each State. The winning candidate in each State—except in Nebraska and Maine, which have proportional distribution of the Electors—is awarded all of the State’s Electors. In Nebraska and Maine, the state winner receives two Electors and the winner of each congressional district receives one Elector. This system permits the Electors from Nebraska and Maine to be awarded to more than one candidate.

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties’ nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors"; may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.

List of State Laws and Requirements Regarding the Electors
as of November 2000

Source: Congressional Research Service

The Office of the Federal Register presents this material for informational purposes only, in response to numerous public inquiries. The list has no legal significance. It is based on information compiled by the Congressional Research Service. For more comprehensive information, refer to the U.S. Constitution and applicable Federal laws.

Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2
ALASKA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA – State Law – § 6906
COLORADO – State Law – § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT – State Law – § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1)
HAWAII – State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE – State Law – § 805
MARYLAND – State Law – § 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS – Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN – State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.)
MISSISSIPPI – Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA – State Law – § 13-25-104
NEBRASKA – State Law – § 32-714
NEVADA – State Law – § 298.050
NEW MEXICO – State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA – State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO – State Law – § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA – State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON – State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA – State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT – State Law – title 17, § 2732
* VIRGINIA – State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON – Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN – State Law – § 7.75
WYOMING – State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
DELAWARE
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA

MISSOURI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH DAKOTA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
WEST VIRGINIA

Response by SSG Phil Mullins made Mar 7 at 2016 11:51 AM

2016-03-07T11:51:23-05:00

I don't believe when it come to voting for president..IT DON'T COUNT

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Mar 9 at 2016 7:52 AM

2016-03-09T07:52:35-05:00

I think the electoral college needs to be eliminated and we really need to look at how representation works and base it more on populations. Representation should be roughly equivalent to population. Right now we have low-population rural states with the same influence as states with 50 times the amount of population. I live in Northern Virginia. 9 cents out of every 10 cents of tax revenue in Virginia comes from this tiny part of the state, yet the representation does not match the population here. We should fix this.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Aug 12 at 2016 11:54 AM

2016-08-12T11:54:55-04:00

I'm sure many people will tell you why the EC is a good thing, but I agree with you. We already know elections are rigged. Look at the DNC for a good example. Some states didn't even hold a Primary and just "appointed" a winner in that state. I believe it was Oklahoma that Cruz (R) and Sanders (D) won without any type of vote.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 12 at 2016 12:05 PM

2016-08-12T12:05:36-04:00

May I suggest that you learn about a thing before you decide to destroy a thing. That thing may be good for you.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 12:11 PM

2016-08-12T12:11:39-04:00

If one would eliminate the electoral college, one might find they have created a monster they did not anticipate. Many state would have little to no say in our government.

If you are in a state where the "other" party has the voters that does not mean you vote doesn't count. It just means more have the view of the other side.

And, as stated, the electoral college does not apply in the primary election.

Want to change the system? Get involved. Find candidates that can and will represent you.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 12:20 PM

2016-08-12T12:20:37-04:00

Here is my problem with the electorial college, most canidates only target states with large EC vote counts and have little to do with states with Low EC votes. Those larger populations states are what really swing the election, not the popular vote. 95% of the time the popular vote ends up matching the EC vote but it has happened where the EC vote does not match the popular vote.

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made Aug 12 at 2016 12:25 PM

2016-08-12T12:25:57-04:00

Of course it should but it's not going anywhere. The current system where we have the EC and also with 48 states giving 100% of their EC votes to the person who wins their state has created the notion of "safe states" that can be ignored so candidates can focus on the "swing states".

If we had nationwide primaries (all states have their primaries on the same day) and did away with the electoral college it would have a HUGE impact on elections. Which is why neither will ever happen.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 12 at 2016 12:26 PM

2016-08-12T12:26:59-04:00

Every system has flaws. The issue with the EC is that it changes the value of specific votes, while a popular election eliminates the value of votes.

As an example, with the EC, the value is shifted to "swing states" whereas without the EC, there would be NO VALUE to small states.

This changes the way politicians are forced to campaign. With the current system, politicians cannot just focus on major city centers or large states, they must go to smaller and medium states.

The major issue is not that we use EC, it is that most of the states have 10 or less votes, while some have 30+ (and CA has 55). As can be seen in the 2012 election, you can win a majority of states and still lose the election. Additionally, you can have a majority of votes and still lose.

This is compounded by the "Winner take all" modality we use. "If" we were to change the EC so that it became (semi) proportional, as in Winner of the state gets 2 EC votes, and the rest were distributed based on Popular vote (so in CA, it would end up being 2 towards winner and 53 up for grabs, 60/40 split), we would see MUCH closer EC races which aligned MUCH closer with popular vote, while retaining relative value across the board.

We must remember that the system we have was based on 1800~ populations, and State count. It was never designed to work with 320M people and 50 states.

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made Aug 15 at 2016 2:49 PM

2016-08-15T14:49:15-04:00

I vote a big yes on this one senior chief look at what happens now the politicians pander to the states with the most electoral votes how many of them do you see going to Wyoming or Idaho for support rallies but look at Ohio, New York and California. they spend tons of money and time in these states. a candidate for President can win with just a few states supporting them how many times have they called an election before the polls close out west. and awarded a state to a candidate before the polls close in that state.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Aug 16 at 2016 9:25 AM

2016-08-16T09:25:28-04:00

Some history regarding the origins of our Electoral College, and why it is so important to our liberties, and also, how devastating a simple democracy is to minorities. The Framers thought, and argued long, and hard on this issue, and researched the failures of direct democracies throughout history. The fact is, it's NEVER worked, and our Framers wisely decided to NOT enact something that's NEVER worked as our model of governance, or of elections.

"Origins of the Electoral College
Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic -- or, arguably, a republican democracy -- that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government.27 Moreover, a republican government, organized on federalist principles, would allow the delegates to achieve the most difficult of their tasks: enabling large and small sovereign states to live peacefully alongside each other.

The authors of the Constitution had studied the history of many failed democratic systems, and they strove to create a different form of government. Indeed, James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unfettered majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny.Madison stated it this way:

[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.28

Alexander Hamilton agreed that "[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."29 Other early Americans concurred. John Adams, who signed the Declaration of Independence and later became President, declared, "[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."30 Another signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, stated, "A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils."31

Despite these strong statements against democracy, the Founders were also strong advocates for self-government, and they often spoke of the need to allow the will of the people to operate in the new government that they were crafting. "Notwithstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy," Virginia delegate George Mason declared, "the genius of the people must be consulted."32 James Madison agreed, speaking of the "honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."33

The delegates, then, faced a dilemma. Their fierce opposition to simple democracy ran headlong into their determination to allow the people to govern themselves -- and they knew that voters in small states would need to be free to govern themselves, just as would citizens in large states. The Founders reconciled these seemingly conflicting needs by creating a republican government, organized on federalist principles, in which minorities would be given many opportunities to make themselves heard.

The Electoral College was considered to fit perfectly within this republican, federalist government that had been created. The system would allow majorities to rule, but only while they were reasonable, broad-based, and not tyrannical. The election process was seen as a clever solution to the seemingly unsolvable problem facing the Convention -- finding a fair method of selecting the Executive for a nation composed of both large and small states that have ceded some, but not all, of their sovereignty to a central government. "`[T]he genius of the present [Electoral College] system,'" a 1970 Senate report concluded, "`is the genius of a popular democracy organized on the federal principle.'"34"
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy

The Electoral College: Enlightened Democracy

America's election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes. America's presidential election process preservesfederalism, prevents electoral chaos by creating definitiveelectoral outcomes, promotes coalition building among differentregions of the country, and prevents tyrannical or unreasonablerule. It further protects the freedom of individuals in small...

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Aug 16 at 2016 9:28 AM

2016-08-16T09:28:10-04:00

"...James Madison, delegate from Virginia, argued that unfettered majorities such as those found in pure democracies tend toward tyranny.Madison stated it this way:

[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Alexander Hamilton agreed that "[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."

John Adams, who signed the Declaration of Independence and later became President, declared, "[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Another signatory to the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, stated, "A simple democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils."

Response by GySgt Carl Rumbolo made Aug 16 at 2016 4:13 PM

2016-08-16T16:13:04-04:00

The reason the Electoral College exists is to prevent precisely the kind of imbalance that can occur when only raw popular vote is considered in a national election for President.

If ONLY popular vote is considered, an individual would only have to win a handful of states - perhaps as few as 8 - 10. This would lead to an unrepresentative election, with only a handful of states counting.

The current system, ensures that in most scenarios, even small states with a handful of electoral votes continue to be important.

As a history lesson, this is why we have proportional allotment by population within the House, and each state has an equal number of senators, regardless of population, and all bills must pass BOTH chambers to become law (assuming the bill is signed by the president). It ensures that no one state, or group of states with large populations can ride roughshod over the concerns of smaller states.

Before folks go off willy nilly advocating changes to the way elections are held and counted, it might be a good idea to have a full understanding of the history, and the reasoning behind the way things are.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Aug 16 at 2016 7:39 PM

2016-08-16T19:39:01-04:00

If you eliminated the electoral college there would never ever be another conservative President of the United States, guaranteed.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Aug 16 at 2016 11:59 PM

2016-08-16T23:59:57-04:00

YESSSSSS

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Aug 17 at 2016 12:38 AM

2016-08-17T00:38:47-04:00

No, the Electoral College was established to protect the Representative Republic form of government established under the Constitution. Our founders were rightly concerned that establishing a pure democracy would lead to mob rule with the many dictating to the few. in that vein I feel that Seventeenth Amendment was also a mistake. Senators were intended to protect state rights, toward that end they were appointed by either the governor or the state legislature, depending on the states laws. Removing them from that made them instead behooved to special interests, and greatly contributed to the ruling class environment we have today.

Yes, we need a shakeup in Washington,. no eliminating the Electoral College is not a part of the answer.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2016 12:19 AM

2016-08-18T00:19:10-04:00

No. The EC should be reformed to get rid of winner take all so that a states votes represent the popular vote of the state. I would go with a proportional system over using congressional districts since districts can be drawn to favor a particular party. Currently you only need a plurality in the eleven largest states to win the election.

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made Aug 22 at 2016 4:07 PM

2016-08-22T16:07:53-04:00

The voters of States elect representatives to cast the States' votes. The EC is critical for maintaining States' rights and autonomy.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 25 at 2016 1:18 PM

2016-08-25T13:18:42-04:00

"James Madison worried about what he called "factions," which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed "the tyranny of the majority" – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could "sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens." Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: "A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking." http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

U. S. Electoral College

The official U.S. Electoral College web site, providing current information about the presidential election, information about the roles and responsibilities of state officials and Electors, instructions for state officials and Electors, the timeline of key dates for the presidential election, information about laws and legal requirements related to the presidential election and the Electors, and Electoral vote distribution among the states....

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 25 at 2016 1:26 PM

2016-08-25T13:26:15-04:00

Maybe the Electoral College needs a make-over....

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Aug 25 at 2016 1:27 PM

2016-08-25T13:27:17-04:00

Seems like the majority of American citizens don't understand it.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Nov 10 at 2016 3:34 PM

2016-11-10T15:34:38-05:00

No, not unless you're ok with just a few states electing the president vice representative folks from every state

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Nov 10 at 2016 3:38 PM

2016-11-10T15:38:00-05:00

Why? so that the interests of the major cities and population centers can dictate the outcomes of elections, rather than that of the nation as whole? Isn't that the intent of the Electoral College? No, IMHO

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2016 3:44 PM

2016-11-10T15:44:29-05:00

If you want to increase voter fraud and LA and NYC making our countries decisions, go right for it. But that would require amending the Constitution

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2016 3:46 PM

2016-11-10T15:46:52-05:00

No. This isn't the first time the winner of the popular vote didn't win the election, and as long as we have a closely divided electorate, it won't be the last.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Nov 10 at 2016 3:53 PM

2016-11-10T15:53:38-05:00

Good Question considering Hillary Won the Popular Vote but Trump Won the Electoral College, Still not convinced I want to "Throw the Baby out with the Bathwater" but a very reasonable Question at this point when Bush Jr pulled the same trick off.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2016 4:03 PM

2016-11-10T16:03:06-05:00

No. The Electoral College keeps large states and cities from having too large of an influence on an election. The system is working as it was intended.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Nov 10 at 2016 4:19 PM

2016-11-10T16:19:47-05:00

PO2 Peter Klein, I'm not sure if this depiction is totally accurate, but it does convey the sentiments of many of your respondents and the necessity for the continuation of the Electoral College.

Response by PO1 Brian Austin made Nov 10 at 2016 4:32 PM

2016-11-10T16:32:54-05:00

No. While it has it's flaws. The large population states would have too much power to dictate an election.

Response by SPC James Harsh made Nov 10 at 2016 5:23 PM

2016-11-10T17:23:33-05:00

Defeats the purpose of having a constitutional republic

Response by SSG Jessica Bautista made Nov 10 at 2016 5:37 PM

2016-11-10T17:37:10-05:00

Why when we have things like this?

https://www.change.org/p/electoral-college-electors-electoral-college-make-hillary-clinton-president-on-december-19?recruiter=12136034&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2016 6:04 PM

2016-11-10T18:04:38-05:00

Response by PO3 David Fries made Nov 10 at 2016 6:16 PM

2016-11-10T18:16:21-05:00

Not unless you can find a better way for everyone outside of the major population areas to have a say in anything.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Nov 10 at 2016 6:19 PM

2016-11-10T18:19:46-05:00

Not unless you want CA, NY, TX, And FL picking the pres every time.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2016 7:31 PM

2016-11-10T19:31:47-05:00

If you want to know why just look at CA. One of the most liberal states in the union, but it's minority conservative population is higher than that of some 100% red states. CA conservatives are universally underrepresented and policies positive to their beliefs are rare.

Now imagine this is a national scale. Banning the electoral college ONLY benefits major urban population centers (or more simply, liberals). If the opposite were true, and conservatives ruled the cities, you wouldn't see Democrats asking to abolish the electoral college.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 10 at 2016 7:45 PM

2016-11-10T19:45:52-05:00

WOW, as of now it is 47.7 Clinton and 47.5 Trump, so because of 200,000 people we need to do away with Electoral collage, I would say no. The reason we have it is because of representation for under populated areas. I would also say they are still counting, and trump is getting closer, so why are we bitching.

Response by SFC George Smith made Nov 10 at 2016 7:50 PM

2016-11-10T19:50:35-05:00

this is a question that has Been asked for decades...
the kicker is ... if we did ... as in the last election ... those folks in 17% of the Land area, in the US would be telling the other people in 83% of the land of the US what the Heck to do... and as far as I am concerned Those Folks in the cities, Can Kiss My Grits...
I am 35 miles from a large metropolitan area... the 3rd largest Metro area in my state...
I spent the last of my savings to move here... and to get out an away fro the City people..
I don't need city dwellers trying to tell me WTF to Do... or how to do it...
.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Nov 10 at 2016 8:03 PM

2016-11-10T20:03:30-05:00

A simple no will do.

Response by SFC James Asbill made Nov 10 at 2016 11:10 PM

2016-11-10T23:10:19-05:00

Absolutely NOT ... we do not want to be ruled by a mob .. and look at what they just did .. Saved us from 4 years of Hillary !!!!!!!!

Response by SSG Mark Franzen made Nov 11 at 2016 12:52 AM

2016-11-11T00:52:20-05:00

YES IT HAS BEEN GOING ON WAY TOO LONG! GET RID OF IT!

Response by LTC Joseph Gross made Nov 11 at 2016 9:28 AM

2016-11-11T09:28:41-05:00

I wish the civilians who think we are all a bunch of losers without education could see this.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 11 at 2016 10:36 AM

2016-11-11T10:36:56-05:00

So weird this question only seems to come up when the election doesn't go the Democrats' way. How about we just go back and forth on it in whatever way benefits the Democrats most? Just in case at some future date, the Republicans win the popular vote but Democrats win California by a slim margin or something like that. And here's another bonus: If the Democrats win a state, well, then that will be winner take all. But if the Republicans win a state, well, then the only fair thing to do would be proportional distribution of those electoral votes. That way, Democrats could still go through the motions of having elections but without the inconvenience of actually losing and having to turn over the government. Who's on board?

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Nov 11 at 2016 11:21 AM

2016-11-11T11:21:42-05:00

In order to do that it would require a Constitutional Convention, but I am OK with that as long as it is after January 20th and the Trump team is in place. May want to check out the way to get this done considering the way the last election turned out. We could clean up a lot of ambiguity in the constitution and its amendments. Not directed at you PO2 Peter Klein, but a general comment.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 11 at 2016 11:49 AM

2016-11-11T11:49:56-05:00

My favorite response to this question still remains "But then where will people go to become an electrician?"

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 11 at 2016 11:52 AM

2016-11-11T11:52:06-05:00

No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU&sns=fb

Do You Understand the Electoral College?

Do you understand what the Electoral College is? Or how it works? Or why America uses it to elect its presidents instead of just using a straight popular vot...

Response by SPC Kenneth Koerperich made Nov 12 at 2016 4:24 AM

2016-11-12T04:24:24-05:00

Asking this question tells me you know nothing about Politics, or you wouldn't have asked it.

Electoral votes are so no 2-4 super populated area's EVER control the appointment of the POTUS. Otherwise it would never be fair to the rest of the populace just because we aren't living 20 people per inch...

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2016 1:43 PM

2016-11-12T13:43:27-05:00

It empowers states other then California, Florida, New York and Texas to have a voice. It's similar to the Senate where every state obtains 2 votes.

Response by ENS Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 12 at 2016 1:59 PM

2016-11-12T13:59:31-05:00

Absolutely not. See how the gross majority of the United States is Red? Without the electoral college, HRC would have won with "popular vote" by a meme 100,000 votes out of a population of 330M. The cities have the grand majority - yet they do not come close to representing the United States as a whole. This is why we have the electoral college. The electoral college allows EVERYONE to have a voice. Believe me, the opinions, beliefs, and policies of the CITY do not reflect nor benefit those of the Americans in the rest of the country. Without the electoral college, the cities in California, New York, Texas, and Florida would be the only opinions that matter.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2016 11:45 PM

2016-11-13T23:45:54-05:00

What would be the motivation behind removing the Electoral College? Did they not serve their purpose in the election? Why do you think there IS a time to get rid of the Electoral College?

Response by CW2 William Jones made Nov 15 at 2016 5:16 AM

2016-11-15T05:16:35-05:00

For a long time I would have agreed with you that the Electoral college needed to go away, but then It was explained to me why it is in place. Places like LA and New York have a large concentration of people whereas states in the middle of the U.S have significantly smaller populations. If there was no electoral college, the candidates would simply have to campaign in the big cities and the rest of the country would not be heard.

Response by LT Frank Hernandez made Nov 15 at 2016 6:23 AM

2016-11-15T06:23:04-05:00

We need to continue using the EC! It was very clear in this election that the majority of the STATES want to elect President Trump. The States would loose their power to determine a president and that wouldn't be in their best interest. The majority of the time we still have the winner of the EC and the popular vote win the presidency.

Response by SGT Matthew Schenkenfelder made Nov 15 at 2016 7:18 AM

2016-11-15T07:18:41-05:00

https://70news.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/final-election-2016-numbers-trump-won-both-popular-62-9-m-62-7-m-and-electoral-college-vote-306-232-hey-change-org-scrap-your-loony-petition-now/

FINAL ELECTION 2016 NUMBERS: TRUMP WON BOTH POPULAR ( 62.9 M -62.2 M ) AND ELECTORAL COLLEGE...

Final #Election2016 numbers #PopularVote: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750 #ElectoralCollege vote #Trump 306 #Clinton 232 Update: Anyone asking where I got the figures, it was f…

Response by SGT Jody Beach made Nov 15 at 2016 7:23 AM

2016-11-15T07:23:06-05:00

No it is not ..... I use to think that until I did a little studying on it. It gives every community a fair chance. I mean it would be the same thing as saying isn't time we got rid of non commissioned & commissioned officers. Why not just have one rank system?

Response by Marlene Hessler made Nov 15 at 2016 7:25 AM

2016-11-15T07:25:18-05:00

The need for the electoral college is likely more valid today than when it was enacted.

However, numerous states could benefit from distributing their electoral votes on either a county or area basis such as I believe Maine does. In my homestate of New Jersey, 5 counties voted Clinton and 16 went for Trump. Unfortunately, the cities are in those 5 counties. Even if 100% of those in the 16 counties voted for Trump, effectively our votes did not count. They never do. I will venture an educated guess that those voters in the 16 counties pay most of the taxes that support a very high percentage of the voters living in those innercity areas. Yet, we get no say in how those tax dollars are spent because of the disproportionment. Does that make any sense to anyone? You pay the highest property taxes in the country, one of the highest sales taxes in the country, and now are one of the highest gas taxed states in the country and the people getting your tax dollars tell you how much, when, and where those dollars will go. You get little if any benefit from them. That's not representation in my book. Maybe there are other states that could also benefit from such a change. New York for instance. Most of their counties are in upstate New York and it is largely rural farmland. They pay and pay and New York City votes are the ones that overrule them every time.

Should the recipients be able to overrule the people working and paying the bills?

Response by PO2 Thomas Bodine made Nov 15 at 2016 7:27 AM

2016-11-15T07:27:11-05:00

This has been a source of discussion since John Quincy Adams won. Hasn't happened yet. The Politicians won't push it through and two thirds of states approving it is very difficult.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2016 7:33 AM

2016-11-15T07:33:18-05:00

ABSOLUTELY! I think that the People in NYC and LA are WAY better at deciding how I should live my live... God forbid those hicks in rural America get a voice in how they are governed.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2016 7:35 AM

2016-11-15T07:35:41-05:00

PO2 Peter Klein let's consider California and Washington DC. California has a population of 37 million, and 55 electoral votes, or 1 vote for every 672,000 people. Washington DC has a population of 500,000, and gets 3 electoral votes, or 1 vote for every 166,000 people. (Just one of the more ridiculous examples of Washington DC's lying license plate slogan, "Taxation without representation.")

The electoral system was set up to insure small states had a voice. Without it, candidates might never be seen in Wyoming, Kentucky, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island.

However, as LTC Stephen C. pointed out, big cities are where people gather, who want a government handout. The voices of those who work for a living are being shouted down by those who vote for a living. Big cities are also where the news media resides, making them even more Liberal than they might be if they had reporters living in Pigwaller, Arkansas.

Surely you don't think direct election by popular vote is the answer? We need something better, but not that. But I do think it's time we found a way to magnify the voice of those who pay for our spendthrift government over those who receive benefits from the government.

Response by Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns made Nov 15 at 2016 7:51 AM

2016-11-15T07:51:31-05:00

The Electoral Commission, College, was created temporarily by Congress to fix the dispute of the presidential election of 1876. It has never gone away, 15 people decide and how much more evidence you need where the people appear quite justified not to vote when 15 people decide. Many argue that this is the most vital and inalienable right of all Americans but if we can't then it is nothing more than a controlled one.

Response by Col Bobby Bomber made Nov 15 at 2016 8:04 AM

2016-11-15T08:04:05-05:00

http://dailysignal.com/2016/11/14/how-the-2016-election-proves-america-needs-the-electoral-college/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWm1RMk0yUTBNemRqTUdOayIsInQiOiI1aEVRWGcyNE5zcWpOWFdkQW5hOWhsOEtIdVY0MDR6R3hxRzJhMGxpUG5pbW92MTFtYzhhMHhONXFhU2FoRWN2KzZjdjVINnZVeTQ2ZzI0MFZQRzd4Z2ZxUjhaRUNkbGV3ejlOUTVTZVB2QT0ifQ%3D%3D

Why the 2016 Election Proves America Needs the Electoral College

The rash call to dismantle the Electoral College that has been the model of stability over two centuries could do enormous damage to the United States.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2016 8:22 AM

2016-11-15T08:22:31-05:00

YES !!

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Nov 15 at 2016 8:32 AM

2016-11-15T08:32:11-05:00

No, its part of the Constitution. It has only been used 3 times for certain that I could find to decide the election. There are no popular vote records in existance until the 1824 election so we'll never know about the earlier years. 3 times in 45 elections is not a bad record.

Response by Cpl Joshua Caldwell made Nov 15 at 2016 8:58 AM

2016-11-15T08:58:04-05:00

No it most certainly is not a good idea to get rid of the electoral college. The electoral college is the mechanism that the founders put into place to ensure that the small states get a voice in choosing our President. Without the EC, California, and Texas would choose most of our leaders.

Response by CAPT Lawrence Olsen made Nov 15 at 2016 9:02 AM

2016-11-15T09:02:36-05:00

The Framers of the Consitution were wise well beyond their timeframe! They recognized that a direct democracy is little more than mob rule, wherein voting is driven more by passions than by critical thinking.

Response by Col Jeffrey Swegel made Nov 15 at 2016 9:10 AM

2016-11-15T09:10:08-05:00

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2016 9:27 AM

2016-11-15T09:27:07-05:00

This is a military forum not a place to discuss politics.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2016 9:30 AM

2016-11-15T09:30:25-05:00

I've been consistently saying the EC should be ditched since Bill Clinton was still in office, purely since it is a decidedly un-democratic institution. But to delve into this, let's look at things differently: what is the EC's actual purpose, as opposed to its effect? I ask it that way, because contrary to common opinion, they are not the same.

Many people claim the EC's purpose is to give more power to rural areas -- especially the larger segments often referred to as "flyover country." This is wrong. That was never the purpose, however it is a major effect in today's world.

The *purpose* of the EC was to separate off the act of voting for President from the actual population. It served as a buffer; a middle-layer of competent, politically-connected individuals who could act as a check on the more base instincts of what was at the time a largely uneducated populous (and yes, even the white landowning males who could vote were largely uneducated at the time). The founders simply didn't trust the citizenry as a whole to be able to vote intelligently, but still needed their input, so the EC allows the political machine to correct a horrible mistake by voting differently than the state itself did.

As we have a larger voting bloc due to various forms of suffrage over the years (basically, the fact that you don't have to be explicitly a white, landowning male to vote anymore) and as the basic education and literacy of the nation has drastically changed, that purpose for the EC simply doesn't exist anymore.

The "effect" of the EC is a different matter: it gives more power to rural areas *specifically because* it mirrors the Senator and Representative layout, which itself grants more power that way. But that effect was never the "purpose" of the EC (which should be evident from the fact that the Constitution specifically leaves it up to the states to decide how their electors shall be decided). The only information we have for why the EC votes modeled Congress's distribution, however, was because then they didn't have to invent another system that would itself be fought over endlessly 9and remember, the Constitution's passage wasn't a foregone conclusion, so having less to fight over would be important). Anyway, in granting power unequally, regardless of its purpose, the EC is a serious violation of the principle of "one person, one vote" as some votes simply count more than others, which is not in any way fair or equitable treatment.

But it gets stranger, because the effect today wasn't even the same effect as it was back then. The nation was smaller, and the "flyover" areas weren't even parts of the nation at all.

So if the "effect" today was different from the "effect" before, what was that "effect" before? Well, we can answer that by the fact that it mirrors the Senate/House for its votes... what that means is that the "effect" of the EC at the time of the founding is directly a result of the "purpose" of the divided houses of congress. Both the Senate and the House are not well-representative of the one-person one-vote philosophy either (when you consider the body as a whole -- from the individual state perspective it can be depending on implementation), so we can't say that either the purpose or effect was fair and equitable representation. What they were representative of was a still-ongoing debate over federalism, and the at-the-time question of slavery. The Senate's purpose was part of the founder's way of dealing with the federalism issue, and remember that Senators weren't direct-elected at the time either, so they never represented a will-of-the-people aspect at all. As for the House, we must remember that the 3/5 compromise was directly an issue of apportioning the House with reflect to slavery. So, the effect of the EC at the time (as opposed to the effect now) was to give disproportionate weight to slave states. Again, I remind that the effect of the EC is not the purpose -- I don't want to be misconstrued as saying the EC itself was designed to benefit slavery, it simply had that result on account of other decisions.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2016 9:37 AM

2016-11-15T09:37:13-05:00

NO! This explanation by George Friedman lays it out clearly. I fully agree with this explanation but did not summarize it because it's complete and clear. The only segments not included are those which make direct reference to the current political situation. However, I have included all the parts that address the question at hand. All added emphasis is mine.:
[The Electoral College] …has attracted criticism, but the system was designed to hold the country together.
[edit]
…The president of the United States is not elected either by popular vote or even by the mathematics of electoral votes. Presidents are elected by electors – these are the people voters actually cast their ballots for on election day. All electors are selected by the parties to whom it is assumed they will be loyal. But legally, their vote is theirs and they are empowered by the constitution to use their judgement as they see fit.
The founders chose this method, and I think it is a pretty good one for a number of reasons. First, it has to be remembered that the United States was not founded as a democracy. Leaving out all those who originally were unable to vote (slaves, women, men without property in many states), the founders created a republic. A republic is a system in which voters do not govern directly, but select representatives to speak for them. The representatives are not bound to slavishly uphold public opinion, but to exercise their own judgment. They face periodic elections, every six years in the Senate and every two years in the House of Representatives. Initially there was another layer — the state legislators selected senators. State legislators were elected by the people and answerable come next election day. The people’s voice was intended to be heard, but moderated by passing through filters.
The founders wanted filters because they feared that passions could arouse the public, and national policy could become hostage to these passions. Therefore, they wanted men (always men) mediating between public opinion and national policy. They also expected these men to be of substance and property, with much to lose from error and also more difficult to corrupt. [edit]. In addition, such men would not see public service as a career, and could act without fear of being voted out of office. Their livelihood was not to depend on election. They were answerable to the public, but did not fear or worship public opinion. Therefore, the founders did not believe in direct democracy at all. They founded a republic, a very different creature. [AP NOTE: a constitutional republic]
The electoral college is derived from this original conception of republicanism. The founders were trying to solve a serious problem with this system. They did not want a parliamentary system. Parliaments made the executive and the legislature one. They wanted the executive and Congress to check and balance each other (and do they ever). Therefore, having the legislature pick the president wouldn’t work. They needed another institution.
The founders didn’t want political parties as they feared factionalism. They never anticipated the two party system, which presents voters with basically a binary choice and minor parties on the margins. What could have occurred, and what might yet occur, is complete gridlock — a situation with many viable candidates, none with the majority of the popular vote or the majority of electoral votes. Who could solve this problem? An entity was needed that could negotiate, compromise and create a coalition to elect a president by majority. These people had to be free to change their votes in the course of negotiations. If even then no decision could be made, the election would be decided in the House of Representatives, as it was in 1824. This would mean that one branch of government would be selecting the other branch, but this is only a last resort, since it was the last thing the founders wanted. The electoral college was created to solve political deadlocks without making the president a prisoner of the House of Representatives.
The founders did not opt for direct election of presidents because they opposed direct democracy [AP NOTE: which is essentially mob rule by a majority] and supported representative government. But there was another reason as well. The United States was a coalition of sovereign states. That’s why it is called the United States. Each state is required to have a republican government, but the United States is not a direct compact with the people. “We the people” are the foundation of the Republic, but the states are the legal foundation. The states wanted to be assured that one state would not override the interests of the others and no state would be completely excluded from consideration. Assume for a moment that one state had developed tremendously and contained over half the population of the United States. Assuming for this argument that they would all vote for the same candidate for president, the smaller states would be disenfranchised. Larger states could ride roughshod over smaller ones.
The states wanted to make certain that they would not be excluded. Therefore, each state was given two senators, regardless of size, and in one house of Congress all states were equally powerful. In the other house, representatives would be apportioned by the size of the population. The House of Representatives, elected every two years, would represent public opinion. The Senate would represent the interests of the states (regardless of population), limit the passions of the people by blocking the House, and make it difficult for the president to propose measures, make treaties and ratify appointments. The Senate was supposed to impose barriers and limits on the president and House. In the European Union, equality and unanimity between members is critical, but the United States chose a much more sophisticated system, combining a deep democratic process, with mediating layers to limit or block public passions.
The electoral college gives each state electors equal to their two senators and the number of representatives apportioned to them. No state has less than three electors, and therefore any state potentially can determine an election, and all regions, no matter how lightly settled, must be considered. Since any state might make the difference in the electoral vote, every candidate must consider each state’s interests.
The United States is a vast nation with highly differentiated interests. From the beginning, the founders were forced to face the fact that holding the nation together required concern for the interests of all states, and not only for those densely settled. A pure democracy would consider the nation’s interests as a whole. The founders were aware that the nation was not a whole, although all regions were needed. Assume, for example, one state holds the country’s entire reserves of a crucial resource, but has a small population. In a direct democracy, its resources could be distributed to other states and compensation ignored. That would breed hostility and secessionism, perhaps even civil war. In any event, in a nation of united states, where all states are needed for geopolitical reasons, their interests have to be recognized.
The system the founders produced compels all candidates to pay serious attention to underpopulated states. In this election, highly populated states like California, Texas and New York overwhelmingly supported Clinton or Trump from the beginning. Smaller states like Nevada or New Hampshire became important. Without the electoral college, the idiosyncratic interests of small states would receive little notice, while a broad national marketing campaign, insensitive to significant regional differences, would decide the result. The centers of population along the two highly populated coasts, where many dismiss “flyover” states, would never have to face the realities of Michigan, Wisconsin or Nevada. In this election, flyover states were able to stun coastal America. They could not do that without the electoral college.
The United States is a geopolitical invention. The 13 original colonies were very different from each other. As the nation expanded westward, even more exotic states became part of the union. Constantly alienating smaller states through indifference could undermine the national interest. The Senate and the electoral college both stop that from happening, or at least limit it. Any state can matter in any election.
You might charge that this is undemocratic. It is. It was intended to be. The founders did not create a direct democracy for a good reason. It would have prevented the United States from emerging as a stable union. They created a republican form of government based on representation and a federal system based on sovereign states. Because of that, a candidate who ignores or insults the “flyover” states is likely to be writing memoirs instead of governing.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2016 9:42 AM

2016-11-15T09:42:10-05:00

No It's not we are not ruled by a democracy we are a democratic republic. The Population centers do not rule the entire country.

Response by MCPO Tom Miller made Nov 15 at 2016 9:43 AM

2016-11-15T09:43:36-05:00

That would be diaster to our republic! Most of our population resides within big cities! Small states would lose all representative and the power would lie in cities like NYC, Chicago, LA and farmers, miners and all others would never have a voice. As a republic we all have better representation with the elector college. Powerful influences and big money would run the country by controlling high population areas and 90% of unpopulated, rural and small states would never have any voice and freedoms would slowly disappear!

Response by MSgt Dave Burke made Nov 15 at 2016 9:52 AM

2016-11-15T09:52:38-05:00

Contact your Congressman and ask them to submit a bill to amend the Constitution and see how it goes.

Response by MSG John Bales made Nov 15 at 2016 9:59 AM

2016-11-15T09:59:50-05:00

If not for the Electoral Collage, Hillary would President Elect!

Response by LTC Mark Beattie made Nov 15 at 2016 10:12 AM

2016-11-15T10:12:55-05:00

Absolutely NOT!! The Electoral College was in part set up to ensure ALL of the states, not only the large states or most populous states, count during the election of the President. The United States is a Republic, not a Democracy. They are identical, except within a Republic the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. In a pure democracy 51% beats 49%. In other works, the minority has NO rights. The minority only has the privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority. In the struggle to form our Nation, the smaller states demanded this aspect. If this component of our Nation was changed, it would be very destructive and likely be the beginning of the country imploding. We "pledge" allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the "REPUBLIC" for which it stands..........it is not a pledge to a democracy.

Response by Sgt Jamie Whitehead made Nov 15 at 2016 10:21 AM

2016-11-15T10:21:42-05:00

Checks and balances 101

Response by LT Michael Watson made Nov 15 at 2016 10:35 AM

2016-11-15T10:35:19-05:00

Only if you want your president to be the choice of the major metropolitan areas on either coast.

Response by TSgt Tom Goodwin made Nov 15 at 2016 10:35 AM

2016-11-15T10:35:27-05:00

No. It was put in the constitution to prevent one party rule. Small states like Rhode Island, Delaware, or states with Low populations would have not say in the presidential elections. States with large populations would elect the presidents and we would wind up with a long list of corrupt leaders who are out there to line their pockets with our tax dollars. Plus there are signs that one of the major political parties has tried to rig recent Presidential elections in their favor. For example there are news reports that large numbers of people who because of their lack of citizenship are not allowed to vote have indeed voted. The Electoral College helps prevent the election of a president for life by a half dozen states.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Nov 15 at 2016 10:42 AM

2016-11-15T10:42:13-05:00

No!

Response by SFC Arai Pooley made Nov 15 at 2016 10:44 AM

2016-11-15T10:44:46-05:00

No. Only someone who doesn't understand our system would think so.

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Nov 15 at 2016 11:02 AM

2016-11-15T11:02:14-05:00

Look at Illinois Senatorial election...Duckworth won only a handful of Counties...Kirk won 102 Counties.. but she won... she got the Chicago and East St Louis counties and therefore, we are stuck with Durbin and Mini-Obama-ite Duckworth. I'm 63 and this has come up after each Presidential election by the losers. Our Founding Fathers were incredibly smart...or aliens...not sure.

Response by PO2 Peter Klein made Nov 15 at 2016 11:13 AM

2016-11-15T11:13:15-05:00

Thank you all for your responses to my question. It seems almost all of you remember your civics class from high school. I was not trying to stir things up but rather get a read of opinions. It looks like the College is here to stay. Besides it would take a long time to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Response by Capt Joseph Olson made Nov 15 at 2016 11:32 AM

2016-11-15T11:32:56-05:00

No. It forces the President to be a leader for ALL of America not just 5-7 states. It is an important balance just like the House (population) vs. the Senate (each state gets 2).

Response by SPC Tom Clark made Nov 15 at 2016 11:35 AM

2016-11-15T11:35:56-05:00

No, historically states came together voluntarily to form a union. All power resided in the states that was not specifically named and ascribed as belonging to the federal government. Under the guise of the Commerce Clause of the constitution more and more power has been accumulated to the federal government. As you recall, under a compromise, The Senate was designed to give more power to the states and the house was designed to give power based on population. This fits in well with the
Electoral College which separates the electorate based on states but gives more electoral votes to states based on population. Government at the local level is much more responsive to the issues of a local populace than a one size fits Federal Government where states have the flexibility to make their own choices, within the boundaries of the law and the Constitution. I genuinely believe the way the founders conceived of the Electoral College was brilliant and reached the perfect balance. Our modern politicians do not compare to the wisdom of our founding fathers.

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Nov 15 at 2016 11:55 AM

2016-11-15T11:55:25-05:00

Absolutely no. The electoral college forces candidates to forge a consensus across regions, states and issues to become elected. A pure democracy would allow a single interest group i.e. urban areas to enforce it's will on the rest of the people i.e. rural. A little simplistic perhaps, but the specific reasons have been well covered in other posts.

Response by A1C Lloyd Box made Nov 15 at 2016 12:11 PM

2016-11-15T12:11:56-05:00

No. This part of the Constitution is necessary to continue the ideal of a Representative Republic.

Response by MSgt Joe Marcom made Nov 15 at 2016 12:35 PM

2016-11-15T12:35:36-05:00

No, for two reasons: In the heat of the moment, you can get a simple majority vote for almost anything, then regret it. And without the Electoral College, the few major population centers on the East and West coasts would totally control the elections, because candidates would ignore the rest of the nation. This is why the College was established in the first place.

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made Nov 15 at 2016 12:45 PM

2016-11-15T12:45:19-05:00

No. Without the Electoral College, candidates would spend all of their time and effort in the big cities. The East and West Coasts would be the centers of attention, along with a few big cities in the middle of the country. For the rest of us, it would be "The Hunger Games" come to real life. The big cities would get all of the money and support, and the majority of us in "fly-over country" would pay taxes at gunpoint and be starved of any benefits. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our Constitutional Republic. A system based on majority rule with no protections for the individual or the minority is mob rule in a coat and tie.

Regards,

Hugh Blanchard
MAJ, U.S. Army (Ret)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2016 12:52 PM

2016-11-15T12:52:36-05:00

To answer your question on the electoral college no it is not time to dispose of it it is however time to get rid of career politicians and lifetime pay for serving as little as 1 term of office, and there should be term limits of no more than 2 terms of office to any elected position during the life of the elected official and a cut in pay for all congress and senate seats to that of the average soldier paid only while seated in session, and no more entitlements for being in congress all must abide by the same rules and regulations and congress cannot vote themselves a pay raise it must be approved by a general election. We also need to get rid of all the liberals and liberal teachers in our schools and colleges, go back to teaching the golden rule and having the Pledge and morning prayer everyday of school, make English the only language for all documents and applications for goods and services nation wide, outlaw Sharia Law in the United States, Recognize that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, stop bowing down to this abomination of the LGBT movement and allow any establishment to refuse service to anyone if it is against their beliefs, reinstate the draft, and go by birth gender stopping the men or women from entering opposite gender restrooms a boy or man means male gender only women or girl means female gender only, enforce the constitution and all emigration laws stopping all refuge cities and the dream act illegal means illegal if you want any rights enter this country legally, stop all refuges from muslin countries till they can be background checked and verified on their beliefs, anyone stepping on a flag or protesting flying a flag from a foreign nation be arrested and thrown out of this country

Response by SPC Jamie Smith made Nov 15 at 2016 1:30 PM

2016-11-15T13:30:52-05:00

Only If we want California,chicago & DC area making all the laws.

Response by LTC Todd Coulson made Nov 15 at 2016 1:33 PM

2016-11-15T13:33:37-05:00

Absolutely not! We can never allow 10 to 15 states with over population to determine the future for all. It works!

Response by CAPT Charles Weishar made Nov 15 at 2016 1:33 PM

2016-11-15T13:33:58-05:00

No. It was put in place for good reasons that are still valid.

Response by SPC Jamie Smith made Nov 15 at 2016 1:36 PM

2016-11-15T13:36:59-05:00

The same experts that claim Hillary won the popular vote, are the same ones that said she would win by a landslide. Also fraudulent votes are hard to detect, especially without photo IDs required to vote.

Response by SPC Steven Gauthier made Nov 15 at 2016 1:37 PM

2016-11-15T13:37:56-05:00

The Electoral College is a system by which the populations of less populated states are given more a more equal representation and balance to the large populations of highly populated states. It seeks to preserve states rights and protect the minority against the dangers of majoritarianism or a national, populist movement.

Federalism was the guiding principle for each constitutional article. How to balance power between the states and a national government. How to protect the minority from the majority, how to ensure individual rights and individual liberty from the tyranny of a monarchical ruler. This is illustrated clearly in the bicameral Congress - The House was designed as the ONLY body to be elected popularly – to give people a direct say in who represents them, Senators were to be chosen by the legislators of their respective states to give the states legislature a power check against the national government.

Likewise, election of a President utilizes the same guiding principle of Federalism – every vote matters in every state as it directly controls the Electoral votes of that state thereby giving BOTH the people and the state power in selecting the president. The Electoral College preserves federalism under a constitutional republic and avoids the inherent dangers of majoritarian democracy that has doomed other societies.

The Presidential candidates do not, and never have been running to win a majority of the NATIONAL popular vote. They have always been running to win a majority of the popular vote in EACH state. Effectively, they are trying to win 50 individual state elections (plus the District of Columbia).

Electoral College in Baseball terms.
Let's equate Runs to the Popular Vote.
Let's equate Games to States within the Electoral College system (assuming that each game/state has an equal population (e.g. congressmen and senators) and therefore an equal number of electoral delegates). In this case, we'll pretend that's 3 (the minimum)
In the 1997 World Series the Cleveland Indians scored 44 runs = 44 popular votes.
The Florida Marlins scored 37 runs = 37 popular votes.
HOWEVER, The Marlins won 4 games = winning the majority in 4 states = 12 electoral votes.
The Indians only won 3 games = winning the majority in 3 states = 9 electoral votes.
You can see here that the Marlins WON the World series 4 games to 3 and and the electoral college delegate count 12 to 9 even though they had 7 FEWER runs/popular votes than the Indians.
If we dump the Electoral College and apply national vote rules to the World Series, The Indians would have won the 1997 World Series 44 to 37 and TIED the Cubs in 2016 at 27.

The national total of popular votes is an interesting statistic, but that's all. Do know that your vote DOES COUNT. It counts as you try to get your state majority to select the delegates for your candidate. There are significant and important reasons why we are the UNITED STATES of America and not just one large land mass outlined by a national border devoid of state and county borders. States matter. Extensive historical research, sound philosophy, and an innate understanding of human behavior guided the framers of our Constitution. These were the most educated men on the governance of mankind ever assembled.

A National Popular Vote (NPV) comes with enormous complications from state to state voting rules, national recounts (a former FEC chairman once noted that six recounts may have been necessary since 1880 had a NPV been in place; Think Florida 2000 on a nationwide scale), incentives for voter fraud (a few thousand fraudulent votes may not swing the Electoral College and Is near impossible to coordinate nationally, but could easily turn an NPV toward a chosen candidate), dilution of votes with multiple candidates and a possible plurality without majority (i.e. 1 of 5 candidates gets highest vote total at 35%, wins, but clearly has nowhere near a majority). There MIGHT be solutions to these problems, but I am VERY leery about tossing out a successful election system until ALL these issues can be countered. Moreover, an NPV would have to be implemented via Constitutional Amendment and I don’t expect that will happen anytime soon.
In 1824, 1876, and 1888 the popular vote winner did not win the election, and yet, in 2016 the Electoral College system stands. We the people ought to research and think long and hard on the ramifications of changing this system before running off to sign petitions or lobbying our representatives to write an amendment just because we didn't like the result of an election.

I don’t believe blowing up the Electoral College (federalism) and replacing it with a NPV (democratizing) is the solution to the problem at hand. Reorienting ourselves towards Federalism IS the solution. The 17th amendment was a step in the wrong direction, it compromised Federalism and has led to 100+ years of a federal power grab. Congress, reacting to national populists’ ideas because they are ALL popularly elected, continues to enact legislation that strips rights from the people, steals power from the states, divests its own authority, and instills it into an ever-growing executive – everything the founders had feared. Instead, we ought to be talking about blowing up the 17th amendment, reaffirming ALL the Bill of Rights, and educating the populace on the importance of federalism, their individual rights, and governance by state and local authorities. Yes, BOTH parties are responsible for this mess. This federalism path also leads us towards the Article V convention of states process whereby the states can work towards the restoration of fundamental protections and control of the Fed as it’s clear that neither of the two major parties want to do it in Washington.

Response by CPO Greg Frazho made Nov 15 at 2016 3:08 PM

2016-11-15T15:08:40-05:00

It may be time to look at it in the context of a constitutional convention, but I don't see the EC going away anytime soon, if ever. It would require an amendment that would have to pass supermajorities in both chambers of Congress and the vast majority of state legislatures, which I don't see happening, at least not in my lifetime.

Response by SrA Bruce Kersman made Nov 15 at 2016 5:35 PM

2016-11-15T17:35:52-05:00

INFATICALLY YET !!! I' been saying it for years ever since that mind-f@#! in Florida; thanks Bush !!!

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Nov 15 at 2016 5:57 PM

2016-11-15T17:57:34-05:00

I've never agreed with its existence sense I first learned of it. Even though having it gave us the end result I wanted this time; I still think it should be abolished.

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Nov 15 at 2016 6:17 PM

2016-11-15T18:17:04-05:00

Sp4 Byron Skinner…The straight forward answer is NO. As weird as it is it works. Most of the responses below I agree with and all have part of the reason. The only one missing is that the framers of the Constitution though that the typical American was an idiot and incapable of casting a sober intelligent vote. So they invented the Electoral Collage which still preserved the power of the large states but gave disproportionately more power to the smaller states. The number of electro votes is based on the two Senators and congressmen. The Electoral College voters are chosen by the state legislatures. If the 2016 election was a purely popular vote the President Elect would be Hillary Clinton by as of last Friday over 400,000 votes. California, New York, Texas and Florida have political power but when it comes to electing the President that power is dampened by the at least three votes every state has.

Response by 1SG John Highfill made Nov 15 at 2016 6:52 PM

2016-11-15T18:52:27-05:00

no the electoral college prevents mob rule it evens the playing field

Response by Sgt Frank Sumner made Nov 15 at 2016 6:55 PM

2016-11-15T18:55:13-05:00

Have been reading through the thread... my brothers have been universal in their understanding of why we need the EC.... I have nothing to add. Proud of you all!

Response by SPC Brian Stephens made Nov 15 at 2016 8:05 PM

2016-11-15T20:05:40-05:00

NO. It preserves the sovereignty of each state.

Response by CPT Gary Griffin made Nov 15 at 2016 8:11 PM

2016-11-15T20:11:46-05:00

No.

Response by Keith Weber made Nov 15 at 2016 8:15 PM

2016-11-15T20:15:15-05:00

Time to go by a percentage of the vote. If you get 60 percent of the vote, you get 6 out of 10 votes if a state had 10 electoral votes.

Response by MSgt Ronnie Kelly made Nov 15 at 2016 8:43 PM

2016-11-15T20:43:07-05:00

Maybe not entirely, but changes should be made. When the founding fathers decided on it, they could have not forseen the magnitude of the population today. The original population worked for them, but now, the population demands equal representation. Articles I recently read suggest something like increasing the number electors, such as having 1 elector per county or parish. This would in effect have ruffly the same effect as the number of votes per state, but with representation of the entire state, example, say state has 100 counties, but the elector votes are from 10 counties. The other 90 counties feel they are not represented. So in the sprit of every one's vote should count, this would be a more equitable method.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 15 at 2016 9:55 PM

2016-11-15T21:55:35-05:00

The first point is that we are not a democracy. Contrary to some stories, our country is not a democracy. The United States of America is a democratically elected Constitutional republic. As such, we indirectly vote for our representatives and government. We vote for electors in each state and based on those electors vote according to the rules governing the state's process of allocating electors. For most states, it is 'winner take all' in some the electors are apportioned. This process was devised to provide balance between the highly populated states and the less populated states. Without this balance, we would have a popular (majority rules) election and the presidential candidates would only campaign in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Ohio and North Carolina and Virginia. These highly populated states would have an overwhelming influence on the outcome, while the other states would lack the population and draw to be involved or meaningful in the decision of who leads our government. For that reason, we are not a democracy.

Response by MCPO Kurt Stauff made Nov 16 at 2016 12:55 AM

2016-11-16T00:55:25-05:00

No. The Electoral College was set up as a firewall against democratic tyranny.

Response by Sgt Jerry Genesio made Nov 16 at 2016 1:06 AM

2016-11-16T01:06:43-05:00

Yes. This is the fifth time in our history that it has blocked the candidate who won the popular vote. In this most recent election, about half-a-million votes didn't count. That's not democracy by any definition. If we're going to claim to be a democratic nation, then every vote should count and the candidate winning the popular vote should win the election. If we're going to peddle democracy abroad, we should be practicing it at home.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made Nov 16 at 2016 1:26 AM

2016-11-16T01:26:39-05:00

I use to think so. The electoral collage was up to prevent tyranny by population. Let New York State be an example. Hillary Clinton carried New York State, and yet she only won 13 of the 62 counties in New York. New York city has two thirds of the states voters, the other third residing in the rest of the state. Financially the city is doing great, the rest of New York is in ruins. Syracuse leads the country in vacant store fronts. In Rochester there are streets that aren't cleared of snow in the winter because no one lives in the houses. We've all heard about how bad it is in Detroit. Buffalo is the second poorest city in the country. I've driven through Buffalo, there are blocks of abandoned buildings and vacant lots. The electoral collage was set up to prevent this from happing on a country wide scale.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2016 1:41 AM

2016-11-16T01:41:28-05:00

I'm sure everuone heard this a;ready. If we get rid of it, all a candidate has to do is camp out in the major population areas/states and never worry or have to visit the small flyover states. Wyoming for example with their small population would never be counted

Response by Cpl Vic Eizenga made Nov 16 at 2016 2:05 AM

2016-11-16T02:05:16-05:00

no we need it

Response by SPC Tom Walsh made Nov 16 at 2016 2:22 AM

2016-11-16T02:22:05-05:00

Is it time to get rid of the Electoral College?
No. The electoral college system spreads presidential votes more evenly than raw population density would allow. But I'm not a big fan of the winner take all approach to the current version of the system as practiced in 48 of the 50 states.

Response by PO2 Mike Vignapiano made Nov 16 at 2016 9:10 AM

2016-11-16T09:10:40-05:00

This is only the 5th time out of 45 where someone was elected POTUS and didn't win the Popular vote. That's a 89% success rate. You want to trash something with that high of a success rate?

Response by LTC Gregory Davis made Nov 16 at 2016 10:27 AM

2016-11-16T10:27:37-05:00

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 16 at 2016 10:31 AM

2016-11-16T10:31:36-05:00

No. The electoral college, if understood, is genius. It was designed to keep large states (Virginia at the time) from overwhelming small states (Rhode Island) in an election. If the popular vote decided elections, the candidates today would need only concentrate on five or six states and the hell with the others.

Response by SSG Wayne Work made Nov 16 at 2016 10:45 AM

2016-11-16T10:45:30-05:00

So it might be time to get rid of you as well. It's funny how when Obama one "TWICE" and was doing a crappy job you liked the system back them but now when you can't get you Traitor, Criminal and a ton of other even worsts things all you liberals start to wine (do you want some cheese with that wine or just a really big vomit bag to wine into???)

Good luck Mr. Trump and keep your head down for the fist few days. Hell. when Obama got the Pres position they pulled all of the SSD off money laundering and had to hire more.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Nov 16 at 2016 11:24 AM

2016-11-16T11:24:02-05:00

No.

Response by SSgt Michael Cox made Nov 16 at 2016 11:54 AM

2016-11-16T11:54:45-05:00

I would say keep the electoral college but change it. If you get rid of the electoral college all you have to do is win California, Florida, and New York to win the election. What we really need to do is change it like I believe Maine did and make it so that the electoral vote is split between urban and rural so that a large city like Seattle doesn't decide a state like it did in Washington State when all but four counties voted republican this year.

Response by CPO Nate S. made Nov 16 at 2016 12:26 PM

2016-11-16T12:26:13-05:00

This is why EVERYONE K-12 and 13-16, should be required to take and pass a CIVICS & AMERICAN GOVERNMENT course! They should also understand the reasons why James Madison, studying the various political systems of the day, knew that BALANCE was needed.

He knew that concentrations of populations, could also overshadow the greater good, which is why you have to have a popular voting process in order to INFLUENCE the Electoral College vote. The popular vote remains important when the majority across the ENTIRE nation, and not just concentrated in a few population centers is how elections (at least national ones) are designed to be won! Getting both the majority of popular votes that also yields the majority of electoral votes as Reagan did was a mandate. When a figure (politician) wants to only use the popular vote, people can be left out is rural areas. The question is the few population centers elect leaving out those spread out then not everyone is FREE. (Note: I think in an earlier version of this post I may not have been clear, which is why I have edited for more clarity.)

People simply don't know, as Winston Churchill once remarked to a reporter when asked a question with his response being - "Sir, you don't know you own bloody history" and in this case for those asking to abolish the EC they don't know their own bloody history or why, beyond the popular "privileged gentry theory" so often spouted by those whose understanding our system is somewhere below whale poop on the ocean floor.

If one really studies the Founders, they were flawed men seeking to go beyond them to create "a more perfect union" by working as they knew they would have to do in order to overcome not only their own personal shortcomings, but those of their fellow patriots in order to actually achieve - "a more perfect union."

These words by Thomas Jefferson, a flawed man are a true today as they we some 240+ years ago:

- Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

- Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.

- I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

Quotes at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html

If the LEFT is ever successful in eliminating the EC, those on the left will not have too long to wait until they begin to SCREAM they want it (the EC) back. At that point, it will be too late!!! At that point, we will not, as a nation, have either the moral or other appropriate high ground to stand one as it will be like the quick sand that is often tyranny sucking the life out of us in the "sound of silence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Dg-g7t2l4)" when completely covered by the quick sand if ignorance.

Again, those who lack an understanding of history are bound to repeat it. We cannot allow educated or uneducated ignorance to prevail. Our goal is to know! If you have a PhD or a HS Diploma, as a citizen of this nation you (I) are charged with knowing and understanding why our system is designed the way it is.

We as current and former veterans have to remember our duty to stand firm to protect our nation from ALL ENEMIES - foreign and domestic. That even means the ignorance of our FELLOW citizens.

A little Lee Greenwood as a reminder - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH61hFsma24

Everyone in this thread gets it, not we have to help others get it!!!

Thomas Jefferson Quotes - BrainyQuote

Enjoy the best Thomas Jefferson Quotes at BrainyQuote. Quotations by Thomas Jefferson, American President, Born April 13, 1743. Share with your friends.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Nov 16 at 2016 12:31 PM

2016-11-16T12:31:48-05:00

NO. The problem is too may people are uneducated, or maybe they do understand it and know the few largely populated areas can control the nation. The founders of our country were very smart in this regard. As it is, every state has a say. If they want to get rid of the Electoral College, then we need to get rid of the Senate as well. Both represent equal representation. Did we act so childish when Obama got elected?

Response by SFC Robert Strickland made Nov 16 at 2016 2:10 PM

2016-11-16T14:10:37-05:00

Of course not. The Founding Fathers did not want a dictatorship by the majority. That's the reason we have a nation bi-cameral legislature, i.e. House and Senate. The House is represented by population and the Senate is represented by equal votes of each state.

Response by Sgt Patrick Bolwahnn made Nov 16 at 2016 2:42 PM

2016-11-16T14:42:40-05:00

No, our founding fathers knew that a popular vote would lead to tyranny. The places that are low in populations would never have a say in government. This is only the 5th time in our history that the popular vote did not coincide with the electoral vote. I think that is a good record.

Response by Cpl Rob Wheeler made Nov 16 at 2016 4:10 PM

2016-11-16T16:10:19-05:00

Response by PO1 Tc1 Uscg made Nov 16 at 2016 8:53 PM

2016-11-16T20:53:13-05:00

Just because the outcome is not what we like, doesn't mean we need to scrap it. Had someone else won, would be be having this discussion? So, there must be a reason WHY we have the EC as the goto for electing our president, why was it established to start with. We need to stop this acting like a 5 year old everytime something doesn't go our way. As much as I do not like the lady, Megan Kelly said we are turning into a "cup cake" nation and the protesters who were out in the streets are not protesting, they are throwing a temper tantrum. I have to agree. But hey, it's their right to "protest". But get over it and move on. This changes nothing nor should it. People laughed at Gore for the very same reason. Now it's an issue?

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2016 4:10 AM

2016-11-17T04:10:42-05:00

It's long overdue. I think that to be fair to the rest of the States who are electing a President of the United States, that all votes should count and the winner is by the popular vote by starting with the farest State first from the West to the East.

Response by SPC Michael Mead made Nov 17 at 2016 6:00 AM

2016-11-17T06:00:09-05:00

It may seem somehow undemocratic for the Electoral College to determine the winner in presidential elections instead of the popular vote. In reality, its wisdom is profound. Think about it:
A given state has so-many electoral votes, based on its population. A simple majority of that state's votes will determine which candidate will have those votes, so even a unanimous vote in that state won't give him any more. So the state's voice is heard nationally, regardless of him many votes are cast there. But what of the smaller, less populous states? Without an electoral college, their voices would soon be drowned in a deluge of votes from densely populated states & cities. Candidates would have no reason to address the issues pertinent to, say, South Dakota. He could simply kow-tow to Ca, NY, Fl, etc, wrap up enough of their voters, disregard Nebraska, and win. With the EC, every state gets heard, and so candidates have to win the less populous states' votes also. Every state gets a seat at the table.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2016 2:08 PM

2016-11-17T14:08:53-05:00

No.

Response by PO1 Gregg Mundy made Nov 17 at 2016 11:08 PM

2016-11-17T23:08:54-05:00

Thank you LTC Curlee.

Response by TSgt James Carson made Nov 18 at 2016 11:19 AM

2016-11-18T11:19:11-05:00

Read up on the Electoral Collage. You'll see the founding fathers were so very wise. If only we today were so smart. We have gotten so soft and lazy and have become my way or the highway bunch of spoiled brats, that we will sell out this countery. Sometimes life doesn't go as you would like. If you were actually in the military, you would know and have lived with it.

Response by SFC Charles Temm made Nov 18 at 2016 6:03 PM

2016-11-18T18:03:00-05:00

no...seems like we get this every time someone loses a close election.

Given how the popular vote is heavier in urban areas for instance, w/o the College we'd have a nation where presidential elections would be won or lost in a handful of tiny counties.

What we should do however is increase representation in the House from it's current 1 per 1.5m (rough est) to one in line w/ Art 1 Sec 2. That would increase the odds urban areas would get heavier but not disproportionate electoral votes.

Response by SPC Jeremy L. Duncan made Nov 19 at 2016 11:38 PM

2016-11-19T23:38:13-05:00

Negative. The US is a republic. Not a democracy..

Response by SPC Sean Martin made Nov 20 at 2016 8:31 AM

2016-11-20T08:31:17-05:00

With all do respect Mr. Klein, that is NOT the answer! You do know why we have the Electoral College? So no more need to be said!!

Response by PO1 Vince Shavico made Nov 21 at 2016 9:54 AM

2016-11-21T09:54:26-05:00

If I may add, that she may have received less than 1 million more in the popular vote. The Virginia Governor pardoned 67000 felons specifically so they could vote. A cursory examination of the voter Database showed that at least 3 million illegally voted. Do you think they voted for Trump?

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Nov 22 at 2016 3:15 PM

2016-11-22T15:15:21-05:00

no.

Response by MAJ Christopher M. made Nov 23 at 2016 5:46 PM

2016-11-23T17:46:37-05:00

No!

Response by MSG Don Burt made Nov 24 at 2016 3:38 PM

2016-11-24T15:38:51-05:00

No it's not any time for such a thing to happen...The Founding Fathers simply did not have faith that the people would pick the most qualified candidates to govern the new, young nation. And if you look at what has been happening since our election, that statement explains why we do have and should keep the college.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Nov 25 at 2016 2:22 AM

2016-11-25T02:22:24-05:00

No! It is needed now more than ever. This current election is one good reason why it is still valid. Take away the electoral college and you have New York, L.A., San Francisco and Chicago determining the results of all national elections. All this bruhaha now over it is just sour grapes by those on the left.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Nov 26 at 2016 1:58 PM

2016-11-26T13:58:53-05:00

No, it needs to remain in place, if not, like others have pointed out, a small percentage of the country would basically rule the elections based on "their" political affiliations one way of the other, essentially rendering our election process all but dead.

Response by CPL Larry Bezemer made Nov 29 at 2016 9:01 AM

2016-11-29T09:01:14-05:00

All it takes is 34 states agreeing with you.....should happen the same day O-Bammy becomes the Duchess of York (or the day after).

Response by SSG Jim Laning made Dec 1 at 2016 11:55 AM

2016-12-01T11:55:49-05:00

Let me add this:

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 & 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) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

Response by Jessie R. Smith Jr. made Dec 1 at 2016 6:38 PM

2016-12-01T18:38:23-05:00

No. Up until my mid twenties, I did not understand everything about the Electoral College. It seemed like an impediment to the majority. After I started reading about it and reading about consequences I realized that our founding fathers were pretty sharp. Sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. I don't like when totally liberal laws and bills get passed, just like liberals do not like it when conservative laws and bills get passed. One set of people do not need to be serfs to another, even if one set of people have beliefs that they feel are better. The Electoral college evens the field in this country.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 2 at 2016 8:43 AM

2016-12-02T08:43:10-05:00

There are 3,141 counties in the United State

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. 2 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & 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 that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.« le

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Dec 5 at 2016 4:02 PM

2016-12-05T16:02:36-05:00

No.

Response by PO2 Mike Vignapiano made Dec 7 at 2016 9:46 AM

2016-12-07T09:46:29-05:00

According to this poll, definitely not.
http://patriotnewsdaily.com/gallup-poll-electoral-college-more-popular-than-ever/

Gallup Poll: Electoral College More Popular Than Ever

A new Gallup survey shows that support for the Electoral College system is stronger today than it has been in many years. Following a controversial election tha

Response by SGT James Colwell made Dec 8 at 2016 12:03 PM

2016-12-08T12:03:55-05:00

Absolutely NOT!!! A pure popular vote only works in a pure democracy. As we have seen throughout history, any "pure" form of government is fatally flawed. Our representative republic is not perfect, but it is teh best we have seen, and the EC is a critical component.

Response by PO1 Gregg Mundy made Dec 8 at 2016 12:10 PM

2016-12-08T12:10:44-05:00

I don't think we need to start second guessing the Constitution of the United States. I agree with what these gentlemen before me have said. If we start changing the Constitution, in any way, shape or form, that will open the door for more and more changes we (as people of the USA) are going to regret down the our future road. Just for ref. US Constitution Article 2 Sec. 1

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 13 at 2016 9:24 AM

2016-12-13T09:24:47-05:00

I found this interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90RajY2nrgk

Adam Ruins Everything - Why the Electoral College Ruins Democracy

All men are created equal, but their votes sure aren't. Adam explains how location impacts your voting power. Subscribe: http://full.sc/1s9KQGe Watch Full Ep...

Response by SSG Steve Isaacson made Dec 27 at 2016 5:26 AM

2016-12-27T05:26:25-05:00

I thought the same way until I found out that Hillary wold have won if we did not have the Electorial College, and that my friend would have been a disaster...

Response by SGT Tom Lippert made Dec 27 at 2016 6:59 AM

2016-12-27T06:59:32-05:00

Umm no

Response by SSgt Ray McCaslin made Dec 27 at 2016 9:32 AM

2016-12-27T09:32:35-05:00

The short answer to the question is no. I find it amusing that there are some how think they could actually accomplish a constitutional amendment to do this. I have one question for those who are entertaining this idea. Name the 38 states it would take that would be willing to give up their significance in selecting the president of the United States?

Response by SSG Paul Carrier made Dec 27 at 2016 9:52 AM

2016-12-27T09:52:19-05:00

No, it serves the purpose the founders created it for.
To prevent a tyranny of the mob.
A fine example of why it is needed can be found in the state of Oregon where three or four counties decide who the governor and other state officers will be, effectively disenfranchising the other counties.

Response by SGT George Duncan made Dec 27 at 2016 10:34 AM

2016-12-27T10:34:42-05:00

WHY SO WE CAN HAVE COMPLETE MOB RULE?

Response by SFC Gary Pike made Dec 27 at 2016 10:37 AM

2016-12-27T10:37:31-05:00

Giving power to elect the President to only a handful of states doesn't make sense. Two-thirds of the states wouldn't matter and would NEVER see the candidates going forward. Even if it was abolished, as soon as Republicans began winning the Popular Vote, Democrats would call for it's return. It's about results, not the needs of the nation.

Response by COL Eric Rojo made Dec 27 at 2016 11:11 AM

2016-12-27T11:11:12-05:00

no, unless we want to change our concept of the republic and the union as we know it. The mindless liberals are clueless as to the consequences of their simplistic pronouncements just because as delicate cup-cakes they do not like the results of the election.
doing away with the electoral college also eliminates states rights and we become one amorphous republic with no traditions, no state pride, the senate becomes irrelevant, and probably the house of representatives.
also, the liberals are not considering that in the so called blue states that claim the majority votes" not counting" in this last election, is that their fantasy change may backfire since probably many republicans in NY and CA will no longer stay home and make sure their vote is counted for a change.
if we want better and fairer representation, the states (who really control de elections) must change the 'winner take all" system to one similar to my home state of Maine that awards proportional electoral votes depending on the votes gained by each candidate.
i believe this is what needs to be changed. however, the liberals who control the urban blue states will never do it. Why? they know they will be the losers

Response by CPL David Markham made Dec 28 at 2016 5:45 AM

2016-12-28T05:45:52-05:00

Absolutely not, if it was popular vote one or two large states would dictate outcome for of the United States..

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2016 10:16 AM

2016-12-28T10:16:59-05:00

PO2 Peter Klein The long answer is 'NO'!

Response by A1C Charles D Wilson made Dec 28 at 2016 10:17 AM

2016-12-28T10:17:15-05:00

No. The electoral needs to stand.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. 3.1 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 1.1 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) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.

Response by CPL Howard Conover made Dec 28 at 2016 2:05 PM

2016-12-28T14:05:24-05:00

While the electoral college has been around for awhile it may be time to revamp the voting process in a more favorable way for what the majority of the American People want. Definitely need to do something about the campaigning time frame.

Response by GySgt William Hardy made Dec 29 at 2016 9:53 AM

2016-12-29T09:53:22-05:00

The idea of the Electoral College once again proves the necessity and worth of the concept. It is a part of the original writings and is an outstanding concept. It amazes me that our Forefathers came up with the concept which as proven its worth time and again.

As far as our educational system is concerned, Civics or Political Science is taught in high school, but it has been reduced to a Freshman level class which basically means it is an easy class. In my state it is a required class, it is not on our list of classes that require the "exit exam" as in other classes and it should be. What we need to do is to keep US History at the Junior level and raise the Civics class to the Senior level and toughen the curriculum. We also need to include it the required classes that have exit exams.

On more thing, we need to raise the standards on those exit exams as well. Ever since the Democrats and Republicans decided that we were not doing a good job educating our kids and decided to initiate various programs to raise our scores and graduation dates, we have gone downhill even more. Let me explain...I have over 30 years experience in education as a Social Studies teacher at both the Middle and High School levels. What happened is that we lowered the scores to elevate our grades and graduation rates. The exit exams in Social Studies/History is a mere 30%. That is a raw score for passing. Out of 100 questions, you only have to get 30 correct. Hate to say this, but I have had border line mentally challenged kids who guessed their way to a passing grade. In all of my years teaching US History, I only had 1 kid who did not pass...just 1...that is how easy it is. It makes our stats look good, but we are graduating unprepared kids into the world.

This isn't a brag, but I had a standing policy with all the high school classes I taught (I also taught computer classes, General Math, and a few other high school classes). Each year that there was a local, state, or national election, every kid who register to vote showed me their voter registration card got an automatic 100. The 100 could be used as a "free pass on any test except the mid-term or final exam, or it could be used as a substitute grade for any lower grade they had. If the actual election took place, I gave them a 3X5 card which had to be signed by the officials at the voting station. They then also got an additional free 100. I tried to use these opportunities to discuss political matters and the importance of voting.

WE NEED THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made Dec 29 at 2016 1:24 PM

2016-12-29T13:24:29-05:00

The Electoral College was established at the beginning, as the way, established by the Constitution, we elect our presidents. Currently there are 538 members, appointed by their individual states, with a majority of 270 required to elect a president. The number is determined, in part by population as Article II section 1 states the number of electors shall: "...equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:..." BTW, most do not realize this, but there is absolutely no Constitutional requirement for the popular election of the President, or of electors, nor does the Federal Government have any say over the process. Again from Section 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct ...." Constitutionally, the only role Congress plays is to designate the date of the choosing of electors, the date when they shall vote, and the date when said ballots shall be counted by the president of the Senate, i.e. Vice President.

Note, the how they are appointed is entirely up to the individual states, and for good reason. as we live, not in a democracy as many are taught in school, but a Constitutional Republic. Our founders were very aware of the dangers of a pure democracy, as well as the dangers of a too powerful central government. What they chose was a republican form of government, where most of the power resided in the individuals or the state.

The Electoral College, like the bicameral legislature, was put in place primarily as a compromise. The large states wanted legislature, etc. determined by population, which would of course give them most of the power, while the smaller states wanted all represented equally, the compromise of course was a Senate, the two members of which were originally not elected but appointed by the states, and the House where membership was determined by population. The EC votes are equal to the total number of each states legislative delegation. For example my tiny home state of Vermont gets three, two for each Senator, and one for it's sole Representative. while California receives two for the senate and 53 for it's congress persons for a total of 55. Again to emphasize the main point, they can distribute them winner take all, as most states choose to, in proportion to the popular vote of the state, or as Maine does somewhere in between. (Maine has 4 votes, two go to the overall winner, the other two are apportioned by popular vote.)

Much of this can be gleaned through a casual reading of the Constitution, and various articles, but to really understand the thoughts and reasons took a lot of time studying the events leading to our Constitution, the Constitutional Convention itself, and the writings of our founders ... OH, and BTW, it also took a lot of "unlearning" of the facts I was taught in HS and college.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Dec 30 at 2016 10:25 AM

2016-12-30T10:25:04-05:00

PO2. I think we should leave it alone. It has serviced us well for over 200 years. In frack leave the Contitution alone period. If Congress writes a law that against the Contitution declare it null and void. Same for the President. Enforce the laws.

Response by A1C Brad Hilton made Dec 30 at 2016 2:26 PM

2016-12-30T14:26:28-05:00

Getting rid of the electoral college would put elections in the hands of New York and California, that should be enough to scare anybody!

Response by CPO Manny Perez made Dec 31 at 2016 12:47 PM

2016-12-31T12:47:28-05:00

No, if we did away wit the Electoral College the larger states would always determine the presidential race. The founding fathers in their wisdom foresaw that even as early as 1776.

Response by CAPT Charles Weishar made Jan 5 at 2017 12:49 PM

2017-01-05T12:49:51-05:00

I am somewhat surprised that this debate is still simmering in this website after so many clear explanations have been given establishing the clear, legal necessity for the Electoral College system.

Response by CPO Manny Perez made Jan 12 at 2017 2:58 PM

2017-01-12T14:58:50-05:00

No, not ever. We don't want big cities to determine our politics.

Response by MCPO George Rebman made Jan 18 at 2017 1:55 PM

2017-01-18T13:55:15-05:00

Not at all. It's intended purpose could not be more evident in the last election. With out it, the only people who would be represented would be the high concentration populations like New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle and a few others. The County by county map of red and blue wins are dramatic. We are a republic, contrary to what many think.

Response by PO2 Matthew Denico made Jan 24 at 2017 11:15 AM

2017-01-24T11:15:29-05:00

No! if the Electoral College goes the only states that will elect the POTUS will be NY, FL, CA, and TX

Response by SP5 Rich Upton made Jan 24 at 2017 3:17 PM

2017-01-24T15:17:17-05:00

Absolutely not. It is one of the keystones making us a Democratic Republic.

Response by FN Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2017 8:03 PM

2017-01-24T20:03:23-05:00

No !!!We are a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy ... The electoral college was designed to give the little guy a voice .. If we didn't have it the most populated states would dictate the rules for everyone..

Response by SPC Kelly Grindstaff made Jan 25 at 2017 4:43 AM

2017-01-25T04:43:37-05:00

No it is not time to get rid of the Electoral College that would defeat the Purpose of this being a Constitutional Republic. It would make this into the Mob Rules ask the Romans how well that turned out...oh yeah they disintegrated. Look at the countries that are Quote democracies and how they are set up and see how the mob rules. Most of Europe is like that and its getting worse each election cycle.

Response by 1SG Leon Espe made Jan 25 at 2017 7:54 AM

2017-01-25T07:54:59-05:00

No!

Response by SP5 Phil Stanley made Jan 31 at 2017 7:36 AM

2017-01-31T07:36:22-05:00

No, our forefathers put the electoral college in place to prevent civil war when one faction try's to force upon minority's that which they don't support.

Response by LCpl Stephen Arnold made Feb 1 at 2017 12:29 PM

2017-02-01T12:29:46-05:00

I live in California; I walk, dine, work, and hang out with Californians. Believe me, you do NOT want to get rid of the electoral college. You do not want Des Moines turning into Sacramento!

Response by Steve Smith made Feb 1 at 2017 1:44 PM

2017-02-01T13:44:22-05:00

From a Civilian - I am impressed by the majority of these well educated and informed answers. It seems to me that the majority of people that want to abolish the Electoral College are those that live in large population centers that expected Hillary to win and were shocked to find Donald Trump as our nation's President. I also find it ironic that the Electoral College worked perfectly for the elections of 1994, 1996, 2008, and 2012 (President Clinton and President Obama) but not for 2016. Which has some how changed in constituency to be predominantly Republican. I think that it is clear that these voters simply decided that one candidate now represented their interests in this election more than the other.

Based on commentary that I've seen all over Social Media, online and televised media outlets, it seems as though the impetus to remove the Electoral College from our Constitution is a response that eliminates logical reason in favor of strong emotions and a visceral reaction to the Republican candidate. Hence the justifications for electing Hillary Clinton based on the fact that she won the popular vote and appeals to the Electorate to "vote their conscience" or force a non-vote of 269 Electoral College votes so that the House of Representatives would then elect the next President. Even though as many of you have pointed out, that is not how the system works or is even designed to work. If the Founders wanted the popular vote or members of Congress to elect the President of the US, that's what they would've built.

While I did not vote for either candidate, I personally believe that the Electoral College is a tool vital to the survival of the Republic and works exactly as intended. Changing it or removing it would not serve the Republic.

Response by Lt Col Darren Venters made Feb 2 at 2017 12:54 PM

2017-02-02T12:54:00-05:00

The Electoral College representation is the same as the representation in Congress. Membership in the House of Representative is adjusted every 10 years, base on the census, to have equal representation, I.e. One person one vote. There are 2 Senators for every State giving Eula representation for ach State.

Response by Cpl Glen Bradley made Feb 2 at 2017 1:24 PM

2017-02-02T13:24:02-05:00

Over my dead body. That would destroy the United States and replace it with the United Cities of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, and the rest of us slaves to them. NO! A thousand times NO! Just as much as I will fight to defend the Second Amendment, I will likewise fight to defend the electoral college. Μολων Λαβε!!

Response by MSG John Bales made Feb 2 at 2017 4:48 PM

2017-02-02T16:48:02-05:00

Then California and New York will elect every President.

Response by MAJ David Parr made Feb 8 at 2017 7:51 AM

2017-02-08T07:51:49-05:00

No! Otherwise only a few states would control the whole country...

Response by SrA Mark Santelia made Feb 8 at 2017 8:48 AM

2017-02-08T08:48:13-05:00

No. Puts to much electoral power in the hands of largely populated states whose culture, economies, and other dynamics are unique to the state and not representative of the unique needs of other states.

Response by SSG Randall Speck made Feb 9 at 2017 2:51 PM

2017-02-09T14:51:29-05:00

No! If we go with the popular vote then the Large Cities, and/or states will always determine the election. The smaller states, and rural America would never have their votes matter. I feel the best way to determine an election is count the counties won, not states. This would make everything more fair with the counties surrounding a larger city having a voice as equal to the city's. Currently President Trump would have still won the election since most counties went for Trump. Of course one side or the other would bicker and moan over this as well!

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2017 12:02 PM

2017-02-16T12:02:36-05:00

You'll get what we have in NY State, We have a whole state with the majority of Upstate New Yorker Republicans or Right leaning BUT the millions of liberals in NYC control the vote and the State. All the Left has to do is camp out in NYC and register liberal voters by promising them more entitlements and they win, no need to campaign. They would do the same in every state like they tried in 2016. The blue on the map shows the counties won by Hillary. Look at all the Grey area and the people living there that would be ignored. Each blue area is a metropolitanarea with the highest amount of those receiving entitlements, highest crime, highest illegal immigration count, voter fraud and state and local government money. Oh, the majority of the cities in the blue areas are also Sanctuary Cities. The Electoral College was created to make sure states with smaller populations have a voice in electing the president.

Response by TSgt James Carson made Feb 23 at 2017 2:46 PM

2017-02-23T14:46:17-05:00

I say the Electoral Collage should stay. As a conservative I saw the other side win because of the ELECTORAL COLLAGE TOO. It's time the left grew up and see a doctor or something. Their behavior is so childish. And to think they wil get to lead this great country again some day. We can be assured our country is in deep trouble then. President Trump has to obey the Constitution, NOT allow the judges to make law as has happened for eight years. Get a grip and get on with life.

Response by CPT Larry Hudson made Feb 27 at 2017 5:08 PM

2017-02-27T17:08:03-05:00

Absolutely not. Electoral college keeps the field level between high populated states and those states less populated. Doing away with the college will allow states to Lord over other states.

Response by SFC Gary Pike made Mar 2 at 2017 2:42 PM

2017-03-02T14:42:40-05:00

Thankfully, the idea of a Constitutional Amendment to remove the Electoral College from Article II will NEVER happen. For those who are uneducated about the electoral process will learn that by eliminating the Electoral College, we would be removing at least two-thirds of the states from the process, as only a handful of large states will be needed to win the presidency. Small states like Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Deleware, Montana, Iowa, Kansas, etc, will no longer be needed and will not see candidates, as all efforts will be focused on the 'relevant' states. Anyone who thinks that is an effective way of electing our President, you don't live in an 'irrelevant' state.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Mar 13 at 2017 9:01 AM

2017-03-13T09:01:08-04:00

NO! I for one do not need or want California and New York determining the outcome of every damned election. Additionally, I seriously doubt you will find 34 states to pass it.

Response by MSG James Hughs made Apr 20 at 2017 2:43 PM

2017-04-20T14:43:20-04:00

I hear this cry often....usually because the people crying do not understand WHY the founding fathers created the Electoral College.... Benjamin Franklin was against "one man ; one vote" democracies....he equated it to "two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch" ....a process that would leave half the nation without a voice in government.... just in the last election....without an electoral college only a small part of California and a couple of large metropolitan areas would control the entire nation WHILE the people in most of the other states would have no voice..... the "needy and greedy" (wolves) would run the nation. The electoral college is vital to the nation

Response by 1SG Leon Espe made Apr 20 at 2017 5:58 PM

2017-04-20T17:58:47-04:00

No, because the majority is not always right. There are times when the minority needs protection from the unfair actions of the majority. Without the Electoral College we might still have slavery. KEEP THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!

Response by TSgt James Carson made Apr 24 at 2017 4:20 PM

2017-04-24T16:20:25-04:00

NO, NO, No, it's not. People in less densely populated areas won't have a vote. example. northern California. No electoral collage there in place to help their community. Representation there in non existent for them. Think it out so you don't do away something you may wish you had later.

Response by TSgt Alejandro Cuervo made Apr 27 at 2017 1:49 PM

2017-04-27T13:49:15-04:00

Founding Fathers created the Electoral College because it provided stability to the process of picking our presidents. The system empowered the states, especially those smaller states with lower population. The Electoral College afforded the incentive for presidential candidates to appeal at counties that may be far from the metroplitan areas. Most importantly we have had 200 years of success in electing our President.

Response by CDR William Kempner made Apr 27 at 2017 3:54 PM

2017-04-27T15:54:29-04:00

NO. it protects the nation from the "tyranny of the majority". Why should California and NY (and I'm a NY'er, but way too many liberals here) determine how things work for people in Louisiana or North Dakota or the other 46! I like to tell NY'ers that LOTS of Americans-especially those west of the Delaware water gap-think VERY different from NYers, and for GOOD reasons.

Response by SSG Patrick Thomas made May 2 at 2017 7:51 AM

2017-05-02T07:51:42-04:00

No it isnt. You want a good example of why not? Look at NY state. I grew up there and hoped to settle down there after military service. That wont be happening. Why? NYC hold most of the population of NYS. The voted in so many messed up laws that help them but screwed up the rest of the state. The people in upstate dont have a voice anymore. Just looking at the map that LTC Curlee provided shows you that. I for one enlisted to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States" not to chop it up when it doesnt fit my or anyone elses political view.

Response by SP5 Douglas Murphy made May 2 at 2017 9:03 AM

2017-05-02T09:03:40-04:00

Yes, past time.

Response by LTC Dan Haveman made May 2 at 2017 11:30 AM

2017-05-02T11:30:40-04:00

No.

Response by PO2 Robert Cuminale made May 2 at 2017 7:32 PM

2017-05-02T19:32:17-04:00

Nope. I'd rather not have New York and California appoint my president every four years.

Response by Henning Heinemann made May 2 at 2017 8:35 PM

2017-05-02T20:35:40-04:00

Yes, but not just the Electoral College, it's time to get rid of the entire tyrannical fraud the US has become since the Federal Reserve Act was passed. With that one act we reversed the entire meaning of America; every major precept the founders held for this nation was reversed and we now serve the very tyranny the founders fought to free us from.

The founders predicted this day would come which is why the penned the second amendment. Unfortunately we have come past the point of an effective violent revolution; however our technological evolution has provided us a better option, a revolution of irrelevance. Our money and effort would go much further eliminating the cause of war rather than fighting it; and make no mistake, the war we are fighting has been the same one that started in Crimea. We fight to protect money rather than mankind, money that is issued as nothing but our debt, something the founders forbade.

It's time to get back to the economic principles that the founders required, one where we produce value to trade on, not debt forced on others weaker than we.
https://1drv.ms/p/s!AoXPlyjz_r8dgUyQUT1f5PUmwvTK

s!AoXPlyjz_r8dgUyQUT1f5PUmwvTK

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2017 6:19 PM

2017-05-04T18:19:33-04:00

NO! The Electoral College is the last remaining vestige of our 'Republic'. If we get rid of that then this country will truly BE a Democracy. Democracy is a necessarily degenerate form of government that inevitably leads to chaos and dictatorship. Our nation was intended to be a Republic by the Founding Fathers. Nearly 100 years ago the worthless and the weak reduced our Republic into a degenerate democracy. Repeal the 17th amendment and restore the Republic!

Response by CDR Anthony Parr made May 4 at 2017 9:17 PM

2017-05-04T21:17:59-04:00

Of course it isn't as proved by recent voting activities,where NY and Calif have voted heavily one way and many other states did not have the population to weigh in. The Founding Fathers in their brilliance saw this

Response by SGT Ron Orrantia made May 5 at 2017 12:18 AM

2017-05-05T00:18:31-04:00

Abraham Lincoln also lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. It was instituted so dense population centers could not dominate the rest of the country. Pretty smart of the founding fathers!

Response by COL John Hudson made May 5 at 2017 9:43 AM

2017-05-05T09:43:21-04:00

Peter, the Electoral College is the instrument that gives each of the fifty United States an equal say in electing a President. Otherwise, Presidents would be elected by the few "most populated" states. At this time in history, there are nine states whose combined populations out-number all the other 41. They are California, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia and Florida. Their populations are high enough to out-vote all the others. I prefer to keep the system we have in place now to give the rest of the U.S. population a say in every Presidential election.

Response by MAJ John Douglas made May 5 at 2017 11:50 AM

2017-05-05T11:50:56-04:00

Not unless you want four states to elect the President and the rest of us go to he!!.

Response by LTC Dick James made May 5 at 2017 12:36 PM

2017-05-05T12:36:10-04:00

It was meant to solve a problem which has gone away. Now it takes away from the people's will. GET RID OF IT!!!!

Response by Sgt William Collins made May 5 at 2017 1:18 PM

2017-05-05T13:18:45-04:00

If you got rid of the electoral college last year, Hillary would be your president now.

Response by PO1 Joseph Glennon made May 5 at 2017 6:37 PM

2017-05-05T18:37:58-04:00

No, and here's why:
We do not have a "National Election" - we have 50 independent states that hold their independent elections for their choice of the President on the same day. Having an electoral college helps to reduce the likelihood of fraud by the representatives of each state, *but*, if one elector from each state went before Congress and reported their state's selection, the result would be the same... the person who wins the majority of votes in the majority of the states (usually) wins the office of President of the United States. In the most recent event, President Trump won 30 states, iirc.

If I could suggest *one* tweak to the electoral college, however, I would remove the "winner takes all" count that most states use for presenting their count to Congress... that's not representational. If each elector gave his / her vote based on the choice of each voting district in their state, the electoral college vote would be a far better representation of the constituents (and we'd hear far fewer cries from the losers and rejects about the system not working, and that their vote doesn't count).

But, it is what it is - the winner of the majority of the people in the majority of the states "usually" receives the majority of the electoral college votes. Each of the states should have an equal voice - California's vote shouldn't outweigh Rhode Island's vote.

However, I would be willing to accept the premise that the electoral college had outlived its usefulness, because of technology and the rapid return of information, *IF* everyone accepted that it was not a "national election", but was an election by each of the sovereign states on the same day, and having the superior number of the total of votes across the country doesn't mean anything if the majority of the people in the majority of the states aren't for the candidate who is predicted to win, or who has the most votes nation-wide.

Response by Lt Col Robert Canfield made May 6 at 2017 12:27 PM

2017-05-06T12:27:23-04:00

Similar arguments were discussed when they wrote the Constitution and the 12th Amendment back in the early 1800s (establishing the EC) . I know, I was there ;-) ...
Read the history and you will find that our forefathers had many of the same concerns (i.e. big states vs small states, states rights, large population centers effectively choosing the president, etc) . Granted the number of states were less than a third of what we have today, but the issues were relevant then; they are still relevant today.

After all, we are the United STATES of America; NOT the "Federal Republic of America".

The EC effectively was a compromise. Not perfect, but it was best agreement they could come up with. BTW, to change it would require amending the constitution or holding a constitutional convention. I doubt you would get the required number of states needed to abolish or change it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php

Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

The Twelfth Amendment (Amendment XII) to the United States Constitution provides the procedure for electing the President and Vice President. It replaced the procedure provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, by which the Electoral College originally functioned. Problems with the original procedure arose in the elections of 1796 and 1800. The Twelfth Amendment refined the process whereby a President and a Vice President are elected by the...

Response by SSG Russell Busicchia made May 7 at 2017 2:27 AM

2017-05-07T02:27:40-04:00

No it is not time to get rid of the Electoral College. Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes, basically California and New York. The Electoral College is meant to ensure that politicians address the entire country, not just the most populous.

Response by SSG Wayne Wood made May 8 at 2017 1:20 PM

2017-05-08T13:20:08-04:00

I can post a long explanation of why the electoral college is necessary. I will try to keep it short.

The geographic vs. popular arguments have been made. Our Founders, while believing in Representative (not necessarily direct democratic) government, did fear what they termed a "Tyranny of the Majority" almost as much - if not AS much as they feared the absolutism and tyranny of a monarchy.

1) It is no coincidence that the EC gives each State representation proportionate to its representation in the US Congress. Our Congress was made a bicameral legislature as a compromise; the lower house - the House, gives States representation according to population recognizing population, while the upper house - the Senate recognizes each State as equal members in the Union regardless of size.

2) It is a wide misconception that we hold our National Election on the first Tuesday after a Monday on every even year. Actually, we have STATE Congressional elections every other November. It just so happens that the States also vote for their choice for President every fourth year AS STATES. The actual NATIONAL Presidential election actually occurs in December when each State's representatives - in the form of Electors - travel to Washington to participate in the actual National election where they cast their votes (usually according to the popular vote in their respective States).

The Electoral college is based on our Founders' vision of our government as a Democratic Republic - not Direct Democracy. It is also one of the few remaining vestiges of Federalism (the separation of powers between local and national governments we have left). Again, we as citizens of our States, vote for our choice for President in STATE elections. Then our representatives travel to DC to cast the winner of their States' popular vote in the Electoral College - which is the true National Election.

Like it or not - it has worked for us since the 12th Amendment was fine tuned and, for reasons already stated, protects us even if we don't always like the results. The neat thing is if you lose this round, the republic survives and we get another shot in four years.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 8 at 2017 10:08 PM

2017-05-08T22:08:42-04:00

Response by SSgt John Carter made May 18 at 2017 1:18 PM

2017-05-18T13:18:00-04:00

A long time ago.

Response by MSG James Hughs made May 18 at 2017 2:01 PM

2017-05-18T14:01:49-04:00

Why fix what aint broke..... before you change something you might want to understand WHY the founding fathers went to all the trouble of creating the electoral college.....which is more important now than it has ever been before.....

Response by PO2 Peter Klein made May 18 at 2017 10:34 PM

2017-05-18T22:34:14-04:00

Well the results are in.
More of you think we should keep the Electoral College.

Response by 1SG Patrick Sims made May 19 at 2017 7:34 PM

2017-05-19T19:34:27-04:00

I use to think getting rid of the electoral collage was a good idea, I no longer feel that way. The electoral collage was set up so high population areas couldn't dominate the election, allow me to give you an example. New York State. Two thirds of the population reside in the New York City area, the remaining one third reside in the rest of the state. Living conditions in the New York city area, the Hudson Valley and Albany are great, the rest of the state lived in abject poverty. Syracuse leads the country in vacant store fronts. In Rochester there are streets that aren't cleared of snow in the winter because no one lives in the houses, and Buffalo is the second poorest city in the country, only second to Detroit. Eight to ten dollars an hour is about it, if you can find a forty hour a week job. If the presidential election were decided by a popular vote this would be the situation in the entire country. There would be millions plunged into poverty, while the populated areas thrive.

Response by PO3 Vince Gibson made Jun 1 at 2017 8:54 AM

2017-06-01T08:54:07-04:00

Hell no, then The caifonicators and the Northeast would decide for the rest of the country.

Response by Sgt Jerry Genesio made Mar 4 at 2019 12:24 AM

2019-03-04T00:24:11-05:00

"The renewed push comes after 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton lost the election that year despite winning the popular vote, the second time it has happened since the turn of the century."
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/432061-dem-states-move-to-bypass-electoral-college?userid=235202

Blue states band together looking to bypass Electoral College

A plan to circumvent the Electoral College is gaining momentum amongblue states afterDemocratssuffered two crushingdefeats in presidential elections over the past two decades.

Response by PFC Donnie Harold Harris made Aug 9 at 2019 10:17 AM

2019-08-09T10:17:33-04:00

The electoral college is like a bunch of old ladies at the turkey shoot. They want the meat but not the labor of getting the job done.