Posted on Aug 1, 2015
Has the time come to abolish the Electoral College???
16.6K
1.36K
639
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 >1 y ago
Responses: 252
17
17
0
WOW, as of now it is 47.7 Clinton and 47.5 Trump, so because of 200,000 people we need to do away with Electoral collage, I would say no. The reason we have it is because of representation for under populated areas. I would also say they are still counting, and trump is getting closer, so why are we bitching.
(17)
(0)
PO1 Charles Baldwin
CPO (Join to see) - I understand in my backward way I was trying to agree, just pointing out that it was 2 states that gave her the popular vote
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
PO1 Charles Baldwin - No. She didn't "beat" anybody. All that happened was that those votes were counted in her favor. But it remains to be seen if those votes were legal or not. Knowing the history - and the habits - of the alleged "liberals", all I can say at this point is that the plurality of votes exists, but that the legality of those votes still has to be established. With California issuing driver's licenses to illegals and then accepting driver's licenses as ID for voting purposes, it's pretty obvious that the potential for massive voter fraud is there. Does this explain the massive clinton "margin of victory" in the People's Republic of California? We shall see...
(0)
(0)
SrA Chris Foster
hello gentlemen, i for one cannot see the EC going away since the west coast doesnt require an id to vote, the so called 3 million votes pretty much balance out the 3 million fraudulent votes that have been discovered by independent watch groups, and they are still tabulating the amount of dead american votes, funny how we are required to carry id at all times and yet these states dont require an id to vote as it may impede someones rights.
(0)
(0)
16
16
0
Do You Understand the Electoral College?
Do you understand what the Electoral College is? Or how it works? Or why America uses it to elect its presidents instead of just using a straight popular vot...
(16)
(0)
CAPT (Join to see)
Why do we use the Electoral College to elect our presidents? Why not go with a popular vote? Here's why.
Did this video help you understand the Electoral College? Let us know! -> http://l.prageru.com/2g8mOim
Did this video help you understand the Electoral College? Let us know! -> http://l.prageru.com/2g8mOim
Video Survey: "Do You Understand the Electoral College?"
Web survey powered by SurveyMonkey.com. Create your own online survey now with SurveyMonkey's expert certified FREE templates.
(3)
(0)
CMSgt Bill Hamilton
I felt that maybe the popular vote count was the most fair way to go for years until I saw the above video a few months ago. It really explains how brilliant our forefathers were 250+ years ago in starting our form of government.
(3)
(0)
LT Marcus Taylor
They were also brilliant in that they had the states appoint the US senators. Not sure how or why that got changed. Way too much power has been taken by the Federal gov't that used to be the province of the states.
(2)
(0)
15
15
0
Absolutely NOT ... we do not want to be ruled by a mob .. and look at what they just did .. Saved us from 4 years of Hillary !!!!!!!!
(15)
(0)
LTC Joseph Gross
We see that mob now in the major cities, rioting, burning vehicles and attacking police officers. Sure! Let's give them more power!
(6)
(0)
15
15
0
If you want to know why just look at CA. One of the most liberal states in the union, but it's minority conservative population is higher than that of some 100% red states. CA conservatives are universally underrepresented and policies positive to their beliefs are rare.
Now imagine this is a national scale. Banning the electoral college ONLY benefits major urban population centers (or more simply, liberals). If the opposite were true, and conservatives ruled the cities, you wouldn't see Democrats asking to abolish the electoral college.
Now imagine this is a national scale. Banning the electoral college ONLY benefits major urban population centers (or more simply, liberals). If the opposite were true, and conservatives ruled the cities, you wouldn't see Democrats asking to abolish the electoral college.
(15)
(0)
Remember that our system was designed as a Republic, not a Democracy.
We have checks and balances on everyone, including on the people. The people are as corruptible as those in office. The electoral college is a useful check that also serves as a reminder of the existence and importance of the States. We effectively have 50 presidential elections, not just one.
We have checks and balances on everyone, including on the people. The people are as corruptible as those in office. The electoral college is a useful check that also serves as a reminder of the existence and importance of the States. We effectively have 50 presidential elections, not just one.
(15)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA I like everything you said but I couldn't help but think of the hilarious disaster that would result in letting each presidential candidate be president of the states he/she won.
(2)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
In a way the Founders did set it up so that the uninformed were unable to pick the president or be influenced by outsiders. The 10th amendment was supposed to give more power to the states and the Constitution was to limit Federal power. We still have the uninformed and apparently the foreign influence. If the process could be modified as suggested, there would be a small number of large cities that would determine our fate and they would not care for flyover country.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Smart Ranger!
13
13
0
13
13
0
Personally I prefer a popular vote for President of the United States and the Vice President. It would great if the top two positions in the USA government were decoupled so that each person would be voted up based on their own. Since the VP serves as President if the President is killed or dies it would be great if somebody qualified on their own merits occupied the VP position versus the current system where the VP is basically brought in on the coattails of the President elect. Popular vote is good enough for each US Senator and member of the House of Representatives. Granted this would require a constitutional amendment to actually accomplish. There has been a move towards a constitutional convention and a significant number of states have already voted in favor of a constitutional convention. Once convened, the constitutional convention is generally obligated to consider all amendments which meet the requirements. COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen C., LTC John Shaw, SGM Mikel Dawson, SGM Steve Wettstein, CPT L S, GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad, SSgt (Join to see) SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4", SGT Randal Groover, SGT Forrest Stewart, SGT Robert Hawks, SPC (Join to see)
(13)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Maj John Bell - Not really sure where you're going with that. My comment was concerning the founding father's belief that farmers shouldn't get involved (or be allowed to get involved) in non-farm matters and bankers shouldn't get involved in farm matters, etc. My comment was that this model is no longer applicable.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
PO3 Donald Murphy - I guess then that I do not understand how your comment about farming relates to your comment about lobbying and Obamacare.
I think you assertion that the founding fathers believed farmers shouldn't get involved in non-farm matters, and bankers shouldn't get involved in non-bank matters is absolutely false and nonsense. You may find a quote that seems to support that from one founding father, but nothing approaching a significant minority of the founding fathers. Plus I can probably find a quote from the same founding father that doesn't support that assertion.
I think you assertion that the founding fathers believed farmers shouldn't get involved in non-farm matters, and bankers shouldn't get involved in non-bank matters is absolutely false and nonsense. You may find a quote that seems to support that from one founding father, but nothing approaching a significant minority of the founding fathers. Plus I can probably find a quote from the same founding father that doesn't support that assertion.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Maj John Bell - In a nutshell:
1. Lobbying did not exist when the nation was created.
2. Cross party politics did not exist when the nation was created.
Over half of the democrats did not want/like Obamacare, yet it passed with a majority. How? Obviously republican votes. So as elected conservatives are voting liberal and elected liberals are voting conservative and all are doing things only to improve shares in lobbying companies...
What real need/purpose does the EC serve? How would the nation be worse off under OMOV?
1. Lobbying did not exist when the nation was created.
2. Cross party politics did not exist when the nation was created.
Over half of the democrats did not want/like Obamacare, yet it passed with a majority. How? Obviously republican votes. So as elected conservatives are voting liberal and elected liberals are voting conservative and all are doing things only to improve shares in lobbying companies...
What real need/purpose does the EC serve? How would the nation be worse off under OMOV?
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
PO3 Donald Murphy -
December 2009, the U.S. Senate voted 60 to 39 for Obamacare. The Senate bill passed without a single GOP vote. Source: Congressional Record Daily
March 21, 2010: The Senate's version of the health-care plan is approved by the House in a 219-212 vote. All Republicans and 34 Democrats vote AGAINST the plan.
Source: Congressional Record Daily
The only votes that bi-partisan were the "No" votes.
December 2009, the U.S. Senate voted 60 to 39 for Obamacare. The Senate bill passed without a single GOP vote. Source: Congressional Record Daily
March 21, 2010: The Senate's version of the health-care plan is approved by the House in a 219-212 vote. All Republicans and 34 Democrats vote AGAINST the plan.
Source: Congressional Record Daily
The only votes that bi-partisan were the "No" votes.
(1)
(0)
12
12
0
Not unless you can find a better way for everyone outside of the major population areas to have a say in anything.
(12)
(0)
11
11
0
All that knowledge and research, and you still asked the question of "How can we truly be a democratic society...." And that's where I realized that you missed the boat you so desperately want to rock. We are NOT a democracy. We are a Republic, despite popular opinion to the contrary. Is the system perfect? No. But neither is a pure democracy. Keep the system, it's worked since our founding, and will continue to work in the future.
(11)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
SFC (Join to see) I think you need to reread the amendments to the US Constitution that modified the way the electoral college functions. :-)
Amendment XII Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
[Note some sections were modified by the XX Amendment in 1933 - including the dates when an incoming President assumes office]
Amendment XII Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
[Note some sections were modified by the XX Amendment in 1933 - including the dates when an incoming President assumes office]
(0)
(0)
PFC Aaron Knapp
The E.C. was founded in 1787 not 1776 so not quite the beginning. That being said I posted this question to spark an intellectual conversation about the system not to be treated as if I am uneducated or unaware. But thank you for joining in the conversation.
(0)
(0)
PFC Aaron Knapp
Asking a question doesn't mean I don't understand how the system works nor does it mean I support one or the other. You suggest I'm just trying to "rock the boat" when in fact I'm just trying to get people discussing it. Considering I asked this question a while ago and it's still getting votes and comments just proves to me it was a goid question and has generated the type of talk I was looking to have.
(2)
(0)
PFC Aaron Knapp
and yes I did say "rock the boat" but I meant it as a way to get a conversation not to expect change.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
The EC assures us that NYC, LA, and Chicago are not the only votes that will matter............
(11)
(0)
SFC Everett Oliver
PO1 John Miller - I would bet that you are a liberal. That is the only way you would ignore the facts in this.
(0)
(0)
PO1 John Miller
SFC Everett Oliver
Obviously you've never seen my posts in the political forums here otherwise you would know what an asinine statement you just made and how far from the truth you are.
Here's a suggestion, instead of attacking me you could ask me why I disagree.
Obviously you've never seen my posts in the political forums here otherwise you would know what an asinine statement you just made and how far from the truth you are.
Here's a suggestion, instead of attacking me you could ask me why I disagree.
(1)
(0)
SFC Everett Oliver
That was not an attack. Had it been you would have known it. Why don't you go ahead and tell us how the major cities would not dominate any Poplar vote.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google