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
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
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...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If you got rid of the electoral college last year, Hillary would be your president now.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It was meant to solve a problem which has gone away. Now it takes away from the people's will. GET RID OF IT!!!!
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Any other suggestions superior to the Founders extremely durable document? If so, get the amendment process going. Good Luck!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Not unless you want four states to elect the President and the rest of us go to he!!.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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
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
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google