The Electoral College Should Be Abolished?

[Lighthouse]

I think a big, maybe the biggest, problem is the standard religious teaching of "Trust the Authority" even when they tell you to believe something really implausible.
This country is very religious and this crap wouldn't be tolerated in most western countries.
Tom

Hmm, interesting point. I can definitely see that being a strong reason. Thinking "God" put these people in place for their own good, and that they should trust in them. Essentially, the people do wish to be ruled upon by power. I suppose it could be getting what they wish for.

It is like, "it's their right to surrender their right."

It's evident from top to bottom. Left-right conflict in government and left-right conflict amongst the common folk.

 

[Lighthouse]

I think a big, maybe the biggest, problem is the standard religious teaching of "Trust the Authority" even when they tell you to believe something really implausible.
This country is very religious and this crap wouldn't be tolerated in most western countries.
Tom

Do you believe that from the right, the right in power only front to care for religious rights because they know most of their power comes from the religious?

 

[Revoltingest]

I say to amend the Constitution to have a popular vote election.
We should be at least as democratic as Russia, eh?

 

[columbus]

I say to amend the Constitution to have a popular vote election.
We should be at least as democratic as Russia, eh?

No. I am a hardcore republican! (note the lower case)
I want to see fair and transparent methods to elect representatives who then have huge power to decide things.
Tom

 

[Nietzsche]

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

Anyone with a modicum of sense prefers a parliamentary system.

 

[Nietzsche]

I say to amend the Constitution to have a popular vote election.
We should be at least as democratic as Russia, eh?

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

 

[Revoltingest]

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

How do we know the electors are any better?
Consider this paragraph from Wikipedia....

Since the Civil War, all states have chosen presidential electors by popular vote. This process has been normalized to the point that the names of the electors appear on the ballot in only eight states: Tennessee, Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and South Dakota.[7][42]

 

[Nietzsche]

How do we know the electors are any better?
Consider this paragraph from Wikipedia....

I have an inherent distaste for anything that smells remotely of populist encouragement.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have an inherent distaste for anything that smells remotely of populist encouragement.

So do I.
But a selected elite which has the power to override the voters has its risks too.
One advantage (& it's a big'n) is that there'd be less carping about winning the
election while losing the popular vote.

 

[Nietzsche]

So do I.
But a selected elite which has the power to override the voters has its risks too.
One advantage (& it's a big'n) is that there'd be less carping about winning the
election while losing the popular vote.

I should hope I don't need to point out that nigh every extremist regime got to power with the acquiescence of the masses. The Bolsheviks didn't win the Civil War because they didn't have the people behind them. Milosevic was wildly popular, ruling until the end with popular mandate.

The more walls you can put up between the masses and the reins of power, the more stable and even-handed a government tends to be. Outliers exist, but on a whole it's a pretty good idea.

 

[Revoltingest]

I should hope I don't need to point out that nigh every extremist regime got to power with the acquiescence of the masses. The Bolsheviks didn't win the Civil War because they didn't have the people behind them. Milosevic was wildly popular, ruling until the end with popular mandate.
The more walls you can put up between the masses and the reins of power, the more stable and even-handed a government tends to be. Outliers exist, but on a whole it's a pretty good idea.

And who controls the reins of power if not the voters?
Extremist regimes also like the absence of voting....or
at least voting where the outcome isn't decided in advance.

 

[totototo]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

It would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.

In the 2012 presidential election, 1.3 million votes decided the winner in the ten states with the closest margins of victory.

One analyst predicted two million voters in seven counties are going to determine who wins the presidency in 2016.

Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes.
2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 15 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

 

[David1967]

Personally I would like it to be by popular vote.

 

[totototo]

An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems "on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally. . . .

Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, a congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ." --FairVote

 

[idav]

Why do you suppose so many trust in government and equality of election process with all of this evidence to the contrary?

Is it some sort of mental conditioning to get the herd to believe something is just and that they actually matter in a democracy that isn't so?

I don't think anyone would agree with popular not getting the election. I think of trump were to mange to barely squeeze a majority vote that Hillary would win the electorate because of the states she seems to be favored in. If that were to happen then he would have a reason to whine and I would be questioning too. Otherwise if the majority vote gets the majority electoral college then it's a moot point but wouldn't change the fact that it needs looking into.

 

[Nous]

The more walls you can put up between the masses and the reins of power, the more stable and even-handed a government tends to be.

So, you, as one of the "masses," distrust your own vote?

Anyway, obviously the electoral method of electing the President does not by any means ensure or create a "more stable" or "even-handed" government--whatever you mean by that.

 

[Nous]

I say to amend the Constitution to have a popular vote election.

That basically ensures that we will continue electing the President by the electoral method. A number of such amendments have been proposed, and went nowhere. The most expedient and sure method to elect the President by popular vote is for just a few more states to adopt the NPV.

 

[Flankerl]

Oh right Gerrymandering is a thing in some parts of the world.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Let's consider how it all started. In the early days, the congressional caucuses of the parties would get together and choose a candidate. People scattered across the states might never have heard of them. So, get the people in every community to choose some-one they know and respect to send off to the capital, where they can consider the candidates and pick the best. A long way from what happens to day! It's typical of the basic problem in the USA: trying to run a 21st century country with an 18th century constitution.

And is a president really a good idea? It's worth noting that the USA is the only presidential republic that's also a developed country. Maybe the Canadians, and the Germans know something that you've missed?

 

[columbus]

It's typical of the basic problem in the USA: trying to run a 21st century country with an 18th century constitution.

Exactly.
It's a good deal like how the old ways that were opposed to political parties are now used to maintain the hegemony of the "two flavors of one party" system of government.
Tom