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
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
PO2 Peter Klein
I agree with you Cpl Conover. As for the campaign I think the campaign should start no earlier than the day before the election. Seriously, limit the campaigning to start in January and end in March so it has to be done in the harshest weather. All the states have their primaries on July 15 with no campaigning and no ads of TV or radio in between. All parties have their conventions simultaneoulsy (sp?) starting August 1. Then another dead period until October 1. As this point yard signs can go up. Within a week after the election, all campaign posters, yard signs, etc. MUST be taken down or the candidates with offending signs, etc. must pay a $1,000.00 per day fine for each sign. Did I mention that I am sick of this last election cycle and I even campaigned for a local council candidate?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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...
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Well, I watched the video. I noted it has a series of “presumptions, assumptions and opinions” built into the dialog, all designed to present a very skewed view both of the electoral college and the electoral process. I can imagine that the propagandists who put it together had an agenda and decided to produce something that would “prove” their pre-established conclusion. But having watched it, I can’t really list it as a credible source for reliable information regarding the nature, the function, the purpose and the impact of the electoral college at a national level. As a matter of fact, I found a few of the statements made to be deliberate misrepresentations (which sounds much better than “outright lies”). So, in my opinion, it doesn’t really contribute anything to the debate, other than the reaffirmation of a pre-established “conclusion” which is supported by… … … smoke – for lack of a better word.
(1)
(0)
CAPT (Join to see)
Agree with LTC Pabon. I also would recommend the Prager video that shows exactly why it was established and why we need it to stay. Oh, by the way, we are NOT a democracy we are a Republic! Every government that has tried pure "democracy" has failed or is failing. Another reason our founders were so careful on how they structured our government.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google