Why the Electoral College anyway?

[Nous]

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

The electoral method of electing the President perverts each and every election, by causing voter apathy (in those states that are not battleground states), vote wasting, and unequal vote weight, in addition to putting the less popular candidate into the White House once every 7.5 elections.

 

[Nous]

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

We don't need that either. As noted, no one can identify any benefits of the electoral system, only problems that it causes.

 

[Nous]

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.

But not as fair as electing the President by the national popular vote, just like governors are elected by the state-wide popular vote.

 

[idav]

I've stated before in a similar thread that if trump won the popular vote and not the electoral I would be questioning it. Same for when it's the other way around. Arguments that people will only try and get populace states makes little sense when we can see every vote would count more when the popular vote is so close. Every county would count to try and get as many votes as possible.

 

[Nous]

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.

False. It is only by national popular vote that every voter gets one vote of equal weight. It is only by national popular vote that eliminates any "big guys" and "little guys".

 

[buddhist]

We don't need that either. As noted, no one can identify any benefits of the electoral system, only problems that it causes.

It's just how the law works.

The States vote for the President - not the People.

 

[Nous]

It's just how the law works.

The States vote for the President - not the People.

I know "how the law works". Obviously you haven't been able to identify any benefit whatsoever that results from electing the President by the electoral method rather than by national popular vote.

 

[buddhist]

I know "how the law works". Obviously you haven't been able to identify any benefit whatsoever that results from electing the President by the electoral method rather than by national popular vote.

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.

 

[Mindmaster]

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.

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

.

The popular vote is irrelevant, and always has been. It helps some states choose electors, that's about it.

If we had it the way everyone else here seems to want it then we might as well never allow anyone who isn't in Chicago, New York, Portland, Seattle, or Los Angeles to vote since no one else's would matter. That's exactly why it is the way it is, if those areas decide to become radical leftist hotbeds (or other extreme groups) they can be shut down by the rest of the electorate. Someone has to stop the crazy town. That's exactly what you seen yesterday... Hillary was smoked by the "Dad/Mom" vote, and the white vote -- the people she's been crapping on since day one. Most of the population of the country is white, and most of them are middle-aged. Free stuff, insults and divisions, that crap will not work on older folks... It's why she lost, she missed the entire middle/backbone of the country.

This is not the first or the last time the popular vote didn't track the electors, so if anyone has a problem with that in the near future get used to the unending tears.

 

[George-ananda]

One reason is lets say we have multiple fairly strong parties some day. Do we give the presidency to the one of the seven candidates with the most popular votes? There are some messy scenarios without an electoral college that might make the above scenario better left in congress's hands.

 

[Neo Deist]

But not as fair as electing the President by the national popular vote, just like governors are elected by the state-wide popular vote.

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

 

[idav]

One reason is lets say we have multiple fairly strong parties some day. Do we give the presidency to the one of the seven candidates with the most popular votes? There are some messy scenarios without an electoral college that might make the above scenario better left in congress's hands.

I can see that being messy but the electoral college doesn't solve that issue. States would elect there own candidates in that scenario, one with most college points still would win, popular vote doesn't mess that up the college makes that scenario messier. Popular vote would take votes from all states and disperse them.

 

[George-ananda]

I can see that being messy but the electoral college doesn't solve that issue. States would elect there own candidates in that scenario, one with most college points still would win, popular vote doesn't mess that up the college makes that scenario messier. Popular vote would take votes from all states and disperse them.

What you may not realize is that if no one gets 270 (a majority) electoral votes then the electoral vote is discarded and the President is then selected by the House of Representatives. So, getting the most electoral votes doesn't mean you win with more than two candidates winning states.

 

[Milton Platt]

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, I think this is a fair and pertinent question. To explain:

"Why do we use such a bizarre system anyway?
The electoral college is, essentially, a vestigial structure — a leftover from a bygone era in which the founding fathers specifically did not want a nationwide vote of the American people to choose their next president.

Instead, the framers gave a small, lucky group of people called the “electors” the power to make that choice. These would be some upstanding citizens chosen by the various states, who would make up their own minds on who should be the president (they’d have to vote on the same day in their respective home states, to make it tougher for them to coordinate with each other).

The Constitution remained silent on just how these elite electors would be chosen, saying only that each state legislature would decide how to appoint them. Initially, some state legislators picked the electors themselves, while other states had some form of statewide vote in which the electors themselves would be candidates.

But over the new nation’s first few decades, two powerful trends in American politics brought attention to the Electoral College system’s shortcomings — the rise of national political parties that would contest presidential elections, and the growing consensus that all white men (not just the elite) should get the right to vote, including for president.

The parties and states responded to these trends by trying to jury-rig the existing system. Political parties began to nominate slates of electors in each state — electors they believed could be counted on to vote for the presidential nominee. Eventually, many states even passed laws requiring electors to vote for their party’s presidential nominee.

Meanwhile, by the 1830s, almost every state had changed its laws so that all electors were chosen winner-take-all through a statewide vote, according to Richard Berg-Andersson. The point of all this was to try to make the presidential election function like ordinary statewide elections for governor or senator, at least within each state."

Is there any hope that the US will ditch the Electoral College someday?
For decades, polls have shown that large majorities of Americans would prefer a popular vote system instead of the Electoral College. For instance, a 2013 Gallup poll showed 63 percent of adults wanted to do away with it, and a mere 29 percent wanted to keep it.

But to ditch the Electoral College entirely, the US would have to pass a constitutional amendment (passed by two-thirds of the House and Senate and approved by 38 states) — or convene a constitutional convention (which has never been done, but would have to be called for by 34 states). Either method is vanishingly unlikely, because each would require many small states to approve a change that would reduce their influence on the presidential outcome.

source and an excellent explanation of the College


.

.​

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........

 

[idav]

What you may not realize is that if no one gets 270 (a majority) electoral votes then the electoral vote is discarded and the President is then selected by the House of Representatives. So, getting the most electoral votes doesn't mean you win with more than two candidates winning states.

That's an electoral college issue not a popular vote issue. It's saying that one candidate has to get half the college points which obviously could be an issue in the case of a three way close race.

 

[Valjean]

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

Historically, there have been calls from both sides of the aisle to abolish it, depending on which party it appeared to benefit at the time.

Question: Is everyone aware that Clinton won the popular majority?
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...clinton-surpasses-trump-in-popular-vote-tally

 

[Watchmen]

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? Or supposing it was determined that a particular candidate was a raving lunatic but still got the popular vote? 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. Again, another example of the vision processed by the Founding Fathers of this country.

This.

 

[Thief]

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, I think this is a fair and pertinent question. To explain:

"Why do we use such a bizarre system anyway?
The electoral college is, essentially, a vestigial structure — a leftover from a bygone era in which the founding fathers specifically did not want a nationwide vote of the American people to choose their next president.

Instead, the framers gave a small, lucky group of people called the “electors” the power to make that choice. These would be some upstanding citizens chosen by the various states, who would make up their own minds on who should be the president (they’d have to vote on the same day in their respective home states, to make it tougher for them to coordinate with each other).

The Constitution remained silent on just how these elite electors would be chosen, saying only that each state legislature would decide how to appoint them. Initially, some state legislators picked the electors themselves, while other states had some form of statewide vote in which the electors themselves would be candidates.

But over the new nation’s first few decades, two powerful trends in American politics brought attention to the Electoral College system’s shortcomings — the rise of national political parties that would contest presidential elections, and the growing consensus that all white men (not just the elite) should get the right to vote, including for president.

The parties and states responded to these trends by trying to jury-rig the existing system. Political parties began to nominate slates of electors in each state — electors they believed could be counted on to vote for the presidential nominee. Eventually, many states even passed laws requiring electors to vote for their party’s presidential nominee.

Meanwhile, by the 1830s, almost every state had changed its laws so that all electors were chosen winner-take-all through a statewide vote, according to Richard Berg-Andersson. The point of all this was to try to make the presidential election function like ordinary statewide elections for governor or senator, at least within each state."

Is there any hope that the US will ditch the Electoral College someday?
For decades, polls have shown that large majorities of Americans would prefer a popular vote system instead of the Electoral College. For instance, a 2013 Gallup poll showed 63 percent of adults wanted to do away with it, and a mere 29 percent wanted to keep it.

But to ditch the Electoral College entirely, the US would have to pass a constitutional amendment (passed by two-thirds of the House and Senate and approved by 38 states) — or convene a constitutional convention (which has never been done, but would have to be called for by 34 states). Either method is vanishingly unlikely, because each would require many small states to approve a change that would reduce their influence on the presidential outcome.

source and an excellent explanation of the College


.

.​

I would agree.....

I see no need of a body of lawgivers?....overriding the will of the people

 

[Acim]

The popular vote is not irrelevant in my book. But I think there is reason to do both, like is currently done, and I think electoral college does make more sense than popular vote. If we switched to popular vote tomorrow, then the day after that and possibly even the next time we vote in national elections, it wouldn't appear all that different. But the election cycle after that, I think certain strategies would be figured out, and how certain industries in America work would be changed dramatically. Such that, it would be obvious to party officials (Dems and Pubs) to concentrate as many of your voters in one area where you can for sure 'get out the vote' and can live life in that region how that party deems most appropriate. Again, if first election cycle I wouldn't expect it to play out this way. The ones after that, I could see it going the route of we need to stick together and ensure our population is bigger than all other parties, and thus best we all live in one state, or acceptable that we live in no more than say 4 regions (states). Maximizing voter turn out would be the game, and would be understood that if you could get around 80% of your party to live in particular areas, this would be ideal during elections. Of course there would be a portion of the population that forever disagrees with such strategizing, but if they saw the other party doing similar thing and effectively winning with that strategy, they might get fed up and think it best to go live in that area where everyone is in the same party as own self.

Another thing on this topic occurred to me in last day and not sure if this is common knowledge or I'm bringing up something that is not discussed all that often. But it's clear to me from this election cycle that the population centers in America (aka cities) had voters mostly voting for one party (Dems) while the rural areas had voters mostly voting for the other party (Pubs). That's not new, everyone knows this that pays attention. What I was thinking is that as much as voting is for the people, by the people, that when it comes to 'country' that land matters a whole lot. When it comes to ideology and implementing policies that reflect values, then land isn't perhaps a big deal, whereas ideas / people's beliefs are a really big deal. So, the idea that land is a significant resource, and second to people as a resource, but not necessarily a distant second is why electoral college makes sense. Cause in some areas, i.e. rural, there is intention to not have people (by the thousands) living as closely as possible together. Perhaps a few hundred years from now that will be different and we'll have large population centers all over the map because instead of a population of around 400 million Americans, it is now 7 billion Americans in the U.S. alone. Until we get to that point, I think rural lands and all that entails, namely how we get our food, if we are being self reliant as a nation, matters. It arguably matters more than any other industry in the country. It's also the land that we call America. It's a significant piece of the puzzle of what makes America, Americans - while our ideology and constitution is the larger part, again for the people by the people.

But a state like Wyoming or Idaho is, I think, for the next 20 years at least, unlikely to have large population centers. So, with popular vote only, we'd essentially be letting those lands go to the people not caught up in the political game that would surely be played with popular vote only. Such that if any thing dealing with EPA, Agriculture, Land Management is up for national consideration, it's the people living far away from those lands that would make the decisions, and likely have no real, genuine concern for the land, other than as means of enforcement of new policies. Whereas with Electoral college, and as I saw last night, it is conceivable that a state with 3 electoral votes could end up being deciding factor in the election, and while that might stink a bit in contrast to popular vote, I think it's actually a great thing given how amazingly valuable the resources in that state actually are, but are possibly downplayed by some or used as political football by others. And thing is with popular vote, if 55 million in Red State have voted one way and 54.9 million in Blue State vote the other way, then it really doesn't matter how the 11 people in Wyoming vote in view of their vastly different concerns for the country. Whereas with electoral college it does matter a bit, and for sure matters far more than popular vote would likely play out. But right now, the way that plays out, is the 55 million in population centers are competing with the 55 million in rural areas and is one reason (among many) why we have deep division in our national politics.

 

[Acim]

The other thing I forgot to note is that a huge reason why popular vote does matter is if Trump had won it, then he / Pubs would truly have a mandate going forward. By not winning it, while winning everything else, tells me (and I think all those in the majority that didn't vote for him) that he / Pubs may think they have mandate, but that would be mistaken. He's got momentum, and reason to govern in way that he campaigned on, but unless he's willing to upset what was majority of the popular vote, he better realize his term could be short lived if all of them stay in resistant mode to the way he chooses to govern. Which today seems true. Yet 2 to 4 years from now, that might change. He might gain some of that population or lose some on his / Pub side, and that number helps him realize he certainly has work to do, to ensure he is doing the will of the people, or at least the majority of those who voted.