Poll: U.S. Electoral College

[temporal1]

Choose+discuss.

[Bootstrap]

It's in the Constitution. There's no big reason to change it. Democracy could function just fine with or without it, but it's extremely unlikely to change.

[Dan Z]

I don't feel strongly about it one way or another. It is a curiosity to me. I kind of like the historical/traditional uniqueness of it all.

Like most things political, it seems that people predictably prefer and argue for systems that benefit their party, regardless of rationale. I'll admit I struggle to understand the Electoral College's purpose. The most common argument I hear for it is that it tends to distribute vote power a bit more broadly (e.g. to rural areas and less populous states) than a straight election would. I do think it strange that it can sometimes allow the overall vote to go one direction while the election goes the other way (like it did in this past election).

[QuietObserver]

I think the Electoral College is a fundamentally conservative concept. It slows down the speed of change and constrains the masses. I think this is a good thing.

The founders would probably be outraged at how much power the president has today. When they designed the Electoral College, the envisioned a weak executive branch. In recent years, the presidents keep grabbing more power. Trump highlights the problems with this. Unfortunately, an impotent Congress creates a hunger for a powerful President.

[JimFoxvog]

The Electoral College gives residents of low population states much more say in electing a President than those in high population states. When the US started as separate states (old meaning: nations) working together, it made sense. The US is now a single nation so giving such power to low populations does not seem fair.

[Robert]

The Electoral College gives residents of low population states much more say in electing a President than those in high population states. When the US started as separate states (old meaning: nations) working together, it made sense. The US is now a single nation so giving such power to low populations does not seem fair.

It is quite fair for a republic, not so much for a democracy. The USA is not a democracy. It is a republic, divided into 50 zones called states. The constitution was written as the united States of America, not the United States of America. Each zone chooses who they would like to see as a federal president. Those blocks given to each state, because of population are the electoral college votes. So each zone is weighted by population, yet must vote as a block. I still think it has value because it keeps the high population places like NYC and LA from choosing the president alone. It forces a candidate to be a representative of all states instead of a few high population ones.

It would take an amendment of the constitution to remove it, so I doubt that will happen.

[temporal1]

This USA TODAY Opinion piece prompted this poll.
It appears it may be disappearing, as i try to review it, so, i’ll add it now, in case it does disappear.

Opinion: “Rural Americans would be serfs if we abolished the Electoral College”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 770424002/

If the National Popular Vote drive kills the Electoral College, rural and small town Americans who supply our food and energy will lose their voice.

Should rural and small-town Americans be reduced to serfdom? The American Founders didn’t think so. This is one reason why they created checks and balances, including the Electoral College. Today that system is threatened by a proposal called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV.

Rural America produces almost all our country’s food, as well as raw materials like metals, cotton and timber. Energy, fossil fuels but also alternatives like wind and solar come mostly from rural areas. In other words, the material inputs of modern life flow out of rural communities and into cities.

This is fine, so long as the exchange is voluntary — rural people choose to sell their goods and services, receive a fair price, and have their freedom protected under law. But history shows that city dwellers have a nasty habit of taking advantage of their country cousins. Greeks enslaved whole masses of rural people, known as helots. Medieval Europe had feudalism. The Russians had their serfs. .. ..

.. Credit the American Founders with setting up a system of limited government with lots of checks and balances. The U.S. Senate makes sure all states are represented equally, even low-population rural states like Wyoming and Vermont. Limits on federal power, along with the Bill of Rights, are supposed to protect Americans from overreaching federal regulations. And the Electoral College makes it impossible for one population-dense region of the country to control the presidency.


Skipping the constitutional amendment process

This is why Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. Instead of winning over small-town Americans, she amassed a popular vote lead based on California and a few big cities. She won those places with huge margins but lost just about everywhere else. And the system worked. The Electoral College requires more than just the most raw votes to win — it requires geographic balance. This helps to protect rural and small-town Americans.

Now a California millionaire named John Koza is trying to undo this system. He is leading and funding the National Popular Vote campaign. Their plan is to get state governments to ignore how their own citizens vote in presidential elections and instead get them to cast their electoral votes based on the national popular vote. If it works, this will be like getting rid of the Electoral College but without actually amending the Constitution. ..

'2 wolves and a lamb' voting on lunch

California has already passed NPV, along with 13 other states plus Washington, D.C. Nevada, with six electoral votes, could be next. NPV only takes effect if it is joined by enough states that they control 270 electoral votes, which would then control the outcome of all future presidential elections. If that happens (NPV needs 81 more electoral votes), and if the courts do not strike it down, big cities will gain more political power at the expense of everyone else.

The idea that every vote should count equally is attractive. But a quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin famously reminds us that democracy can be “two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for lunch.” (City dwellers who think that meat comes from the grocery store might not understand why this is such a big problem for the lamb.) And when you think about it, every check on government power, from the Electoral College to the Bill of Rights, is a restraint on the majority.

The Electoral College makes it even harder to win the presidency. It requires geographic balance and helps protect Americans who might otherwise have their voices ignored. All Americans should value constitutional protections, like the Electoral College, that remind us that the real purpose of government is to protect our individual rights.



Trent England, host of The Trent England Show podcast,
is executive vice president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and director of its the Save Our States project. Follow him on Twitter: @TrentEngland

[temporal1]

So far as i know, the Electoral College has always been discussed+debated.
In another thread, appleman made some points that convinced me it’s a good thing, at least for the U.S. republic.

Page 3 / Dec 2016 / The Electoral College
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... e&start=20

Bootstrap. Sure a huge number do not feel government works for them. I happen to be one of those in Canada. But that does not mean that when I do not vote which is normally that I do not accept the fact that my not voting means that I by default am supporting the ultimate winner. In the end the winner couldn't care less that I did not vote for him. I and millions of others did not vote for the opponent and he there for won.

As to your electoral college system. Be glad for it.

In the Canadian system politicians only have to speak to what the urban populace wants and they will almost certainly win.

Rural interests have dropped so far on the totem pole of importance to them we may as well not exist.

Perspective. helpful. thank you.
as well, you've helped me understand what-on-earth has been happening in Canada, which has truly puzzled me.

Presently, i see some discussion floating about implementing a state version of the Electoral College, for state-wide elections, especially for states with very large cities, like Chicago, and NYC.
i would like to see serious discussion on this, ‘cause, the imbalance in state elections has reached (disastrous) levels.

The obvious problem being, those states most in need, have dominant parties (DNC) which would not consider the thought!

(In my mind) this idea “should be” easier and more manageable than the more frequent discussions of dividing states up into smaller states, and/or city or state secession.

All of these talks have gone on since i was a young child, very likely before that.
However, with the internet, mob rule has reared its ugly head once again.

i hope for order, but, i see lots of self-righteous headstrong disorder.

[Bootstrap]

I can see both sides of this argument, but I am also convinced nothing is changing and what we have is just fine. Let me address each in one post.

One argument against the electoral college is that each person's vote should count equally. These people say that someone who loses the popular vote should use the election. Temp's picture basically shows that states with more people would have more say because each person's vote would be counted equally.

Under the current system, a vote in Wyoming is worth 3 1/2 times as much as a vote in California.



The other major argument involves the extent to which protecting slavery was a motivating factor in the electoral college. Southern states wanted to make sure they would have the power to keep slavery intact. That's no longer an issue.

This argument seems to come up whenever the person who won the popular vote loses the electoral vote. This has happened five times.

1824: John Quincy Adams
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes
1888: Benjamin Harrison
2000: George W. Bush
2016: Donald Trump

[Bootstrap]

Here's why the electoral college won't be eliminated.

• It requires a Constitutional Amendment
• Constitutional Amendments are hard
• The states who have the most to lose also have most of the votes when deciding whether to ratify a Constitutional Amendment

The only way to eliminate the electoral college is via a Constitutional amendment because the Electoral College is in the Constitution. So far, about 11,699 amendments have been proposed, only 33 were approved by Congress and sent to the States for ratification, and only 27 became law.

2/3 of Congress would have to take the first step, adopting the proposal and sending it to the States. Currently, Congress is having a hard time agreeing even on very simple and obvious things.

Beyond that, an amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. Looking at the map Temp shared, do you think 3/4 of these States would ratify the Constitution? The current system means that a vote in most states is worth more than a vote in the most populated states. Most states would lose under that system. They will not ratify that kind of amendment.