Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
spartan max2

Should the electoral college be abolished?

95 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

spartan max2

A Short five min video where they go back and forth on the pros and cons of the electoral college. The girl is pro electorial the guy is con electorial. 

Figured I would share.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The Electoral College was a compromise - remember those? - between the framers that was designed in part to ensure the voice of the several STATES.  These men understood the danger of rule by the mob, aka democracy.  They were well educated in the enlightenment and understood human nature and its unchanging designs for power.  The idea of having the people vote for a slate of Electors from each state, then have those Electors vote for the president was an intentional mechanism.  It was a way to specifically remove rule by the mob and create a truly representative Republic.  

The system has worked for over 240 years and I'll add that this current ideological divide will not be helped or healed by attempting to simply change the EC by some kind of judicial action or legislation.  In fact, I believe it is one of two power grabs that if attempted could lead to chaos.  Those who clamor for "democracy" aren't mature enough to grasp what that would mean to the millions who live outside the major urban areas.  

Removing the EC by diktat would shortly lead to one party government and tyranny.  I believe that our problem doesn't stem from the system of vote counting we use, it's the refusal to compromise and live by the decision of the ballot.  Long term, that is a dangerous path for this nation's wellbeing.

ETA - I can't believe this guy actually used the term "hacking the election".  That tells me all I need to know about his mindset.

Edited by and then
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

Yes the EC mirrors the idea of the House and Senate also, where in one the people rule and in the other, the states do.

I do not support being rid of the EC, even when it works against my candidate. We need it. Same with the Senate.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
3 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

Yes the EC mirrors the idea of the House and Senate also, where in one the people rule and in the other, the states do.

I do not support being rid of the EC, even when it works against my candidate. We need it. Same with the Senate.

I've always thought the idea was brilliant in its simplicity.  We are a united group of states and the winner is selected by who wins the majority of votes in the majority of the states.  To do anything other than this would be fundamentally unfair to the states with smaller populations.  Above all else, if the people decide to abolish this system for another method, it HAS to be done by the Constitutionally prescribed amendment process.  For me, that is a red line.  If any government ever attempts to set aside a part of the Constitution by executive or legislative fiat, the rest of the Constitution will follow.  Holding the line on this is worthy of the fight.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

I was also curious how many times a president won or lost the popular vote. Since that's often part of the debate.

It looks like 4 times, 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote

Quote

The presidential elections of 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016 produced an Electoral College winner who did not receive the most votes in the general election.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
29 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

Yes the EC mirrors the idea of the House and Senate also, where in one the people rule and in the other, the states do.

I do not support being rid of the EC, even when it works against my candidate. We need it. Same with the Senate.

The thing that needs to be abolished, because it is the reason the electoral college is a problem, is the parties.  Get rid of the control of the democrat & republican parties, make it so that no one can buy a candidate, a party or a vote and the Electoral College will work like it is supposed to.  The reprobates causing the problem are also the ones claiming we need to get rid of the electoral college.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar
6 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

The thing that needs to be abolished, because it is the reason the electoral college is a problem, is the parties.  Get rid of the control of the democrat & republican parties, make it so that no one can buy a candidate, a party or a vote and the Electoral College will work like it is supposed to.  The reprobates causing the problem are also the ones claiming we need to get rid of the electoral college.

I agree, but we aren't gonna win the party thing I imagine, but what we can do is make lobbying illegal and perhaps give each candidate that makes it past the primaries like 500k in funds to run and that is ALL they can use. This would level it to rich or poor candidates in theory.

@and then isn't there some maniac EC voting compact some states cooked up that goes into effect if enough states join it or something? I read it recently but cannot recall where and you might know as up on this as you are. THAT needs abolishing. No deals, that is bs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

The Electoral College was originally created for lots of reasons:

1.  In a unicameral system, large states would soon have more political clout than small ones, so a two-house system was chosen as a compromise:  In one house, a state's population would be controlling; in the other, all states would be treated equal.

2.  By having a group of electors between the people and their President, a demagogue would be less likely to become President.  We can see how well THAT worked out.

3.  Without electronic communication, it was necessary to have an independent body charged with responsibility for determining who the President would be.

4.  The Electoral College was designed to give slave=holding states an advantage, as each slave counted as 3/5 person, yet could not vote.

5.  The real purpose of te Electoral College was to allow many different disparate groups to reach a compromise, allowing all to support the Constitution.  Without it, the Constitution would probably have never been ratified.

Four of the five reasons for its existence no longer exist, or were proven ineffective when actually tested.  We should remove this lumbering dinosaur from our Constitution and allow for direct election of the President.

Doug

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
12 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

I agree, but we aren't gonna win the party thing I imagine, but what we can do is make lobbying illegal and perhaps give each candidate that makes it past the primaries like 500k in funds to run and that is ALL they can use. This would level it to rich or poor candidates in theory.

@and then isn't there some maniac EC voting compact some states cooked up that goes into effect if enough states join it or something? I read it recently but cannot recall where and you might know as up on this as you are. THAT needs abolishing. No deals, that is bs.

Getting rid of lobbying and the need to advertise on television for TWO YEARS or more would go a long way to fixing a lot, but 500,000?  That is excessive, why does anyone need that much when we have email and websites?  No federal politician goes door to door any more and even if they did, let them buy their own lunch and any volunteers can do the same.

Getting rid of lobbying and taking away political donations would break the democratic and republican parties, which is a good thing in my book.  How do you think the parties have survived and what do you think their goal is, they could not care less about the country, they care for the money.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
18 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

isn't there some maniac EC voting compact some states cooked up that goes into effect if enough states join it or something? I read it recently but cannot recall where and you might know as up on this as you are. THAT needs abolishing. No deals, that is bs.

I've seen a reference about that but it would be a direct challenge to the supremacy clause and if any group of states takes nullification THAT far, we'd be in a true Constitutional crisis.  That would essentially be a group of renegade states ignoring the Constitution and it couldn't be allowed if the nation is going to remain whole.  The same with the proposals I've seen of apportioning Electors rather than winner takes all.  That's just another attempt to do an end-run around the intent of the EC.  The winner is supposed to be the one that gets the most votes in the most states, period. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
14 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

We should remove this lumbering dinosaur from our Constitution and allow for direct election of the President.

How do you suggest we go about removing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar
12 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Getting rid of lobbying and the need to advertise on television for TWO YEARS or more would go a long way to fixing a lot, but 500,000?  That is excessive, why does anyone need that much when we have email and websites?  No federal politician goes door to door any more and even if they did, let them buy their own lunch and any volunteers can do the same.

Getting rid of lobbying and taking away political donations would break the democratic and republican parties, which is a good thing in my book.  How do you think the parties have survived and what do you think their goal is, they could not care less about the country, they care for the money.

well I am trying to be fair for the poorer candidate, and helping to pay for travel costs some and staff. Half a mill is not extreme if he/she depends on set debates televised among all, and set media releases from ALL. One TV ad costs nearly that anymore in some time frames. So, this is staff and travel and such. It is actually small for 2 years or so of running and living if allowed no outside donations - impeachable offenses those if they are done under the table. It still favors the rich but it will curb some of the worst of it and is a starting point for an idea anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
2 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

well I am trying to be fair for the poorer candidate, and helping to pay for travel costs some and staff. Half a mill is not extreme if he/she depends on set debates televised among all, and set media releases from ALL. One TV ad costs nearly that anymore in some time frames. So, this is staff and travel and such. It is actually small for 2 years or so of running and living if allowed no outside donations - impeachable offenses those if they are done under the table. It still favors the rich but it will curb some of the worst of it and is a starting point for an idea anyway.

That is part of my point 2 years is too long.  It should be 6 months at the most.  They can mail out notices to registerd voters when they file their paper work and then do what ever setting but campaigning should never be more than 6 months.  Just look at how many spend the money two years out and drop out.  And there should be no TV ads in my opinion.  Too many people make money off that AND there are non profits that very rich people "donate" to that spread lies on those ads to get people to vote the way they want.  All of that needs to be stopped.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar
31 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

That is part of my point 2 years is too long.  It should be 6 months at the most.  They can mail out notices to registerd voters when they file their paper work and then do what ever setting but campaigning should never be more than 6 months.  Just look at how many spend the money two years out and drop out.  And there should be no TV ads in my opinion.  Too many people make money off that AND there are non profits that very rich people "donate" to that spread lies on those ads to get people to vote the way they want.  All of that needs to be stopped.

OK, so 500k for a 6 month run for those who already got through primaries.

that cash amount is chicken feed for that crowd so we may be onto something here :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
2 minutes ago, Not A Rockstar said:

OK, so 500k for a 6 month run for those who already got through primaries.

that cash amount is chicken feed for that crowd so we may be onto something here :) 

Besides, the primaries are not 2 years out so your stipulation of going through primaries is a good one.  Though that eliminates the pre-primary campaigning, which could be done by email and U.S. Postal service.  A resume and synopsis of items the candidate wants to address when elected.  We don't need cards every week from the same candidate stating why their opponent is wrong. It is a waste of money and I think the television ads take too much advantage, not to mention the cost, which is not just the air time but someone to design the ad, someone to film it and actors to play their parts etc.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not A Rockstar

ok so the Rockstar party and the Desertrat party can negotiate and settle this issue this fast. What is wrong with DC? :D 

*bangs plastic toy gavel* UM senators and reps how about votes? 

lmao.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute

The Electoral College is a ridiculous idea!  This lunatic wouldn't be in office if there was a 'one person, one vote' system.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
Just now, acute said:

The Electoral College is a ridiculous idea!  This lunatic wouldn't be in office if there was a 'one person, one vote' system.

Well, Acute, your opinion is noted but America has never elected a president in any other way.  I think people who don't like that system our Founders created do so because they lose sight of America beginning as truly "united" STATES.  Each state had its own "sovereign" (Governor) and legislative body that the people elected periodically and the Constitution was written not to empower a Federal or central government but to LIMIT the power of that kind of government to the barest essential functions that the states couldn't fulfill on their own.  The most important was defense against enemies.

The Founders argued, wrote opinions and explanations (Federalist Papers) justifying their outlook on government and WHY they felt that way.  Then they voted, compromised and hammered out our Constitution, including a procedure for it to be updated if enough of the people wanted it changed.  We rebelled from a Monarchy that refused to allow us representation even though we were heavily taxed.  We learned from that experience (briefly) and limited the power of the central government and the Constitution strictly reserves to the "several states" all powers that are not explicitly written into the Constitution.

Since all of the men who were there were representing their home state, they had to be convinced that their state would be equal with all the others, no matter the number of citizens.  The electoral college system was the compromise they reached.  As a practical matter, if we abolished it today and went to a simple, popular vote, it would cause every presidential election in the future to be decided by the masses living in the major cities.  Candidates wouldn't even bother to travel to 70+ % of the states for campaigning.  Think about that a bit.  If you were working and being taxed and the government was making decisions that you felt were consistently against your best interests, you'd feel powerless and angry, right?  The dirty secret that governments don't want the people to be aware of is that they cannot impose their will against a population they need for their own survival.  Angry people eventually fight back. 

If people here really want to get rid of it, there's a procedure to follow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

  Get rid of the control of the democrat & republican parties, make it so that no one can buy a candidate, a party or a vote and the Electoral College will work like it is supposed to.

I heard this week that nearly 40% of voters say they are independent.  I wish even half of those were of a mind to start a third party with some real heft.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
38 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I heard this week that nearly 40% of voters say they are independent.  I wish even half of those were of a mind to start a third party with some real heft.

I tried for a decade. Mccain was the only republican I voted for in '08 and I didnt vote for one of the two major parties until '18.Unless the dems dont pass articles tomorrow now is not the time to be ****ing around with the third party stuff IMO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

The only bad thing about the electoral college is it is based on population, and the congressional districts needed to represent all these people, illegal or not. So effectively since 1980 California has gained 15 electoral votes based on population and the illegals are not excluded, so to me it is obvious what they are doing. 

Here is an article from CBS from 2008 and look at their stance on illegal immigration vs electoral votes.           https://www.cbsnews.com/news/column-illegal-immigration-affects-electoral-votes/

Aside from the burdens posed by illegal immigrants on crime, detention facilities, job security, taxes, wages, social security, medicare, Medicaid, violence, terrorism and drug and human trafficking, illegal aliens are slowly eroding the power of American voters.Though illegal immigrants dont have an effect on the popular vote, they are changing the electoral vote, and this change benefits Obama. Hispanic voters historically vote Democratic, and as reported by USA Today in July, Hispanics will become decisive swing votes in future elections.  

Now that Trump has become President, the MSM has changed its tune..

And here is just how much these electoral votes in California from illegals affect our election.  https://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2018/06/24/illegal-aliens-give-california-nine-extra-electoral-votes/

California has 9 extra electoral votes due to illegal aliens. This disenfranchises all of South Carolina, or Alabama, or Montana + Wyoming + North Dakota, or Colorado. Entire States are cancelled out by illegal aliens, even if they don't vote (they do).

 

 

Edited by South Alabam
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
30 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

The only bad thing about the electoral college is it is based on population, and the congressional districts needed to represent all these people, illegal or not. So effectively since 1980 California has gained 15 electoral votes based on population and the illegals are not excluded, so to me it is obvious what they are doing. 

I honestly dont know the answer but id be curious if both sides balance out when you factor in prison gerrymandering. Its the same concept, groups of people who cant vote counted for under the census.

https://www.prisonersofthecensus.org/impact.html

Quote

he Problem

The way the Census Bureau counts people in prison creates significant problems for democracy and for our nation’s future. It leads to a dramatic distortion of representation at local and state levels, and creates an inaccurate picture of community populations for research and planning purposes.

The Bureau counts incarcerated people as residents of the towns where they are confined, though they are barred from voting in 48 states and return to their homes after being released. The practice also defies most state constitutions and statutes, which explicitly state that incarceration does not change a residence

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
9 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

The thing that needs to be abolished, because it is the reason the electoral college is a problem, is the parties.  Get rid of the control of the democrat & republican parties, make it so that no one can buy a candidate, a party or a vote and the Electoral College will work like it is supposed to.  The reprobates causing the problem are also the ones claiming we need to get rid of the electoral college.

It wouldn't solve the problem, as such. The people would still vote for candidates who represent the values of the party they identify with. It would have the effect of, simply, driving the parties underground. The College works as intended, preventing the tyranny of the more populous States over the less populous. The only way to abolish the College is to persuade the less populous States to give up that protection. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
16 hours ago, and then said:

How do you suggest we go about removing it?

Constitutional Amendment

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It wouldn't solve the problem, as such. The people would still vote for candidates who represent the values of the party they identify with. It would have the effect of, simply, driving the parties underground. The College works as intended, preventing the tyranny of the more populous States over the less populous. The only way to abolish the College is to persuade the less populous States to give up that protection. 

There might be a way to lessen the effect of parties:

Instead of electing one candidate for each party as is now done in the majority of state primaries, we instead elect three altogether.  No restrictions on party affiliation.  All could be from different parties, or two from the same party, or all three from the same party.  Party names don't even appear on the ballot.  The general election then selects from among the three.  This way, in a close race, the person in third place serves as king maker between the other two, thus ensuring that minority concerns are taken into consideration.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.