Poll: U.S. Electoral College

[temporal1]

boot:
“One argument against the electoral college is that each person's vote should count equally.”

i was thinking about this, the present big fad of touting “democracy!” etc.
if the turn is to go there, wow, the U.S., now highly minority-voice-focused, would have lots of adjustments to be made. “Majority Rule” was sent packing decades ago.

i hope the EC remains.
i’m well-aware, when it doesn’t suit your favor, threats to abandon it quickly arise.
one of the most dependable truisms that exists.

i have “this memory” of hillary smugly gloating about how DJT “could never win,” simply based on the fact she claimed she securely held the EC. she speaks with head-nodding assurity.

i remember, because, i thought she was surely correct.
she had no EC complaints at that time.

[temporal1]

Page 1:

.. 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. ..“

boot, you ignore how present-day legal wizards attempt to undermine the Constitution by working around it, rather than addressing it as designed.

this is happening in lib states attempting to preemptively pass laws “in the event” Roe versus Wade is overturned. when, in fact, i see no certain path that would happen.

i believe you underestimate legal wizardery.
the amoral armed with law degrees are a scary bunch on earth.

[temporal1]

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.

i agree with what you’re saying here. mob rule has consistently been found lacking, today’s tech version will be no different.

i would add, i think the founders would be out of their minds seeing what Congress has devolved to. every warning ignored.

[Bootstrap]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not eliminate the Electoral College. And it's not a shady legal trick.

Each state can decide whether to award all electoral votes to one candidate or divide them up according to the popular vote in that state. Suppose 51% of the voters in my state vote for Mr Green and 49% vote for Mr Blue. If my state has 6 electoral votes, does Mr Green get all 6 or does my state decide to split them up according to the popular vote? That's up to the state.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is trying to get states to agree to divide their electoral votes according to the popular vote. Here's why: currently, a presidential election is all about a small number of states, and campaigns hang out almost exclusively in those states:

Similarly, in 2016, almost all campaign events (94%) were in the 12 states where Trump’s support was between 43% and 51%. Two-thirds of the events (273 of 399) were in just 6 states (OH, FL, VA, NC, PA, MI).

This is how the US map looks with state sizes based on the number of campaign events in 2016 (missing states received no campaign events):

So I think the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would give more power to more states and would make presidential candidates pay more attention to their issues.

[temporal1]

Unless-until states have a state version of the EC, the cities will control votes, this is presently happening. County voting maps reflect how it works out.

2014 Illinois
https://www.politico.com/2014-election/ ... /illinois/

2014 Example map:


To say there is “nothing shady” about politics/law/legal wrangling may be the single most ludicrous thing i’ve ever heard. If it’s politics, or if it’s of human design, it’s shady, in the least.
For perspective, refer to “filthy rags.”

[Dan Z]

Unless-until states have a state version of the EC, the cities will control votes, this is presently happening. County voting maps reflect how it works out.

2014 Illinois
https://www.politico.com/2014-election/ ... /illinois/

2014 Example map:


To say there is “nothing shady” about politics/law/legal wrangling may be the single most ludicrous thing i’ve ever heard. If it’s politics, or if it’s of human design, it’s shady, in the least.
For perspective, refer to “filthy rags.”

This is the argument I have heard most often - that the electoral college helps protect against urban power blocks - which may put the nation out of balance when it comes to the differing interest of urban and rural states/voters.

That being said, if most people live in urban areas, isn't it unfair that their votes don't carry the same weight as the rural people. Kind of goes against the one-person one-vote idea.

Th

[temporal1]

This is the argument I have heard most often - that the electoral college helps protect against urban power blocks - which may put the nation out of balance when it comes to the differing interest of urban and rural states/voters.

That being said, if most people live in urban areas, isn't it unfair that their votes don't carry the same weight as the rural people. Kind of goes against the one-person one-vote idea.
Th

i think so.
If the U.S. is going to return to classic democratic Majority Rule, then many adjustments made to compensate for minorities will need to be removed. The U.S. has become “all about” minority voices across the board. This topic reflects how much we take minority rule for granted.

Should this be undone? Personally, i do feel minority rule has gone overboard.
Example: Affirmative Action.

The U.S. Republic was never meant to be purely 1 person, 1 vote.
Throughout history, the needs of urban areas versus rural areas has always caused conflict.
However, both are necessary. We’re stuck with wrestling over it.

The USA TODAY Opinion piece on Page 1 describes it pretty well.
appleman, with his first-person experience in Canada “paints a clear picture,” too.

[Bootstrap]

If the U.S. is going to return to classic democratic Majority Rule, then many adjustments made to compensate for minorities will need to be removed. The U.S. has become “all about” minority voices across the board. This topic reflects how much we take minority rule for granted.

Should this be undone? Personally, i do feel minority rule has gone overboard.
Example: Affirmative Action.

I'm confused. I don't think there's anything like Affirmative Action for voting. One vote is one vote, regardless of race. Actually, maybe the Electoral College is a kind of Affirmative Action for people who live in particular states, but not one that favors minorities.

And The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is basically going back to the original Electoral College, when almost all states did allocate electoral votes according to the popular vote in their state. The article seems to claim that it is aimed at undoing the original plan of the Founders, but it's really more like going back to what they intended and originally implemented when they created the Electoral College.

The U.S. Republic was never meant to be purely 1 person, 1 vote.
Throughout history, the needs of urban areas versus rural areas has always caused conflict.
However, both are necessary. We’re stuck with wrestling over it.

Definitely. And perhaps that's felt most sharply for issues within a state. I grew up in a very rural region of New York, on the opposite end of the state. About half the population lived in one city. The state government basically did not know my county existed.

[Robert]

I'm confused. I don't think there's anything like Affirmative Action for voting. One vote is one vote, regardless of race. Actually, maybe the Electoral College is a kind of Affirmative Action for people who live in particular states, but not one that favors minorities.

The reason why the Electoral College is functional is because the united States are a collection of "states" working together. It is not really one unified nation, but 50 unified states. Each state selects representatives, senators, and whom they want for president. Their majority vote seeds the electoral college. This is how republics work, not the way democracies work.

This allows each region, or state, to work more independently and have some autonomy with their citizens and laws. I think this is a very good thing. What works in midtown NYC would not work in upper Michigan. Even in construction, codes have to be adjusted for differing regions. Laws need the same.

Until federal income tax, taxes were mostly land tax. Although the rural regions were less populated, they often paid a much higher tax per person because of property tax. Allowing cities to dictate federal law would most likely tax rural areas almost out of existence.

While the EC may not be perfect, it is a good system to find some balance in the presidential elections that bring int he voice of the minority, rural areas, so they are not shut down by the more populated urban centers. Republics protect the rights of the minority much more than democracies. This is important even in a presidential election.

[Bootstrap]

I'm confused. I don't think there's anything like Affirmative Action for voting. One vote is one vote, regardless of race. Actually, maybe the Electoral College is a kind of Affirmative Action for people who live in particular states, but not one that favors minorities.

The reason why the Electoral College is functional is because the united States are a collection of "states" working together. It is not really one unified nation, but 50 unified states. Each state selects representatives, senators, and whom they want for president. Their majority vote seeds the electoral college. This is how republics work, not the way democracies work.

I should have been clearer - I'm not arguing against the Electoral College, I'm actually arguing against the "winner-take-all" strategy, which was not part of the original design.

The winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors was never debated by the 1787 Constitutional Convention or mentioned in the Federalist Papers.
Only three states had winner-take-all laws in the first presidential election in 1789, and all three repealed them by 1800. In 1789, electors were chosen from congressional districts in Massachusetts, from special presidential-elector districts in Virginia, and by counties in Delaware. The Governor and his Council appointed the state’s presidential electors in New Jersey. State legislatures appointed presidential electors in the other states.

If the states choose to go back to the original design, I think that could be very good. And it would not require a Constitutional amendment, the state laws are what changed.

What works in midtown NYC would not work in upper Michigan. Even in construction, codes have to be adjusted for differing regions. Laws need the same.

Cities are just as frustrated with this as rural areas. In New York, where I grew up, the city was generally able to impose itself on rural areas. In North Carolina, where I now live, the rural legislators seem to have more power, imposing their desires on the cities. I've always felt this more acutely with state government than with the federal government.