The Electoral College

[Shadow Wolf]

I have a way to simplify it that would make it acceptable to me.

Remove "the people" from the process of the general election for President. Let them participate in the primaries, but that's it. On election day they vote for all the other offices (Senators, Representatives, local elections, etc...) but as the Constitution suggests, let the state legislatures appoint electors, and let the 538 electors vote their conscience.

Why would we want the people having less of a say? All that would do is guarantee Dems in Red states and Reps in Blue states will have even less of a chance of having representation that does represent them.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Why would we want the people having less of a say? All that would do is guarantee Dems in Red states and Reps in Blue states will have even less of a chance of having representation that does represent them.

They get representation in Congress. I'm talking about the electoral college.

It's less about what we want, and more about what the founders wanted.

Most states in the very beginning didn't have any sort of a popular vote within their states for the presidential election. I'm just saying, lets go back to that.

But a more direct and practical response is: who's to say anyone really has a say now? The electoral college is designed very specifically to have 538 people have a say... but then make the people feel like they have a say by making them vote in a statewide popular vote... and then take that say away again by making all the states large enough to matter "winner take all." Which means not only do the voters not really have a say... but even the electors don't really have a say. Republicans in NY don't have a say. Democrats in Texas don't have a say.

At least if you let the legislatures appoint the electors, one can say that the people had a say when they elected their state legislators.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's less about what we want, and more about what the founders wanted.

What they wanted was for us to not be governed by the dead. They wanted us to be able to update and change the Constitution. Trying to force things today to fit in a mold that worked 250 years ago will only end in disaster because we live in a very different world today.

At least if you let the legislatures appoint the electors, one can say that the people had a say when they elected their state legislators.

It's called the Electoral College, and someone making the choice for you isn't you getting a say, especially if the person making that choice was not someone you voted on. That would only serve to further alienate amd disenfranchise people from the election.
And, BTW, it is the Senate we used to have no vote in, as that was decided on by the House. And the EC has more or less functioned the same now as it did then. States vote, the state sends an elector to (traditionally) cast their EC vote for the winner of the state who sent them.

 

[Poisonshady313]

What they wanted was for us to not be governed by the dead. They wanted us to be able to update and change the Constitution. Trying to force things today to fit in a mold that worked 250 years ago will only end in disaster because we live in a very different world today.

That's a wonderful argument for getting rid of the electoral college altogether. I'm very much in support of getting rid of the electoral college altogether.

It's called the Electoral College, and someone making the choice for you isn't you getting a say, especially if the person making that choice was not someone you voted on. That would only serve to further alienate amd disenfranchise people from the election.

My main position is against the electoral college, in favor of a popular vote. I'm just saying that the only way to make the electoral college acceptable to me is to make it be less hypocritical. Supporters of the EC insist that we're a republic, not a democracy. Fine. Then leave the people out of it. But If you want the people to have a say, let the election for president be a national popular vote.

And, BTW, it is the Senate we used to have no vote in, as that was decided on by the House. And the EC has more or less functioned the same now as it did then. States vote, the state sends an elector to (traditionally) cast their EC vote for the winner of the state who sent them.

In the election of 1800, only 6 out of 16 states chose electors by any form of popular vote.
In the 1789 election of George Washington, it was only 3 out of 13 states.
It wasn't until 1824 when you had more states relying on statewide popular votes than not.
It wasn't until 1872 when every state was a statewide popular election to choose electors.

"the EC has more or less functioned the same now as it did then." less. a lot less.

Most states didn't have popular votes to choose electors.
There were no "winner take all" policies
Prior to 1804, each elector cast two votes for president
The vice president used to be the opponent who came in 2nd place.


I'm struggling to find a way that what we had then resembles what we had now. Maybe you can tell me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the election of 1800, only 6 out of 16 states chose electors by any form of popular vote.
In the 1789 election of George Washington, it was only 3 out of 13 states.
It wasn't until 1824 when you had more states relying on statewide popular votes than not.

"the EC has more or less functioned the same now as it did then." less. a lot less.

Most states didn't have popular votes to choose electors.
There were no "winner take all" policies
Prior to 1804, each elector cast two votes for president
The vice president used to be the opponent who came in 2nd place.

Article 2 does specify the Electoral College, however.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

And I agree, we'd be better off without the EC. All that really does is having candidates primarily pandering to their base and actually only campaigning for the votes in a few states. Everybody else doesn't really matter because the elections in so many states just are not competitive. Doing away with EC, I do believe, would increase voter turnout as then the citizens do get more say in the presidential election and they will know it won't necessarily be wasted (this is why I didn't vote in a couple elections in Indiana, because it was just too much of a hassle to travel many miles out of my way to cast a ballot that will see no representation). If people know their vote can count for something, rather than being discarded via the EC process, I truly do believe America can work above it's abysmal voter turnout trends and history.

 

[Heyo]

I have a way to simplify it that would make it acceptable to me.

Remove "the people" from the process of the general election for President. Let them participate in the primaries, but that's it. On election day they vote for all the other offices (Senators, Representatives, local elections, etc...) but as the Constitution suggests, let the state legislatures appoint electors, and let the 538 electors vote their conscience.

You might as well get rid of the presidency all together. (At least in the form it is now.)
Let congress elect a Prime Minister among themselves (who hasn't the power of executive orders) and the President be a representative figure.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Article 2 does specify the Electoral College, however.

What do you mean "however"? I've never suggested that the EC isn't in the constitution. I'm saying that what we have now is nothing like what it was back then. And I think I've demonstrated that clearly.

 

[Poisonshady313]

You might as well get rid of the presidency all together. (At least in the form it is now.)
Let congress elect a Prime Minister among themselves (who hasn't the power of executive orders) and the President be a representative figure.

I'm sure that's an interesting, and entirely different, topic of discussion... but your inclusion of the phrase "you might as well get rid of..." suggests that it follows from what I've said. I'm curious to hear you explain why you think, based on what I've suggested, "you might as well get rid of the presidency alltogether."

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might as well get rid of the presidency all together. (At least in the form it is now.)
Let congress elect a Prime Minister among themselves (who hasn't the power of executive orders) and the President be a representative figure.

Not a bad idea, but all but impossible to accomplish. And even a Prime Minister needs some degree of emergency powers. The problem with executive orders is that an immoral or corrupt President can abuse them too easily, as the last administration demonstrated far too well.

There is a solution that would cause the President to be elected by popular vote without an Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What do you mean "however"? I've never suggested that the EC isn't in the constitution. I'm saying that what we have now is nothing like what it was back then. And I think I've demonstrated that clearly.

The rules regarding it though have not changed. It's the same EC today as it was then, only with different numbers due to the states and population added over the past 200 years.

 

[Heyo]

I'm sure that's an interesting, and entirely different, topic of discussion... but your inclusion of the phrase "you might as well get rid of..." suggests that it follows from what I've said. I'm curious to hear you explain why you think, based on what I've suggested, "you might as well get rid of the presidency alltogether."

It wasn't a deduction, only an association. We (Germany) don't have a powerful president and our Prime Minister is elected by the Bundestag (House). Your suggestion that the President may be elected by Congress made me think of our Prime Minister.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is a solution that would cause the President to be elected by popular vote without an Amendment to the Constitution.

I suspect that will start happening once enough states make it so their EC reps vote for the winner of the popular vote. We probably never will get rid of the EC, but this method would effectively render it powerless even if it isn't struck from the Constitution.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The rules regarding it though have not changed. It's the same EC today as it was then, only with different numbers due to the states and population added over the past 200 years.

I gave you a list of some of the ways it is different. The fact that a majority of states did not use a statewide popular vote to appoint electors until 1824 is a significant example. And they didn't almost all use "winner take all" until 1836.

I'm not sure how you can just ignore that.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It wasn't a deduction, only an association. We (Germany) don't have a powerful president and our Prime Minister is elected by the Bundestag (House). Your suggestion that the President may be elected by Congress made me think of our Prime Minister.

I'm not suggesting that the president be elected by Congress. I'm suggesting that the president be elected by the electoral college without using statewide popular votes to appoint the electors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suspect that will start happening once enough states make it so their EC reps vote for the winner of the popular vote. We probably never will get rid of the EC, but this method would effectively render it powerless even if it isn't struck from the Constitution.

The EC may be changed by an Amendment, but I cannot see that happening until it is effectively killed first by having enough states join the popular vote compact. Once the change goes into effect states may realize that it is in the best interest of everyone to end the EC forever.

Just think, if there was no EC Trump would have never won in the first place. Though he would have still claimed that he won against Hillary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not suggesting that the president be elected by Congress. I'm suggesting that the president be elected by the electoral college without using statewide popular votes to appoint the electors.

That change is not going to happen. People do not tend to go backwards in that sense.

 

[crossfire]

They get representation in Congress. I'm talking about the electoral college.

It's less about what we want, and more about what the founders wanted.

Most states in the very beginning didn't have any sort of a popular vote within their states for the presidential election. I'm just saying, lets go back to that.

But a more direct and practical response is: who's to say anyone really has a say now? The electoral college is designed very specifically to have 538 people have a say... but then make the people feel like they have a say by making them vote in a statewide popular vote... and then take that say away again by making all the states large enough to matter "winner take all." Which means not only do the voters not really have a say... but even the electors don't really have a say. Republicans in NY don't have a say. Democrats in Texas don't have a say.

At least if you let the legislatures appoint the electors, one can say that the people had a say when they elected their state legislators.

Unconstitutional. Won't fly
US Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Also, congresspersons may not serve as Electors:

Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
​

​

 

[Heyo]

I'm not suggesting that the president be elected by Congress. I'm suggesting that the president be elected by the electoral college without using statewide popular votes to appoint the electors.

Oops, you are right. I totally hallucinated that.

(But I still think that the PotUS has too much power.)

 

[Poisonshady313]

That change is not going to happen. People do not tend to go backwards in that sense.

I'm not saying it's likely... I'm just saying it would be more fair than what we have now.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Unconstitutional. Won't fly
US Constitution, Amendment XIV, section 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

​

All it would take to make me happy is to repeal the portion of this section of the amendment that reads "electors for President and Vice-President of the United States". Let everything else stand, and I'll be ok with it.

Also, congresspersons may not serve as Electors:

Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
​

That's not relevant to the conversation at hand. I never suggested that congresspeople serve as electors. I suggested that when the text says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors," that this manner not include having the people cast a statewide popular vote... but that the states legislatures themselves appoint the electors, like it was done in the earliest of elections.