The Electoral College

[crossfire]

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.​

So you want to disenfranchize voters in regard to the Executive Branch? Good luck with that.

​

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.

But the States have chosen to have their citizens vote, and their elector representation will be diminished in proportion to the number of people they disallow the right to vote for choosing their electors.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So you want to disenfranchize voters in regard to the Executive Branch? Good luck with that. ​

Voters are already disenfranchised in regard to the executive branch. My vision is just more honest about it. It's more in line with the constitution's original vision of the electoral college, as well as (for the most part) its implementation up until the mid 19th century.
​

But the States have chosen to have their citizens vote,.

And I'm saying that this was a mistake, and the system as a whole would be more fair than it is now if it was reversed.

I mentioned this earlier: I'd prefer an amendment to the constitution abolishing the electoral college altogether. I'd prefer a national popular vote.

But if we're going to continue to have the EC, I think it would be better to have something closer to what it was supposed to be, compared to what it is now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Then i would suggest that you check this out:


National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

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.

​

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.

The problem is that what you are suggesting is a pipe dream. Changes of the sort that you want either take a Constitutional Amendment, or a very clever work around. Check out the link above to see an example of that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

That path will be so difficult I do not see it as feasible. Declawing the EC state-by-state until it's powerless is likely to be the only way we do this, because amending the Constitution is hard, and we can expect that several will not stand for it.

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.

And not only that, we would've had Al Gore instead of Bush Jr. to handle the fallout of 9/11, and I'm sure he could've gave us a better response than telling us going shopping is one way we don't let the terrorists win. And we could've been doing more about Global Warming 20 years ago instead of fighting still just to get our politicians to start it seriously.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Because the EC has not been constitutionally changed. The states are irrelevant. The EC functions now as it did then because it is a federal entity that hasn't been changed. The states appoint the electors and the electors go vote. That hasn't ever changed.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Because the EC has not been constitutionally changed. The states are irrelevant. The EC functions now as it did then because it is a federal entity that hasn't been changed. The states appoint the electors and the electors go vote. That hasn't ever changed.

I'm pretty sure crossfire posted, not too long ago, an amendment to the constitution that includes a change to the electoral college, because Article II never gave people the right to elect the president.


And the states are absolutely relevant.
"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..."

For almost 50 years since the first election, most states did not have a popular vote to appoint their electors. As I said. In the election of George Washington, only 3 states used a statewide popular vote. In the election of Thomas Jefferson, only 6 states used a statewide popular vote.

The function has absolutely changed.

"Winner take all" is not in the constitution. This is a decision the states make. "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". There is no constitutional mandate that when a third of NY's voters vote red, that 100% of NY's 29 electors vote blue.

The function has absolutely changed.

There is some fundamental structure of the EC that is obviously the same as it has been. Electors are the ones who actually vote for president, and the state's number of electors is according to their representation in Congress.

But that's it. Nearly everything about how this process is actually carried out is nothing like the way it used to be.

I'm not sure how you can deny that.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Then i would suggest that you check this out:


National Popular Vote Interstate Compact


The problem is that what you are suggesting is a pipe dream.

Eh. That doesn't bother me all that much. It'll probably mean that every time I go to vote on election day, I'll leave the POTUS column blank. If that's the way it is for the rest of my life, so be it.

Changes of the sort that you want either take a Constitutional Amendment, or a very clever work around.

I prefer constitutional amendment.

Check out the link above to see an example of that.

I'm already familiar with it. I'm not entirely sold on the idea. When it's just a regular popular vote, the winner wins and the loser loses... but when it's a popular vote wrapped up in electoral clothing... I envision riots in cities all across NY, CA, and IL the moment a Republican wins the popular vote and all of their electors go red, despite their states overwhelmingly voting blue.

In a system where people already feel disenfranchised, it'll only make those feelings worse. And will the candidates treat it like a true popular vote by campaigning in more states? Or will they treat it like the EC which hasn't deviated from the popular vote more than twice in the past century? Because as far as I'm concerned, the EC isn't just a failure when the numbers don't line up... it's a failure anyhow because it ignores most of the country and doesn't properly take into account the votes of voters who vote because everyone's concerned about the race to 270.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...had we not used the Electoral College, she would have been our president for the last four years...

Let's think that through. Mrs. Clinton got more votes than Mr. Trump, but she did not get most of the votes. Most of the popular vote was for someone other than Mrs. Clinton. She did not get the majority of the votes.

You can say that the winner should be anyone with more votes than anyone else, and then you risk a situation where the votes are split evenly w/ 4 moderate candidates and one loony tunes winning w/ 21% of the votes. We could have had a runoff election of the two top candidates and that invites more complaining.

These questions and the amendment process make abolishing the Electoral College virtually impossible.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Let's think that through. Mrs. Clinton got more votes than Mr. Trump, but she did not get most of the votes. Most of the popular vote was for someone other than Mrs. Clinton. She did not get the majority of the votes.

You can say that the winner should be anyone with more votes than anyone else, and then you risk a situation where the votes are split evenly w/ 4 moderate candidates and one loony tunes winning w/ 21% of the votes. We could have had a runoff election of the two top candidates and that invites more complaining.

These questions and the amendment process make abolishing the Electoral College virtually impossible.

Ranked choice voting can solve that problem.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Ranked choice voting can solve that problem.

Don't leave it at that, please share with the group what the heck "Ranked Choice" is --that plus how we're going to get what 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Don't leave it at that, please share with the group what the heck "Ranked Choice" is --that plus how we're going to get what 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree.

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.

- Ranked-choice voting (RCV) - Ballotpedia

How to get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree? That's a great question. The people who wrongly think that they're protected by the EC need to wake up to reality. The past 129 years have proven that Republicans are perfectly capable of winning the popular vote. If they realized that candidates would have to start campaigning in small states and that red voters in large blue states might start showing up in larger numbers once their vote starts to matter, they might be inclined to do something about it.

Or maybe it'll take a few elections of losing to Democrats before they start to understand that the EC isn't actually helping them like they think it is.

It might not happen in my lifetime. It might not happen ever. But only if we adopt a popular vote after abolishing the EC will I ever vote for President again.

Unless I move to Ohio or something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's think that through. Mrs. Clinton got more votes than Mr. Trump, but she did not get most of the votes. Most of the popular vote was for someone other than Mrs. Clinton. She did not get the majority of the votes.

You can say that the winner should be anyone with more votes than anyone else, and then you risk a situation where the votes are split evenly w/ 4 moderate candidates and one loony tunes winning w/ 21% of the votes. We could have had a runoff election of the two top candidates and that invites more complaining.

These questions and the amendment process make abolishing the Electoral College virtually impossible.

Instead we had a looney tunes that got more electoral votes and still lost when it comes to the popular vote.

It might be a good idea to totally overhaul the system, but as you pointed out that is almost impossible. There is a solution that guarantees the candidate with the plurality of votes wins. That would still be better than what we have now.

 

[Pete in Panama]

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots...

Interesting & it sounds equitable. This could also be applied to individual state elections but it never has. Personally I suspect that the problem is that nobody felt that it was worth the bother.

...How to get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree? That's a great question....

What I'm seeing is the fact that the decision is made by state governments & the EC gives more power to the individual states. Maine in effect abolished the EC privately by proportioning electors to individual voting districts but no other state has. California indignantly past a state resolution shortly after the 2000 election but turned right around and maintained the status quo. They know which side of the bread's got the butter.

But California is a good example of a bad example --a state controlled by one faction and it set up voting procedures to guarantee permanent control by that particular political faction. Not every state wants that, many prefer an orderly transition between factions w/ ease of entry and ease of exit. That's my preference too. If we eliminated the EC then one major faction would take over the populated areas & it would be curtains for the rest --one party rule forever.

There are a lot of folks who see California as having a failed voting system where one party has seized control & they don't want it nationally. I lean to that view.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...There is a solution that guarantees the candidate with the plurality of votes wins. That would still be better than what we have now.

Right now w/ voting procedures controlled by state legislatures we allow the controlling faction to crank out ballots by the truck load. Elections are delicate things and the tendency for one faction to grab total control is overwhelming.

We got certain individual city governments under the iron fist of one party & we've had to live w/ it. The result has been that many simply moved to the suburbs & kept their jobs while commuting. If we went popular nationally the only hope would be to leave the country completely & that option's not open to all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the situation's right or wrong, I'm just saying that this is what is.

 

[Poisonshady313]

If we eliminated the EC then one major faction would take over the populated areas & it would be curtains for the rest --one party rule forever.

Could you take a moment to expand on that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right now w/ voting procedures controlled by state legislatures we allow the controlling faction to crank out ballots by the truck load. Elections are delicate things and the tendency for one faction to grab total control is overwhelming.

We got certain individual city governments under the iron fist of one party & we've had to live w/ it. The result has been that many simply moved to the suburbs & kept their jobs while commuting. If we went popular nationally the only hope would be to leave the country completely & that option's not open to all.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the situation's right or wrong, I'm just saying that this is what is.

This sounds a bit like conspiracy theory nonsense. Both sides of the election do watch each other. The ability to "crank out" ballots is limited. One must be able to justify their production. Merely being in the majority is not good enough. In our last election it was in Republican controlled states that the tide turned against Trump.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Could you take a moment to expand on that?

Sure. There's an old saying that goes "it doesn't matter which one wins the voter count, its the one which counts the votes that matters". There's an old Edward G. Robinson movie (w/ Bogart in Key Largo iirc) where he rants about how he can pick a nobody, get out the vote, and then count and recount until his man wins. The idea of a political machine taking over is not new and it's had many incarnations --Tammany Hall, Mayor Daily's Chicago, etc.

These political machines can take over state governments and electoral votes too. In the '64 election there were a number southern states simply decided who the electors would vote for before the election and the voters were able to vote for one candidate or "uncommitted delegates". There's a growing fear in some parts of the U.S. of the voting fraud possible where one faction can legally pour in voters w/o ID's, take over the counting w/o opposition monitors, and steamroll in anyone they want. W/O the EC it would be a lot easier for such machines to spin the election w/ say, 60 million votes in California all for the same candidate.

Yeah, you can say the fears are unfounded, but that won't make the fears go away and end the EC.

 

[Pete in Panama]

This sounds a bit like conspiracy theory nonsense. Both sides of the election do watch each other. The ability to "crank out" ballots is limited. One must be able to justify their production. Merely being in the majority is not good enough. In our last election it was in Republican controlled states that the tide turned against Trump.

Perhaps I failed in explaining my comment about the difference between what may make sense to us, and what is. What I said above was:

...There's an old saying that goes "it doesn't matter which one wins the voter count, its the one which counts the votes that matters". There's an old Edward G. Robinson movie (w/ Bogart in Key Largo iirc) where he rants about how he can pick a nobody, get out the vote, and then count and recount until his man wins. The idea of a political machine taking over is not new and it's had many incarnations --Tammany Hall, Mayor Daily's Chicago, etc.

These political machines can take over state governments and electoral votes too. In the '64 election there were a number southern states simply decided who the electors would vote for before the election and the voters were able to vote for one candidate or "uncommitted delegates". There's a growing fear in some parts of the U.S. of the voting fraud possible where one faction can legally pour in voters w/o ID's, take over the counting w/o opposition monitors, and steamroll in anyone they want. W/O the EC it would be a lot easier for such machines to spin the election w/ say, 60 million votes in California all for the same candidate.

Yeah, you can say the fears are unfounded, but that won't make the fears go away and end the EC.

The fears are there whether you say it's a 'conspiracy theory' or not and that's what's preventing the abolition of the EC.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps I failed in explaining my comment about the difference between what may make sense to us, and what is. What I said above was: The fears are there whether you say it's a 'conspiracy theory' or not and that's what's preventing the abolition of the EC.

A movie is a terrible place to go for an idea. And abuses may have occurred in the past, but security has improved over time. One does not get to keep counting until one gets the results that one wants. There are safeguards against that.

And no, pointing out conspiracy theory nonsense has nothing to do with the opposition of ending the EC.

 

[Pete in Panama]

A movie is a terrible place to go for an idea. And abuses may have occurred in the past...

The point was that the movie was believable because that was people's perceptions back then and the current perceptions are nothing new. We can say that the perceptions are wrong but that will not change people's perceptions. This is the reality we must deal with.

...but security has improved over time. One does not get to keep counting until one gets the results that one wants. There are safeguards against that...

From here:

"...27 states had a statutory provision allowing for automatic recounts, and 43 states had a statutory provision allowing for requested recounts. Two states—Mississippi and Tennessee—did not expressly require automatic recounts or allow candidates or voters to request recounts. Recounts can happen in races at any level, from local offices up to presidential elections..."

A widespread perception took issue w/ Al Franken's Minnesota win where he had been behind by 726, after two weeks of recounts he was still behind by 215 votes, and six months of recounts later Franken finally won by 312 votes. Many consider that voter fraud & we can say they're wrong all we want --they'll still prevent the abolition of the EC.