Why the Electoral College anyway?

[Revoltingest]

There's the rub...

I notice that when things become really polarized, we'll see abusive
judgements proffered as fact. Then they're surprised when the recipient
infers insult. I can see the justifying thought bubble's text...."But it's true!".

 

[esmith]

Frankly, I have no idea of why you would.

Well I'm sort of a Republican and you instigated that "Republicans" are not, how should I say, any good.

 

[LuisDantas]

There's the rub...

I take it that you disagree with my stance, then? Perhaps you could point out a reason why it could be misguided then? Or are you implicitly approving it anyway?

Well I'm sort of a Republican and you instigated that "Republicans" are not, how should I say, any good.

And that is indeed how I feel.

I frankly have no idea how a self-respecting person would vote Republican.

 

[esmith]

I frankly have no idea how a self-respecting person would vote Republican.

Well I guess I could say that about today's Democrats.

 

[BSM1]

I take it that you disagree with my stance, then? Perhaps you could point out a reason why it could be misguided then? Or are you implicitly approving it anyway?



And that is indeed how I feel.

I frankly have no idea how a self-respecting person would vote Republican.

Trying to reason with anyone with such an intransigent mind set would be a tremendous waste of time.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Suppose the popular vote was the only way to elect the President. Couldn't a candidate with the backing of some very, very deep pockets promise five or six of the most populous states the sun and moon and steal the election?

no.

Or supposing it was determined that a particular candidate was a raving lunatic but still got the popular vote?

The process is so public and everybody is so thoroughly examined that if it got so far that the people voted in a raving lunatic, they have only themselves to blame because they got what they wanted. It's on them to do better next time. Besides, in the history of this nation, no amount of faithless electors has ever turned an election. Not even this one, where half the country insisted that Trump was a raving lunatic who should have been stopped by the electoral college.

The Electoral College can use their power to keep scenarios such as this from happening. No matter how you feel about the Electoral College, it is probably one of the wisest and fairest method or electing a president.

Nope and nope.

Before the number of electors is redistributed to prevent any state from having less than 3 electors, the number of electors is decided based on the population of a state. The problem with that is, the whole population of a state doesn't vote. So despite the fact that large states have fewer electors than they ought to by population, all it takes is a very small number of voters to represent the will of millions of people who don't/can't vote.

For example... Lets take two groups. Only 5 people from each group participate in an election. The are voting for A or for B.

Group 1 votes 3 for A and 2 for B
Group 2 votes 1 for A and 4 for B

This is an electoral system where winner takes all.

Because Group 1 is a larger group than Group 2, A won 503 votes and B won 204 votes.

B won the popular vote, but A won the election.

It wasn't Group 1's voters than won the election for A. It was Group 1's non-voters that won the election for A.

Let every vote count, and you'll see how many more blue votes you get in red states and how many more red votes you get in blue states, and nobody's vote is weighted differently. One citizen, one vote. That would absolutely be the fairest system.

 

[tytlyf]

Well I'm sort of a Republican and you instigated that "Republicans" are not, how should I say, any good.

I thought you were a Libertarian and voted that way? Libertarian/Republican, same thing. Too many people say they're libertarian to be cool, in reality they never vote libertarian.

 

[LuisDantas]

Trying to reason with anyone with such an intransigent mind set would be a tremendous waste of time.

And you know that there is intransigence, because...?

 

[LuisDantas]

Well I guess I could say that about today's Democrats.

You can say many things. Some of them make logical sense. Others make none.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought you were a Libertarian and voted that way? Libertarian/Republican, same thing. Too many people say they're libertarian to be cool, in reality they never vote libertarian.

He never claimed to be a Libertarian.
To avoid the error of confusing us with Republicans,
you ought to do some reading on the topic. Then you'll
avoid making such embarrassing claims about them & us.

 

[tytlyf]

He never claimed to be a Libertarian.
To avoid the error of confusing us with Republicans,
you ought to do some reading on the topic. Then you'll
avoid making such embarrassing claims about them & us.

You have to pay attention more. One of many

Brokered Republican Convention

In elections dealing with my State I would vote Republican, in a Presidential election I would vote Libertarian. Now that is predicated only if the Republican party gives the nod to someone other than Trump or Cruz

 

[Revoltingest]

You have to pay attention more. One of many

Brokered Republican Convention

Did you even read the post you linked?
Esmith stated only that me might vote for one of us.
That's a far cry from actually lowering himself to become one of us.

 

[esmith]

Did you even read the post you linked?
Esmith stated only that me might vote for one of us.
That's a far cry from actually lowering himself to become one of us.

guess he doesn't know what the definition of "predicated" is, and doesn't understand how qualifiers work.

 

[Revoltingest]

guess he doesn't know what the definition of "predicated" is, and doesn't understand how qualifiers work.

Trying to educate some posters is like arguing
with a billboard displaying a Hillary campaign ad.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The benefit is that it represents the will of the States, and is an expression of the republic form of government - not the democratic form.

Then why have the people vote in presidential elections at all? Why not just let Congress vote for President?

 

[Poisonshady313]

But then you have candidates only focusing on a handful of key states and ignoring the rest of the country.

You have that now. Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are the only states that really matter every 4 years.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Interesting post. I was always told that it was to help level the playing field between very populous states and those with less voters. Frankly, that didn;t entirely make sense to me, but sometimes you just don't take time to question things........

It is designed to help states with large populations of non-voters still have great influence.

Consider the Three Fifths compromise. Slaves couldn't vote. However, slaves states could have each slave count as 3/5ths of a person for the sake of determining population (i.e. determining the number of electors) so that despite the low numbers of actual votes, the state could still wield the power of it's population when it voted.

And that's what is essentially happening today, when millions of people don't vote, yet the power of those millions of non-voters is wielded by the (relatively) small number of people who do vote. And it's terribly unfair to the people who vote for the other candidate.

That applies both to red voters in California and blue voters in Texas.

 

[tytlyf]

Did you even read the post you linked?
Esmith stated only that me might vote for one of us.
That's a far cry from actually lowering himself to become one of us.

Ya but I know everything. So there.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ya but I know everything.

I noticed.

 

[Poisonshady313]

What it means is that the campaign chairs just focuses on the blue areas during the latter part of the race then. The other thing is someone from your backyard is more likely to win the nomination since a majority would be familiar with this person. For example, let's take Rand Paul, a libertarian (A libertarian would want to keep the EC or else they would have no voice at all.) I am familiar with Rand Paul, but don't really know his politics. I'm assuming you feel this way as well. Thus, if someone like Donald Trump was running against Rand Paul for POTUS, then DT has the advantage. He's from a populous area and so more people know him. Rand Paul might say a lot of things we like and has a silver tongue, but you and I who aren't from his part of the area would still do not trust him. That's a simple example, but I hope you get what I am driving at.

Or let's say Trump and Bernie Sanders (Sanders really had no chance to be nominated because he had few, if any, superdelegates supporting him). Against Trump, he would not be known to people on the west coast. I liked a lot of the things he said and would back him if I was a Dem. I would have to overcome not knowing him as well as to vote for him over Trump.

Without the electoral college, then we may as well disband the multi-party system and just be one nation under one party. It would be too chaotic to nominate bodies, so some kind of EC would be required. I would want to get rid of the superdelegates in the Democratic Party and destroy the power of the super wealthy. One person, one vote for nominees per faction. You take away the EC, then I want to destroy the Democratic Party and the way they operate.

It's as if this post was written in a world without either television or internet.

As for your last paragraph, The EC has nothing whatsoever to do with the primaries. Whether or not the system of using "delegates" to select nominees is one that should or shouldn't change is probably an interesting question... but personally, I support a national popular vote for the general election and don't think this would effect our current way of running primary elections. Though I agree that doing away with superdelegates is a good idea.