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
2
2
0
Of course it should but it's not going anywhere. The current system where we have the EC and also with 48 states giving 100% of their EC votes to the person who wins their state has created the notion of "safe states" that can be ignored so candidates can focus on the "swing states".
If we had nationwide primaries (all states have their primaries on the same day) and did away with the electoral college it would have a HUGE impact on elections. Which is why neither will ever happen.
If we had nationwide primaries (all states have their primaries on the same day) and did away with the electoral college it would have a HUGE impact on elections. Which is why neither will ever happen.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Popular vote should be the decising factor and I believe they should wothhold the results until all of the states that had a chance to vote. Post the results the following day after all states from the East Coast to the West Coast have voted. Keep the press and the news out of it for a day - wishful thinking!!
(2)
(0)
SGT Jerrold Pesz
The reason for not using popular vote is that most states would be totally ignored and never see a candidate. This was at least they get a little say. Of course if I was a liberal I would love the popular vote idea since Texas is the only real high population state that is not a blue state and the margins are often huge. All that the democrats would need is CA and the east coast and to hell with everyone else.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent the large states, the states with the most population, from telling the rest of the country what it can and can not do. If it is done away with, the only states that will matter to the election are the same states that have the most electoral college votes as it stands right now. So having the electoral college prevents those states from giving the election to anyone that is popular. I know that there have been presidents that won the electoral college vote, but lost the popular vote.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Well I watched it. Still not swayed. A lot of fear about nothing? When I vote, my Florida stuff is not on a Delaware person's ballot. So I'm not really sure why someone's state stance would affect me. I'm for strong defense. Large military. So out of the candidates, the one with the best (IMO) mil-stance is going to get my vote. Irrespective of whether or not they visit my state.
As the states would only be giving up their EC votes, how would a popular vote affect anything in my state? When earmarking lottery earnings to education came up in Florida, it was not on Texas' ballots. Or Utah's. And EC voters were not used for the results. So I'm not sure where a popular vote is going to make much difference. We voted for the lottery based on our research and got the result we desired. Was it fair? Has it been a success? Well, I guess that would depend on which side of the vote you were on, right? If you didn't want it, then you'd be unhappy with the result, but the EC would hardly have made a difference.
Unless I watched the video wrong, I saw nothing to insinuate or suggest, that states rights for states issues would go away.
Fraud issues? I don't know. I worked for the elections board as a voting machine tech. for the 2008 election. Theres a lot of catch 22 stuff that should/could be changed. And thats on both sides of the fence. I'll rewatch it again later. See if anything else jumps out. Got any other links?
As the states would only be giving up their EC votes, how would a popular vote affect anything in my state? When earmarking lottery earnings to education came up in Florida, it was not on Texas' ballots. Or Utah's. And EC voters were not used for the results. So I'm not sure where a popular vote is going to make much difference. We voted for the lottery based on our research and got the result we desired. Was it fair? Has it been a success? Well, I guess that would depend on which side of the vote you were on, right? If you didn't want it, then you'd be unhappy with the result, but the EC would hardly have made a difference.
Unless I watched the video wrong, I saw nothing to insinuate or suggest, that states rights for states issues would go away.
Fraud issues? I don't know. I worked for the elections board as a voting machine tech. for the 2008 election. Theres a lot of catch 22 stuff that should/could be changed. And thats on both sides of the fence. I'll rewatch it again later. See if anything else jumps out. Got any other links?
(0)
(0)
SCPO (Join to see)
The system is doing that now with the Electoral College, Scott. Big states like California and New York throwing their heavy weight to the left nearly every election.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
SCPO (Join to see) - Well, google "Faithless Voters". The inherent problem is that there is no penalty for not voting correctly. Excuse me...the penalty is not tough enough. That's why you have so many electoral voters that are not voting the way they should.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Yes, it is time. In the days when they couldn't tally the vote and had to have electors take the vote of their area to a central location, the Electoral College may have served a purpose, but with the technology at our disposal today, that's far from the case, and the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness, way outlived it.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
Respectfully, the electoral college had nothing to do with the idea, or the difficulty in counting votes. It was argued for, and placed in our Constitution to protect the rights, and interests of the smaller, less populous States against the majority in the few, but more populous States. Regards
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
It is an archaic system that was merely set up en lieu of speedy communication. In fact it is as antiquated as putting fires atop mountain ridges and sending messages by casting bottles in the ocean.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The Trouble with the Electoral College
Script: In a fair democracy everyone’s vote should count equally, but the method that the United States uses to elect its president, called the electoral college, violates this principle by making sure that some people’s votes are more equal than others. The Electoral College is, essentially, the 538 votes that determine who wins the presidency. If these votes were split evenly across the population every 574,000 people would be represented by...
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette, Sir, I understand why the system was set up the way it was. The technological improvement of the modern era alone renders it obsolete, not to mention the disenfranchising effects of its arcane rules. (I'm not worried about erosion of state powers with the electors going away because of the House, the Senate, the State level elections- its not even really fair to think states dictate how electors vote, they just send guys based on what they say they'll do)
A second video with even more hilarious quirks, where the first focused on how to win the election with less than 23% of the popular vote, this one illustrates how the US territories are the only place in the universe where US citizens cannot vote for president and why such an outrageous system once seemed reasonable.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/how-the-electoral-college-works.html
A second video with even more hilarious quirks, where the first focused on how to win the election with less than 23% of the popular vote, this one illustrates how the US territories are the only place in the universe where US citizens cannot vote for president and why such an outrageous system once seemed reasonable.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/how-the-electoral-college-works.html
How The Electoral College Works
Script: How the Electoral College Works Ah, Election Day, when Americans everywhere cast their ballot for the next President of the United States. Except, not really. Americans don’t directly vote for president. So, what’s happening on election day then? It’s a bit complicated because of something called the Electoral College. To keep things simple for now, think of the Electoral College as a collection of the 538 votes that determine who the...
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette Sir, I'd like to take your comment piece by piece, because as yours often do, its got some strong load and implication in each part.
"I'll be perfectly honest" Good, me too, I generally am. "I think we disagree fundamentally. " Agreed.
"Technology has nothing to do with it." Strongly disagree, technology winds its way through every major event and trend in human history, including that of our republic. The concept of a republic is itself a technology. Technology is always subject to upgrade.
"The preservation of a republican form of government is what it is about. " Disagree, abolishing the electoral college is tangential to a maintenance of states powers. The states have no authority to compel the electors after their nomination. As indicated in the video, and hinted at in my comment, electors have switched votes against what the states desired with no repercussions, thus states aren't voting, they're voting for electors who bear no burden of accountability to anyone. What this discussion is really about is upgrading outdated processes.
"Period. " I assume this was for dramatic effect.
"We do not want pure democracy." Who is 'we?' And anyhow, abolishing the electoral college does not create a pure democracy, that would require voting by all citizens on all issues. It would still be a republic, even if the national popular vote elected every single representative, but here we're only talking about the President. There's still lots of checks in the other branches.
"States powers have already been eroded to the point of near obsolescence; " Eroded, yes, to the point of obsolescence no. States and local governments still have more power over individual citizens than do the feds.
"witness the rise of the federal government's power in the last century." Agreed, the Feds power has increased, maybe more than it should, but its not a zero sum game between the states and the feds, I think its actually the people that have lost the most of the power they once had-at least the moderately wealthy white land owning people.
"I honestly don't care what the rest of the world does or how they govern themselves. " You should, they might do it better, but more importantly this seems to imply you thought the video was talking about other systems of governance, but it wasn't. Either you misunderstood, or didn't watch it.
" I find no form of government perfect; all have flaws. However, I find our republic to be the most balanced - when operated properly." Agreed!
" It's not a question of "how" the electoral college works, it's a question of "why" the electoral college works." Disagree, the how and the why both matter. If the how is garbage the why doesn't matter very much.
"We seem to disagree on the latter part and why it's important." Agreed, why do you think it exists? Because the arguments for it you made above are debunked in the videos quite aptly, except the appeal to emotion and nostalgia with the change to the direct election of senators, I'd be interested in any arguments or evidence on the point.
"I'll be perfectly honest" Good, me too, I generally am. "I think we disagree fundamentally. " Agreed.
"Technology has nothing to do with it." Strongly disagree, technology winds its way through every major event and trend in human history, including that of our republic. The concept of a republic is itself a technology. Technology is always subject to upgrade.
"The preservation of a republican form of government is what it is about. " Disagree, abolishing the electoral college is tangential to a maintenance of states powers. The states have no authority to compel the electors after their nomination. As indicated in the video, and hinted at in my comment, electors have switched votes against what the states desired with no repercussions, thus states aren't voting, they're voting for electors who bear no burden of accountability to anyone. What this discussion is really about is upgrading outdated processes.
"Period. " I assume this was for dramatic effect.
"We do not want pure democracy." Who is 'we?' And anyhow, abolishing the electoral college does not create a pure democracy, that would require voting by all citizens on all issues. It would still be a republic, even if the national popular vote elected every single representative, but here we're only talking about the President. There's still lots of checks in the other branches.
"States powers have already been eroded to the point of near obsolescence; " Eroded, yes, to the point of obsolescence no. States and local governments still have more power over individual citizens than do the feds.
"witness the rise of the federal government's power in the last century." Agreed, the Feds power has increased, maybe more than it should, but its not a zero sum game between the states and the feds, I think its actually the people that have lost the most of the power they once had-at least the moderately wealthy white land owning people.
"I honestly don't care what the rest of the world does or how they govern themselves. " You should, they might do it better, but more importantly this seems to imply you thought the video was talking about other systems of governance, but it wasn't. Either you misunderstood, or didn't watch it.
" I find no form of government perfect; all have flaws. However, I find our republic to be the most balanced - when operated properly." Agreed!
" It's not a question of "how" the electoral college works, it's a question of "why" the electoral college works." Disagree, the how and the why both matter. If the how is garbage the why doesn't matter very much.
"We seem to disagree on the latter part and why it's important." Agreed, why do you think it exists? Because the arguments for it you made above are debunked in the videos quite aptly, except the appeal to emotion and nostalgia with the change to the direct election of senators, I'd be interested in any arguments or evidence on the point.
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette, Sir, I edited my response for clarity per your suggestion.
I think we mostly agree on the value of a republic, and federalism. I think we disagree on whether the electoral college is an important part of a republican system. Since the electors are unaccountable to anyone and their votes carry un-mathematical weight which they can throw any way the please and not answer to anyone, the people, the states or any other mechanism of control.
The math still shows that "even winning the next 90 biggest cities in the United States all the way down to Spokane is still not yet 20% of the total population." So the population and city based argument is mathematically unsupportable.
It used to make sense to empower an elector to go and pick a president on your behalf when you couldn't send a rapid accurate message, now you can, and it no longer does.
The ability to debate courteously with whom we disagree is one of the greatest features of our system, and was well modeled by Madison and by Jefferson.
I think we mostly agree on the value of a republic, and federalism. I think we disagree on whether the electoral college is an important part of a republican system. Since the electors are unaccountable to anyone and their votes carry un-mathematical weight which they can throw any way the please and not answer to anyone, the people, the states or any other mechanism of control.
The math still shows that "even winning the next 90 biggest cities in the United States all the way down to Spokane is still not yet 20% of the total population." So the population and city based argument is mathematically unsupportable.
It used to make sense to empower an elector to go and pick a president on your behalf when you couldn't send a rapid accurate message, now you can, and it no longer does.
The ability to debate courteously with whom we disagree is one of the greatest features of our system, and was well modeled by Madison and by Jefferson.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
No, the need to protect the many smaller, and less populous States from the large populations of a few big States is as important today, as it was when the Constitution was written.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The EC isn't perfect, but removing it would pretty much disenfranchise every "fly over state." Besides, this has only happened 4 times, the last being 2000. You do wonder how different the last 15 years would have been if Bush had lost though.
(2)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
TSgt Hunter Logan , I'm going to be honest. I have no idea what you're talking about. What does any of that have to do with the electoral college?
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
TSgt Hunter Logan - Oh wait, I think I know what you meant. You missed my slight jab as I know Chief Bowerman's political leanings. Bush won by taking Florida's electoral votes despite losing the broader election. Had we eliminated the EC, it would have been President Gore overseeing the US's reaction to 9/11.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
TSgt Hunter Logan - It happens. I just do it in person and cross into complete incoherence..
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SCPO (Join to see)
I think we are ignoring the Founding Fathers at our own peril. We are already well beyond the enumerated Federal powers and we are now teetering on the precipice of a tax burden on producers so great as to start driving them out of the country or to stop producing.
The purpose of the Electoral College is to make sure geographic representation in the Republic and in this case, I like the Constitution the way it is.
I think we are ignoring the Founding Fathers at our own peril. We are already well beyond the enumerated Federal powers and we are now teetering on the precipice of a tax burden on producers so great as to start driving them out of the country or to stop producing.
The purpose of the Electoral College is to make sure geographic representation in the Republic and in this case, I like the Constitution the way it is.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
MAJ Matthew Arnold - Sadly, we are 960 degrees from where the founding fathers were. What we have now is a dictatorship. And I'm not talking the present government. I'm talking the whole enchilada from 1970 onwards.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google