The Electoral College Should Be Abolished?

[Terrywoodenpic]

If the present election process is any thing to go by, and considered together with the stalemate between the houses and the president that usuall occurs for at least part of a presidency.
I would sugges that the entire system is broken, and not suited to modern times or the digital communication age.

However I do not believe that the American confrontational political institutions are capable of establishing anything useful, let alone a new political system.

 

[idav]

I found the electoral map from 1864 interesting.
Lincoln won with 55% to McClellan 45% of the popular vote, but the electoral college was 212 to 21.
Even though Lincoln won by 400,000 it was evenly distributed through the states and Lincoln took most of them, 22 states out of 25.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1864
The link gives all the information on total population for total and by state.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I found the electoral map from 1864 interesting.
Lincoln won with 55% to McClellan 45% of the popular vote, but the electoral college was 212 to 21.
Even though Lincoln won by 400,000 it was evenly distributed through the states and Lincoln took most of them, 22 states out of 25.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1864
The link gives all the information on total population for total and by state.

Eh...I think you need to take into consideration that nine of the states chose to not participate in the election, thus withholding their electoral votes from the "legitimate" election...

 

[idav]

Eh...I think you need to take into consideration that nine of the states chose to not participate in the election, thus withholding their electoral votes from the "legitimate" election...

Your right that the 1860 election was more evenly distributed (with the missing states) but only because, far as I can tell, because there were more people to vote for.

 

[Lighthouse]

https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_581d145ae4b0d9ce6fbc3941/amp?client=safari

Just words, but an actual name behind it. Still skeptical if it's a valid interview or name.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I voted "yes", but as I mentioned on another thread, I much prefer the parliamentary system.

The state we are in now, a parliamentary system may be our best best to break up the 2 Party Deathgrip and get the government moving along again.

 

[Poisonshady313]

There needs to be a buffer zone between easily-swayed popular opinion and the actual running of government.

There is. It's called "Congress".

 

[Poisonshady313]

NPV is a bad idea. Here's an example of why...

Let's assume for the sake of argument that all the 3 million voters who give Hillary the popular vote advantage are from California. California gives 55 electoral votes to Hillary, regardless of whether 6 million Californians or 16 million Californians voted for her. If you ask 37 electors to switch their votes on account of 3 million people from one state, it's like taking all the electors away from a handful of states and granting California 92 electors. Given that less than half of California's population isn't even eligible to vote, they don't deserve the 55 electoral votes they have, much less 92.

In a system where so many people's votes don't matter, NPV would surely make even fewer people's votes matter.

In a true popular vote, every vote will matter.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that all the 3 million voters who give Hillary the popular vote advantage are from California.

Then it came down to California? Which is different, exactly, from the election coming down to Ohio (asides from the obvious, which is under your example everyone's vote is counted rather than those who voted for a majority in that state)?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Then it came down to California? Which is different, exactly, from the election coming down to Ohio (asides from the obvious, which is under your example everyone's vote is counted rather than those who voted for a majority in that state)?

Not necessarily. I used that as an example of why it's unfair to take electors from one state and give it to another.

If we counted the popular vote, more Trump supporters would have voted in NY and CA, while more Clinton voters would have voted in TX and FL. More states would be swing states (especially smaller states), and every vote would matter, because it wouldn't necessarily be up to the same 4 or 5 states anymore.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Michigan, Minnesota, and West Virginia.

Each and every voter from all of those states could have stayed home on election day, and nothing would have changed. 270 was achieved without them.

When we count people instead of electors, more people will vote, and we'd have to wait until all the votes were counted before "calling the election".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If we counted the popular vote, more Trump supporters would have voted in NY and CA, while more Clinton voters would have voted in TX and FL. More states would be swing states (especially smaller states), and every vote would matter, because it wouldn't necessarily be up to the same 4 or 5 states anymore.

That's pretty much why I advocate getting rid of the electoral college. If we have a Democracy, then everyone's votes needs to be counted somehow, and not wiped out entirely because of a state majority. We know it's not anything that resembles Democracy when we know, already, 2020 is going to come down to Ohio and Florida, like it always does, because in California Republican votes are not counted and here in Indiana Democrat votes are not counted. And Texas alone proves why things aren't really working out.
That fixes one problem, but not the other problem of the two party death grip, or many of the other issues that election should have highlighted and made painfully obvious.

 

[idav]

Then it came down to California? Which is different, exactly, from the election coming down to Ohio (asides from the obvious, which is under your example everyone's vote is counted rather than those who voted for a majority in that state)?

It would come down to Texas not giving Trump more of a popular vote. That was the big state to pull out something like what hillary did in Cali and NY, its the whole reason he got more states but couldn't get the popular vote.

 

[Sonofason]

I voted no. In a very close election that might be contested, I could foresee recounts not being done in a timely fashion. I believe that under such conditions, in order to enable the government to change hands in a timely and civil manner, the electoral college is a necessity. Better luck next time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I voted no. In a very close election that might be contested, I could foresee recounts not being done in a timely fashion. I believe that under such conditions, in order to enable the government to change hands in a timely and civil manner, the electoral college is a necessity. Better luck next time.

So then we'll have an earlier election. Big deal.

 

[Sonofason]

So then we'll have an earlier election. Big deal.

Sorry, I do not believe in democracy. We are a republic...I'd like it to stay that way.

In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters.

And we have concrete evidence Pence, in this republic, does not believe everyone's rights should be protected and has acted to block them. Personally, I don't support either. Our entire system needs restructured for today, not 1776.

 

[Sonofason]

And we have concrete evidence Pence, in this republic, does not believe everyone's rights should be protected and has acted to block them. Personally, I don't support either. Our entire system needs restructured for today, not 1776.

I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you can explain what you mean when you say that Pence does not believe everyone's rights should be protected. We all have the same rights, right now. You are trying to acquire additional rights, which under democratic rule, you have been gaining ground. I'd like to see that reversed.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you can explain what you mean when you say that Pence does not believe everyone's rights should be protected. We all have the same rights, right now. You are trying to acquire additional rights, which under democratic rule, you have been gaining ground. I'd like to see that reversed.

What "additional rights?"

 

[Sonofason]

What "additional rights?"

The right for a boy to marry a boy.
The furthering of rights for mothers to murder their children.
Rights for deviant boys to use girl's restrooms.
shall I go on?
The right do discriminate on the basis of color (affirmative action)
The right to be disarmed.
The right to discard the 1st amendment.
The right to discard the 2nd amendment.
etc. etc. etc.