Why the Electoral College anyway?

[Nous]

Sure, right now it is a long shot. But if we subscribe to the idea the widespread bribery can impact the election (which I am sure it could), Texas would be a target.

Hey, I might move back to Texas if you start paying per vote. What's the going rate per vote to get Texas to vote for a non-idiot?

 

[Jainarayan]

So when the Democrats win it no one cares about it. But when the Republicans win there is suddenly a problem afoot.

Oh my.

American politics summed up in two sentences.

 

[Nous]

The electors do represent the State, in Maine and Nebraska.

Electors vote according to how the majority of their particular districts voted, not how the majority of their state has voted. .

 

[buddhist]

Electors vote according to how the majority of their particular districts voted, not how the majority of their state has voted. .

Exactly, and this allocation is by State Law. The Electors vote according to the will of the State, in their Laws.

 

[Revoltingest]

So when the Democrats win it no one cares about it. But when the Republicans win there is suddenly a problem afoot.

Oh my.

There's been multi-partisan dislike for it as long as I remember.
But not so much that we've done anything more than complain.

 

[buddhist]

There's been multi-partisan dislike for it as long as I remember.
But not so much that we've done anything more than complain.

Leave it the way it is. If the Electoral College is abolished, the Federal united States becomes the National United States, and that is not a good idea.

 

[Quetzal]

There's been multi-partisan dislike for it as long as I remember.
But not so much that we've done anything more than complain.

I suppose because it rarely comes into play. Five times total over the span of all elections.

 

[Skwim]

Leave it the way it is. If the Electoral College is abolished, the Federal united States becomes the National United States, and that is not a good idea.

What, EXACTLY, do you see as the critical differences between this Federal United States and the National United States?


.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose because it rarely comes into play. Five times total over the span of all elections.

And since the effect appears random & only applies in close elections, it doesn't matter much to me.

 

[BSM1]

Help me out, can't this still be done now? Hillary did prove that she can put up competitive numbers despite calling in less states than Trump. Theoretically, couldn't a candidate pay particular focus/finances to CA, TX, NY, and FL? That would net them 151 right off the top. Certainly not enough to win, but a heck of a headstart.

I think you missed the point. For example, suppose George Soros went public with his hand-picked candidate and announce to six or seven of the most populous state that, "...if elected the citizens of these particular states would no longer be required to pay income taxes.." (far-fetched, I know). And suppose this candidate has hinted that many of our Constitutional rights should be suspended for the good of the country (again, far-fetched; or is it?). This candidate could conceivably be elected by popular vote by just a handful of states. The Electoral College is our buffer from this type of take over.

Didn't our system just deliver a raving lunatic?

Oh, come on.....you were asking for it!

Pffbt... I knew it when I put on paper...erm...screen. BTW, I don't expect him to be raving until March or April; give the man a little credit, for Pete's sake.

 

[Nietzsche]

What, EXACTLY, do you see as the critical differences between this Federal United States and the National United States?


.

He's not worth your time. He's basically a "Lost Causer"

 

[Mindmaster]

In light of the fact that Trump just won the Presidential election, not because more people voted for him than Clinton, which they didn't, but because the Electoral College determined he should win,

You'll never find a liberal complaining about the electoral college until a Republican wins. The reality is most of the electors vote with the popular vote in their state, but because of the electoral math some states are more important than others. Is it (or any system really) perfect, certainly not!

The way the system is right now basically prevents large population states from being able to strongarm the little guys. It's probably as good as it is going to get.

 

[buddhist]

What, EXACTLY, do you see as the critical differences between this Federal United States and the National United States?


.

The Federal united States is (at least in theory) subsidiary to the sovereign States. A national United States is superior to it's districts (aka states).

 

[Skwim]

You'll never find a liberal complaining about the electoral college until a Republican wins.

Considering they all got the popular vote as well as the electoral vote, why would they? And when they have complained, such as this election, the Republican President elect has not won the popular vote.

The way the system is right now basically prevents large population states from being able to strongarm the little guys. It's probably as good as it is going to get.

Yeah I see what you mean: the majority of people get to win whereas the minority doesn't. Shameful! Absolutely shameful.

.

 

[Nous]

Exactly, and this allocation is by State Law. The Electors vote according to the will of the State, in their Laws.

And "the will of" Maine and Nebraska is for their electors to represent the majority vote of the respective districts, not the state-wide winner.

 

[buddhist]

And "the will of" Maine and Nebraska is for their electors to represent the majority vote of the respective districts, not the state-wide winner.

Yes, and that's how the Electors represent their respective State - by following its Laws on voting.

 

[Nous]

If the Electoral College is abolished, the Federal united States becomes the National United States, and that is not a good idea.

Why isn't it a good idea to elect the President by the national popular vote? The electoral method of electing the President causes voter apathy, vote wasting, unequal vote weight, and, more frequently than anyone would like, the less popular candidate getting into the White House. No one has ever been able to identify any benefit of such method of electing the President.

 

[Nous]

Yes, and that's how the Electors represent their respective State - by following its Laws on voting.

Obviously electors are not needed to achieve that result. Ordinary voters can follow the voting laws.

 

[Neo Deist]

I have questioned the need for an Electoral College in recent years. It is an antiquated system in a modern world with instant and live streaming of results. However, it protects states that have smaller populations. If the election was based on the popular vote only, then candidates would only focus on CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, etc. The rest of the country would be left in the dust.

However, I would favor a system that Maine and Nebraska uses: congressional districts. The state receives a certain number of electoral votes based on population, but the state is not a "winner takes all" approach. Each district offers up 1 EC vote, and the state can be split based on demographics. This seems to be the fairest system.

 

[buddhist]

Obviously electors are not needed to achieve that result. Ordinary voters can follow the voting laws.

Yes, we don't need physical, living electors. The tabulated results can be forwarded as the will of the State.