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
0
0
0
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!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
A separate question could be asked: Let's pretend we were going to negate the EC -- how would it happen? Well, there's 3 main ways.
1. A New Constitutional Convention. (Highly unlikely)
2. A Constitutional Amendment. (Unlikely, but not by as much as #1)
3. A National Popular Vote change within the states.
I want to discuss that third one a bit more, because it's both interesting and has a chance of happening. Since the Constitution allows states to apportion their electors however they want, one way around the EC would be for enough states to pass laws granting their Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote. This is, in fact, already well underway. 10 states plus DC, representing a total of 165 Electoral Votes, have already made that change, with a trigger in the law that makes it only take effect once enough other states have signed on to reach the 270 votes to declare a winner. That means that if enough states for at least 105 more Electoral Votes sign on as well, we will have effectively nullified the Electoral College without changing the Constitution.
For those interested, here's the breakdown of states that have signed on:
District of Columbia – 3 electoral votes
Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
Illinois – 20 electoral votes
Maryland – 10 electoral votes
Massachusetts – 11 electoral votes
New Jersey – 14 electoral votes
Washington – 12 electoral votes
Vermont – 3 electoral votes
California – 55 electoral votes
Rhode Island – 4 electoral votes
New York – 29 electoral votes
1. A New Constitutional Convention. (Highly unlikely)
2. A Constitutional Amendment. (Unlikely, but not by as much as #1)
3. A National Popular Vote change within the states.
I want to discuss that third one a bit more, because it's both interesting and has a chance of happening. Since the Constitution allows states to apportion their electors however they want, one way around the EC would be for enough states to pass laws granting their Electoral Votes to the winner of the National Popular Vote. This is, in fact, already well underway. 10 states plus DC, representing a total of 165 Electoral Votes, have already made that change, with a trigger in the law that makes it only take effect once enough other states have signed on to reach the 270 votes to declare a winner. That means that if enough states for at least 105 more Electoral Votes sign on as well, we will have effectively nullified the Electoral College without changing the Constitution.
For those interested, here's the breakdown of states that have signed on:
District of Columbia – 3 electoral votes
Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
Illinois – 20 electoral votes
Maryland – 10 electoral votes
Massachusetts – 11 electoral votes
New Jersey – 14 electoral votes
Washington – 12 electoral votes
Vermont – 3 electoral votes
California – 55 electoral votes
Rhode Island – 4 electoral votes
New York – 29 electoral votes
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
This explanation is, unfortunately, both incomplete and in significant portions, incorrect. Please see the excerpt of the Friedman article above for a much more comprehensive understanding of what the Electoral College is all about.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I'm familiar with that work. Like most analyses, it badly mistakes purpose for effect, a flaw I see commonly in interpretation of the founders. What it gets correct is not in conflict with what I wrote -- namely, that it provided (and was intended to provide) a buffer in between the electorate and the actual selected winner. What it gets wrong is that it assumes all the effects of that buffer were also the intent of the buffer. That's a faulty form of analysis.
Anyway, the EC had a place and time, but the originating purpose is simply less relevant than it was prior, and at the same time the effect (four elections -- two in living memory -- decided by the EC against the popular vote) is clearly far more corrosive than an election where all national votes counted equally would be.
It's interesting that the claim of the founders wanting no political parties was in there, since the very start of the nation was divided in exactly two camps (federalist and anti-federalist) and nobody even remotely thought those camps would go away (and sure enough, they haven't). There's evidence that the founders wished we wouldn't be so divided, but it's pretty clear that they never expected that kumbaya to become reality.
Anyway, the EC had a place and time, but the originating purpose is simply less relevant than it was prior, and at the same time the effect (four elections -- two in living memory -- decided by the EC against the popular vote) is clearly far more corrosive than an election where all national votes counted equally would be.
It's interesting that the claim of the founders wanting no political parties was in there, since the very start of the nation was divided in exactly two camps (federalist and anti-federalist) and nobody even remotely thought those camps would go away (and sure enough, they haven't). There's evidence that the founders wished we wouldn't be so divided, but it's pretty clear that they never expected that kumbaya to become reality.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
OK. I think I understand what you are saying, so then let me look at your position more completely.
Your first stated position is that the electoral college is an undemocratic institution, and should therefore be abolished. While the electoral college can be described as an “undemocratic” institution, we can then NOT automatically conclude that it should be abolished. I say this because our form of government is a constitutional republic, not a “democracy”. The fact that the electoral college can be described as “undemocratic” is, from a current form of government perspective, somewhat irrelevant. However, if your position is that we should abandon the current constitutional republic in favor of a “democracy”, then that is a point we would need to clarify. Were that your position, it wouldn’t be all that “strange”. After all, the nation officially abandoned capitalism 45 years ago (though the process started in 1965-68) and we are paying the economic price for that today (with huge deficits, the greatest debt ever accumulated by any nation in known history and technical bankruptcy). Currently we muddle through with an economy based on excessive credit and spending, instead of capital and saving, but again, we abandoned capitalism. And the price we’re paying for that is not only economic, but social and political, too. But I digress.
Today, dumping the constitutional republic is currently on the agenda of quite a few organizations, such as the CPUSA, the Democratic Party, and others. Getting rid of the electoral college is part of that agenda. Now don’t misunderstand. I am not saying that this is YOUR agenda or that you are a conscientious part of this. All I’m saying is that this is on the agenda of a few organizations who want to “change” the current order of things. I have no doubt that the price we will pay for any such change will be at least as huge as the price we have paid for abandoning capitalism. But that is still in the future, if at all.
But let us say that the Electoral College is undemocratic. The next question we would have to answer is: what purpose does it fulfill today? Well, it still provides a buffer between the electorate and the winner of the popular vote. But it also “balances out” the relative “weight” of the states.... and that is a factor that is still important today in keeping the states together. It also insures that high population states don’t end up monopolizing the electoral process. But more importantly, it avoids the real menace of democracy, which is, in its worst expression, glorified mob rule.
Now, again, if your purpose is to “change” what we as a nation are – that is, to change the constitutional republic – then none of these arguments hold water for you. They are important to me because I don’t think changing our constitutional republic for a “democracy” is a good thing… just like I didn’t think abandoning capitalism was a good thing.
In the case of capitalism, the devastating effects of the change to “creditism”/socialism are now evident. Our economy is in a shambles. Our debt is unsustainable. Our middle class is disappearing. And current inflation adjusted earnings are at a level comparable to decades past. We finance our government operations (including the Defense Department) with money we borrow from potential adversaries. Income tax can only pay for statutory obligations and interest expense. It’s pathetic.
Changing our constitutional republic to a “democracy” will have an equivalent deleterious effect in the political sphere. So from where I stand, the Electoral College should stay. I want to continue living in a constitutional republic.
Your first stated position is that the electoral college is an undemocratic institution, and should therefore be abolished. While the electoral college can be described as an “undemocratic” institution, we can then NOT automatically conclude that it should be abolished. I say this because our form of government is a constitutional republic, not a “democracy”. The fact that the electoral college can be described as “undemocratic” is, from a current form of government perspective, somewhat irrelevant. However, if your position is that we should abandon the current constitutional republic in favor of a “democracy”, then that is a point we would need to clarify. Were that your position, it wouldn’t be all that “strange”. After all, the nation officially abandoned capitalism 45 years ago (though the process started in 1965-68) and we are paying the economic price for that today (with huge deficits, the greatest debt ever accumulated by any nation in known history and technical bankruptcy). Currently we muddle through with an economy based on excessive credit and spending, instead of capital and saving, but again, we abandoned capitalism. And the price we’re paying for that is not only economic, but social and political, too. But I digress.
Today, dumping the constitutional republic is currently on the agenda of quite a few organizations, such as the CPUSA, the Democratic Party, and others. Getting rid of the electoral college is part of that agenda. Now don’t misunderstand. I am not saying that this is YOUR agenda or that you are a conscientious part of this. All I’m saying is that this is on the agenda of a few organizations who want to “change” the current order of things. I have no doubt that the price we will pay for any such change will be at least as huge as the price we have paid for abandoning capitalism. But that is still in the future, if at all.
But let us say that the Electoral College is undemocratic. The next question we would have to answer is: what purpose does it fulfill today? Well, it still provides a buffer between the electorate and the winner of the popular vote. But it also “balances out” the relative “weight” of the states.... and that is a factor that is still important today in keeping the states together. It also insures that high population states don’t end up monopolizing the electoral process. But more importantly, it avoids the real menace of democracy, which is, in its worst expression, glorified mob rule.
Now, again, if your purpose is to “change” what we as a nation are – that is, to change the constitutional republic – then none of these arguments hold water for you. They are important to me because I don’t think changing our constitutional republic for a “democracy” is a good thing… just like I didn’t think abandoning capitalism was a good thing.
In the case of capitalism, the devastating effects of the change to “creditism”/socialism are now evident. Our economy is in a shambles. Our debt is unsustainable. Our middle class is disappearing. And current inflation adjusted earnings are at a level comparable to decades past. We finance our government operations (including the Defense Department) with money we borrow from potential adversaries. Income tax can only pay for statutory obligations and interest expense. It’s pathetic.
Changing our constitutional republic to a “democracy” will have an equivalent deleterious effect in the political sphere. So from where I stand, the Electoral College should stay. I want to continue living in a constitutional republic.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
LTC (Join to see)
It would be interesting to see what kind of arguments lead to a "yes" answer in this case.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns
PO1 Kevin Dougherty - I have no problem with being incorrect as long as I can learn from my incorrectness.
(0)
(0)
PO1 Kevin Dougherty
Cpl Dr Ronnie Manns - I assumed as much, which is why I took as much time as I did to go into some detail. I have literally hundreds of books on early US history. History books new and old, biographies, books on specific events and times, collections of writings ... If you want to learn more about the EC, Tara Ross, http://www.taraross.com/ has written a good one. You can order it on the website or from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Enlightened-Democracy-Case-Electoral-College/dp/ [login to see] /ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid= [login to see] &sr=8-1&keywords=Tara+ross I highly recommend it as a starting place.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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…
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I haven't been able to confirm this through other sites. I think those numbers are wrong because final election numbers for 2016 have not been released yet. There are states where they are still counting - especially mail-in votes where signatures have to be verified, the possibility of duplicate voting has to be neutralized, etc.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
YES IT HAS BEEN GOING ON WAY TOO LONG! GET RID OF IT!
(0)
(0)
SSG Mark Franzen
SPC Jeff Daley, PhD - why you ask well we wouldn't have got the wrong person in the White house.
(0)
(0)
LTC Joseph Gross
Those answers show that you are only interested in the outcome when it doesn't go your way. That is selfish and short sighted. It's like the idiots who want the president to have more power when "their" guy is in office, not thinking that next term it could be someone they distrust. Think about what the electoral college protects and consider it throughout our history before you go over board. As an aside, I'm a Hostory teacher now. This is my world.
(4)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SSG Mark Franzen - We still would have gotten the wrong person in the White House. That was the nature of this election: bad or worse. At least because of the Electoral College, you just got bad.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
"Get rid of it" seems like an off-the-cuff comment. I'm sure that if you dedicate some time to learning about and understanding the history, function, purpose and logic behind the concept of the Electoral College, your answer will be quite different. For starters, you may want to read the excerpt of the Friedman article posted above. You might understand why, were it not for the Electoral College, we might not have a UNITED States.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
That's a separate issue. It's worth discussing at some point, but has no bearing on the global warming issue.
As far as not being able to "damage" the Earth and expect no changes... That's practically meaningless. What does it mean to damage the Earth? The environment is not a static thing. If our production of CO2 is causing mean global temperature (itself, a questionable measurement) to rise, then global warming may be true. If it's not... then the theory is bunkum.
As far as not being able to "damage" the Earth and expect no changes... That's practically meaningless. What does it mean to damage the Earth? The environment is not a static thing. If our production of CO2 is causing mean global temperature (itself, a questionable measurement) to rise, then global warming may be true. If it's not... then the theory is bunkum.
(1)
(0)
SSG Jessica Bautista
LCDR (Join to see) - Hmmmmmmm I think everything is related. The main argument against precautions is the cost, but deportation will raise costs elsewhere. As for climate change, I won't pretend to understand the intricacies of it, but I don't see the harm in living on the earth responsibly.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SSG Jessica Bautista - Not everything is related - that's how you confound a situation, not how you clarify.
If fighting a fictitious global warming isn't worth the money, then it's not worth the money regardless of what we do with immigration. Otherwise, I want to know what we're doing to fight off an alien invasion. Sure, there may not be such a thing as spacemen... but what if we're wrong? And isn't everything related?
How far down that rabbit hole do you want to go?
If fighting a fictitious global warming isn't worth the money, then it's not worth the money regardless of what we do with immigration. Otherwise, I want to know what we're doing to fight off an alien invasion. Sure, there may not be such a thing as spacemen... but what if we're wrong? And isn't everything related?
How far down that rabbit hole do you want to go?
(0)
(0)
SSG Jessica Bautista
LCDR (Join to see) - Not far because I'm more in a humorous mood now. Maybe another day, another post?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google