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
3
3
0
no the electoral college prevents mob rule it evens the playing field
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Only If we want California,chicago & DC area making all the laws.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
No. This part of the Constitution is necessary to continue the ideal of a Representative Republic.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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).
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Hugh Blanchard
We do NOT want to convene a Constitutional Convention. It could get out of hand and Lord knows what craziness might emerge from it - like repealing the 2nd Amendment or limiting Freedom of Speech. No, don't jump into that briar patch, please!!
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - NPV might be described as "clever" in that it by-passes the Constitution (as have many other measures and executive orders recently) but I consider it a highly irresponsible idea since it completely bypasses the will of the voters of the particular state. To provide an example under this model, if voters, say, in Arizona, chose a candidate from party "A" but the national vote goes in favor of the candidate from party "B", the electoral votes would be assigned to the candidate from party "B". This is in OBVIOUS contradiction to the will of the voters of that state. I find that calling a system that willingly disenfranchises whole segments of the electorate at the state level a "solution" is not only grossly irresponsible, it goes contrary to the spirit of the constitutional republic that was founded by a group of highly intelligent TRUE revolutionaries who were breaking with the anachronistic policies and practices of their predecessors. One has to first, understand what was achieved before presenting false "solutions" to a non-existent problem. I pity the people of the states that have been hoodwinked into accepting a proposal from political gudgeons incapable of understanding what they are trying to destroy.
(0)
(0)
SSgt Ray McCaslin
There would never, I repeat NEVER be enough states to ratify a constitutional amendment that would eliminate their significance in the electoral process to choose the president. It takes 38 states, I'll give you California and New York although I think New York would never vote for this.
(0)
(0)
SFC Charles Temm
I sure hope your conclusion is correct but given the current movement by some states to divide electoral votes by population support rather than winner take all general vote shows the issue is still alive among the statists in this country.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
No. Only someone who doesn't understand our system would think so.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google