Why the Electoral College anyway?

[Nous]

Makes me wonder how our forefathers handled it?

Perhaps "our forefathers" tried to justify the electoral method of electing the President with some of the same erroneous ideas expressed on this (and other) threads.

 

[Lighthouse]

In my opinion, it is used to keep 2 parties in power, and the 2 parties with the most money in power.

Every vote doesn't count because Gary and Jill's supporters are the sanest in my opinion and where there is sanity, it's the 2 powers worst nightmare.

Starting to be much more in favor of a ranking system.

If I were a voter, and was under a ranking system, it would be:

1) Gary
2) Jill
3) The Donald
4) Hillary

If a Democrat were under the ranking system I'd have to imagine that it would be:

1) Hillary
2/3) Jill/Gary
4) The Donald

If a Republican were under the ranking system,

1) The Donald
2/3) Gary/Jill
4) Hillary

People are psychologically conditioned to know that their vote will only matter if they vote for one of the 2 parties with the power. If this psyche were removed and a ranking system in place, I'd have to imagine that more and more people would select Gary or Jill.

This is wishful thinking, the power and money will never allow it.

 

[Nous]

In my opinion, it is used to keep 2 parties in power, and the 2 parties with the most money in power.

There were no political parties in the US at the time of writing or ratifying the Constitution.

 

[Lighthouse]

There were no political parties in the US at the time of writing or ratifying the Constitution.

And as we can see, this democracy developed into being more unconstitutional and unjust. When it comes to voting and political power parties.

 

[Nous]

And as we can see, this democracy developed into being more unconstitutional and unjust. When it comes to voting and political power parties.

Come again? What are you saying is "unconstitutional and unjust"?

 

[Lighthouse]

Come again? What are you saying is "unconstitutional and unjust"?

Exactly what you said, there were no political parties at the time of writing the constitution.

 

[Nous]

Exactly what you said, there were no political parties at the time of writing the constitution.

There is nothing either unconstitutional or unjust about the fact that there were no political parties at the time of writing the US Constitution.

 

[Lighthouse]

There is nothing either unconstitutional or unjust about the fact that there were no political parties at the time of writing the US Constitution.

Exactly. Then came along two parties that control everything with power and money. Once upon a time, it were just as you said: constitutional and just.

 

[Nous]

Exactly. Then came along two parties that control everything with power and money.

There are many more political parties in the US than just two. And further, for people to associate along partisan lines and into partisan groups, express their views and petition the government is certain one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Once upon a time, it were just as you said: constitutional and just.

If you wish to refer to something I actually said, please quote it.

 

[Lighthouse]

There are many more political parties in the US than just two. And further, for people to associate along partisan lines and into partisan groups, express their views and petition the government is certain one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

If you wish to refer to something I actually said, please quote it.

You haven't caught on to what I've been saying. It is fine.

 

[Nous]

You haven't caught on to what I've been saying.

Evidently I "caught on" that what you've said is merely false.

 

[buddhist]

Please go right ahead and explain what is the relevance of "legal liability" to my post:

So, in other words, you cannot identify any benefit to either the state-winner-take-all or district-winner-take-all electoral method of electing the President as opposed to the national popular vote method. And you still have not been willing or able to address, much less offer any solution to, the very serious problems caused by the electoral method of electing the President, namely voter apathy, vote wasting, unequal vote weight and the less-popular candidate getting the office. Right?​

Obviously my post doesn't comment on the issue of "legal liability".

Why don't you begin by answering the question I asked?

Never mind.

 

[Tiapan]

I think it is a farce that the bastion of "Democracy" ie US, is actually less democratic than Russia or China. The US is the worlds biggest protected Gerrymander. Surprisingly for a right wing party , the republican candidate is actually more left wing than either Clinton or Sanders introducing protectionism, subsidized industries and removing the Hispanic slave labor force, the southern US depends on for growth. So much for the core of capitalism ie free market economics.

I believe the system we have here in Australia is far more effective. 1 person 1 vote, the candidate with the most votes gets in, simple and it works. We also have COMPULSORY voting, it is illegal not to vote, again this is a serious flaw in the worlds biggest "Democracy" (laugh). The silly excuse proponents claim of protecting rural areas with the electoral colleges is a non sense, Australia is a similar size with similar rural / city distribution and we do not see any evidence of this.

Once again America gets what it deserves. For an intelligent people they still have a long way to go. After all what civilized modern society still has capital punishment.

Cheers

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

I mean we did just elect a raving lunatic? So they didn't do their job. In fact they went out of their way to give it to the lunatic who lost the popular vote.

They will never vote against the majority of the state. It is a scheme currently used to crush 3rd party candidates and simply campaigning routes. In a popular vote they can't win with just a few states. They have to appeal to the MAJORITY of all Americans. Now they just appeal to Florida, NC and Ohio. Your vote counts the same no matter where you live. Currently this is objectively false. It also cuts away millions of American Citizens in Puerto Rico who are full fledged American Citizens who vote in the primary elections but not in the General election for president.

There is no defensible argument for the EC except its simply the way we have always done it. They will not go against the popular state vote. They will polarize the parties and force a two party system (only one of many mechanisms that do this) and force focus on a select few swing states.

Personally I think we need to work on giving citizenship to all of our denizens of US territories and then take a direct election with popular vote with all of our citizens.

 

[George-ananda]

State Governors and Senators to the US Congress are elected by the popular vote of each state. Can you point out any "messy scenarios" that have occurred because of this?

The limited number of messy scenarios is tempered by the fact that most states have two strong parties also.

Three mainstream parties and one 'out-there' party highly raises the 'out-there' parties chance of winning. I think Georgia ended up with a white supremacist Governor in this way many decades back. But theoretically you can see why this could happen. I think some countries have a run-off election where the two top finishers then compete in the final election.

 

[Mindmaster]

False. There are not more voters in those five cities than in the rest of the country.

No, there are not, but effectively they control their states entire allocation of electoral votes. We run into this in my home state all of the time where the entire state will vote red practically, and the two urban areas counteract the entirety of their vote. These areas basically control their entire state electoral vote, so it's the same problem that the Dem/lib haters disagree with (saying the popular vote should matter more) but taken at the local level. If Hillary Clinton loses 7/8ths of California, Illinois, or New York it's pretty funny that she gets it just because of Chicago/NyC/Bay Area-LA votes/etc. We should pick electors by counties won, if that happened it would be more accurate.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, there are not, but effectively they control their states entire allocation of electoral votes. We run into this in my home state all of the time where the entire state will vote red practically, and the two urban areas counteract the entirety of their vote. These areas basically control their entire state electoral vote, so it's the same problem that the Dem/lib haters disagree with (saying the popular vote should matter more) but taken at the local level. If Hillary Clinton loses 7/8ths of California, Illinois, or New York it's pretty funny that she gets it just because of Chicago/NyC/Bay Area-LA votes/etc. We should pick electors by counties won, if that happened it would be more accurate.

The most accurate we can get is direct vote. It doesn't matter if 60 people out of 100 live in a city and the people outside the city loose the vote trend if its still a 60% majority. A majority is a majority is a majority. The only way we can cheat this is by installing something rigged that will disproportionately give more votes or value to votes in less densely populated areas.

 

[Mindmaster]

The most accurate we can get is direct vote. It doesn't matter if 60 people out of 100 live in a city and the people outside the city loose the vote trend if its still a 60% majority. A majority is a majority is a majority. The only way we can cheat this is by installing something rigged that will disproportionately give more votes or value to votes in less densely populated areas.

I don't know if it is the best system, but it is the only system that isn't completely unfair in some way. The problem is one of representation, and if representation is the criteria then switching to a county system is more logical than even going to a popular vote only system. If the candidate wins the majority of counties in the state then they win the state. I still think that is the best, because the the urban areas have the same say as the rural, etc. No one is favored, and if that is what you guys are on about it is the logical choice.

The reality is, we've been doing it this way since the beginning, it isn't likely to change this way (which would improve it) or the other way which I think weakens the republic. If pure democracy was such a great idea, we'd have stayed with it since ancient Greece.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't know if it is the best system, but it is the only system that isn't completely unfair in some way. The problem is one of representation, and if representation is the criteria then switching to a county system is more logical than even going to a popular vote only system. If the candidate wins the majority of counties in the state then they win the state. I still think that is the best, because the the urban areas have the same say as the rural, etc. No one is favored, and if that is what you guys are on about it is the logical choice.

The reality is, we've been doing it this way since the beginning, it isn't likely to change this way (which would improve it) or the other way which I think weakens the republic. If pure democracy was such a great idea, we'd have stayed with it since ancient Greece.

I think that there should be a representation of some kind at some level of government but not for the president. If more people live in the city and vote for a certain candidate it shouldn't matter if the rural area doesn't get its way. Vice versa should also be true. It isn't a take all government. We split up the rule between smaller factions. Those rural areas get their representation in the house of representatives.

But yeah I doubt it will change.

 

[Mindmaster]

I think that there should be a representation of some kind at some level of government but not for the president. If more people live in the city and vote for a certain candidate it shouldn't matter if the rural area doesn't get its way. Vice versa should also be true. It isn't a take all government. We split up the rule between smaller factions. Those rural areas get their representation in the house of representatives.

But yeah I doubt it will change.

What shifted this election was the black Trump vote:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=778857228918841