Posted on Aug 1, 2015
Has the time come to abolish the Electoral College???
15K
1.36K
640
16
16
0
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.
Election 2016
Politics
Elections
Voting
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 253
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
Yes, we need a shakeup in Washington,. no eliminating the Electoral College is not a part of the answer.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
If you eliminated the electoral college there would never ever be another conservative President of the United States, guaranteed.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Google "faithless voters." The problem with the EC is fundamental and easy: YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT. If there was one-man-one-vote, **EVERY** vote would count so a politician would have to find out what the voters in every state want. With OMOV, "states" don't win elections or "carry" an election. Why would they?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Capt (Join to see) - You're giving the election to the state. Why? In one-man-one-vote, **YOUR** vote is all that counts. Not the state's. Allow me to explain: my wife is English and votes in her home city of Reading. When the vote for Prime Minister came up, lets say 75,000 Reading citizens voted for David Cameron and 243,000 voted for Gordon Brown. Gordon didn't "win Reading." David got the 75K votes and Gordon got the 243K. Candidates don't "win states" or cities. David's 75K votes weren't given to Gordon because the majority voted for Gordon.
Your reliance is on a winner-take-all system and **YES** - in that case, popular votes would not ever work. But no nation with OMOV has that kind of configuration. Each person's vote is given to each candidate. This is why sometimes you have coalitions, where two to three parties can "win" an election.
And of course - also - in virtually every country that has OMOV, there is no set timeframe. England could have an election tomorrow. So if popular vote turned out to be a dupe-fest where tons of dumb people vote something in that's destructive and don't realize it, then it can be voted out. For example, eminent domain. Which everyone voted for and then suddenly realized that they didn't want it. Under the fixed American system of an election every four years, then OMOV will have more limitations.
Your reliance is on a winner-take-all system and **YES** - in that case, popular votes would not ever work. But no nation with OMOV has that kind of configuration. Each person's vote is given to each candidate. This is why sometimes you have coalitions, where two to three parties can "win" an election.
And of course - also - in virtually every country that has OMOV, there is no set timeframe. England could have an election tomorrow. So if popular vote turned out to be a dupe-fest where tons of dumb people vote something in that's destructive and don't realize it, then it can be voted out. For example, eminent domain. Which everyone voted for and then suddenly realized that they didn't want it. Under the fixed American system of an election every four years, then OMOV will have more limitations.
(0)
(0)
Capt (Join to see)
Sorry but I live in the USA. I spent time in Japan. I have no desire to go where it is better. Because when it seem better on the other side of the fence one probably has a very skewed view that is probably not accurate. Our system was designed for the United States and it was designed by very wise men. Too bad so many seem to think they know better.
As for winner take all that id not a U.S. policy. That is decided by the states and some do it differently. OMOV will only be good for those who have the population. The sparsely populated states will be screwed.
As for winner take all that id not a U.S. policy. That is decided by the states and some do it differently. OMOV will only be good for those who have the population. The sparsely populated states will be screwed.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Capt (Join to see) - Nice straw man argument. Google "faithless voters." Sparsely populated states would not be screwed. And you already have "winner takes all" as a US policy.
I'm screwing you and will continue to screw you because you can't remove me. If you think that's wise, then you're the exact person the founding fathers wanted. Why would I want someone smart enough to remove me?
I'm screwing you and will continue to screw you because you can't remove me. If you think that's wise, then you're the exact person the founding fathers wanted. Why would I want someone smart enough to remove me?
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
May I suggest that you learn about a thing before you decide to destroy a thing. That thing may be good for you.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
CPL Shawn Lawson - Actually, it is the popular vote that is swayed by media manipulation and lying. The Electoral College is a safety valve that may mitigate such adverse effects
(2)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
I have two different degrees in Poly Sci. I know all about "the thing." The question was not for me.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
CPL Shawn Lawson
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
CPT Jack Durish
The primaries dictate the candidate, so in a way the primaries set the state for the EC.
The primaries dictate the candidate, so in a way the primaries set the state for the EC.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
PO1 John Miller - Ooooookay. But the primaries aren't decided in the Electoral College. I do believe that's the misconception I was addressing.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
PFC Aaron Knapp
Not sure if this is a response to my question or a response but I agree with you. I asked the question to get responses as well as see how well know this was. They didn't teach me this in High School and I think it's important. I explain this to people all the time and use different points as proof. 1. Is what you are saying. As in Gore/Bush when Gore won popular vote but Bush won the Electoral. I have heard many reasons why it's our system but j can't stomach it. This may have worked before the modern age but if we can vote for Congress, Senate (federal and State) so why not President. Another point is since its winner take all in most states you could win more electoral a and still lose. Say the race is close but one candidate wins the bigger states he wins. But if it wasn't winner take all a State that has maybe 25 votes total and one wins say 20 democrat electors and wins state so the 5 republican reps have to vote democrat to make whole state unanimous. But if each candidate kept all the votes they received (would mean split states and odd numbers) but the candidate with most wins. In a case like this a canids tw could win the popular vote and the electoral vote but still lose because the other guy won the bigger states and since they were winner take all states the odd votes go to the majority and boom. My other point is in a State like mine (Idaho) we have 2 votes, our state is republican and traditionally (always) and so both votes always go repubyhere. So for the few voters who are democrat here in Idaho don't need to vote because tgey have no hope of winning theState. So many flaws with this system. The law says the electoral members can't be elected officials, but they are appointed by them, so it's their vote. The electoral members are appointed by each states reps a dare usually from the party and given to members as a reward. Usually you have trouble finding their names ESP. During election years. Also since they are appointed by the National Parties their votes go to the part almost always. Which if you think about it that means a grass roots or Green Party type politicians can never win because they have no electoral votes. So yes I know, no I don't like it, yes it's great to speak to someone who gets it! Way to be informed. I'll post the laws after this post for folks to see. Thanks for responding!
(0)
(0)
PFC Aaron Knapp
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
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
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google