Why The Electoral College Is Fair

[Sultan Of Swing]

So now you want to believe him?

You have to admit the inconsistency is quite funny.

 

[suncowiam]

But Pence claimed that smoking was unhealthy and bad and that those who smoke should quit.

I just find your view to be overly critical.

That's cool. I think we've discussed all our opinions on the subject. It's OK to believe differently and still be able to accept other opinions since they are opinions.

Thanks.

 

[idav]

You have to admit the inconsistency is quite funny.

With all the contradictory things the guy spouts at least one half has to be the truth.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All I can say is look at a map depicting how counties in all States voted and you will understand what I am failing to get across to most of those on this site.

I understand. Total land area is vastly republican. But more people are democrats. You feel that the massive "areas" of the united states should have inflated votes for president because you feel it helps their representation. Its exactly right. It does help their representation.

But what I was asking is if there were more people in rural areas than urban areas would you support inflating the votes democrats in big cities so their voices are heard? If the statistics were reversed for population?

Is it really about equal representaion or is it about inflating conservative power? There is a large difference. A meaningful difference.

 

[esmith]

We are a representative government are we not?
We have 2 Senators from each State and Representatives that is proportional to the population of that State. To get technical we are a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic
Now when it comes to the President, I see him as more of a representation of the States not a direct representative of the people. Although the President does not make the laws (at least not supposed to) he/she should represent the entire country not just areas that happen to have a large population blocks that may or may not have a common agenda thus the Electoral College where basically all States have a say in the selection of a President. I probably am not explaining myself sufficiently in this matter. Sometimes it is hard to put into words ones thoughts. All I am attempting to say is that by allowing the selection of the President to be based on allowing States to determine the President vice a popular vote makes more sense to me.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We are a representative government are we not?
We have 2 Senators from each State and Representatives that is proportional to the population of that State. To get technical we are a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic
Now when it comes to the President, I see him as more of a representation of the States not a direct representative of the people. Although the President does not make the laws (at least not supposed to) he/she should represent the entire country not just areas that happen to have a large population blocks that may or may not have a common agenda thus the Electoral College where basically all States have a say in the selection of a President. I probably am not explaining myself sufficiently in this matter. Sometimes it is hard to put into words ones thoughts. All I am attempting to say is that by allowing the selection of the President to be based on allowing States to determine the President vice a popular vote makes more sense to me.

Why then do we elect no other offical in the same way if it makes more sense? Why is the presidency the only elected position NOT based on a popular vote?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The following was presented in reply to another topic in this section, but I thought it might be a good idea to give it it's own voice.

As far as the Electoral College issue, there are many who say it is the "fairest" means of electing a president. All you have to do is search for why and you will get many different articles. But the one that seems to say it best is from: Defending the EC
The statement from the article says: and I quote
.
Another Source says it this way: and I quote

Or picking from another Source


So as person living in a state that is considered a "rural" state I think my vote counts whereas without the EC a candidate would not have to worry about what I think they would only focus their attention on regions containing a large population say like NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, or any other metropolitan area. And I do not think that the majority of the voters in those areas agree with my values or opinions, as was seen in this election.

States with big cities don't only include big cities.

You talk about rural voters; what about the rural voters in California or Texas? Why should their vote count less just because there's a big city on the other side of their state?

 

[idav]

We are a representative government are we not?
We have 2 Senators from each State and Representatives that is proportional to the population of that State. To get technical we are a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic
Now when it comes to the President, I see him as more of a representation of the States not a direct representative of the people. Although the President does not make the laws (at least not supposed to) he/she should represent the entire country not just areas that happen to have a large population blocks that may or may not have a common agenda thus the Electoral College where basically all States have a say in the selection of a President. I probably am not explaining myself sufficiently in this matter. Sometimes it is hard to put into words ones thoughts. All I am attempting to say is that by allowing the selection of the President to be based on allowing States to determine the President vice a popular vote makes more sense to me.

Yet the states have representative through legislative branch so allowing president election through states just makes government one sided.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Good thing the USA wasn't designed to be a pure democracy in that sense then, the founding fathers themselves were wary of the 'tyranny of the majority'. Indeed, the Senate was modelled on the House of Lords we have here in the UK, and was at first unelected like ours is.

The "Tyranny of the Majority" is protected against by a strong constitution that needs a supermajority to amend.

I'd say that it also takes a special kind of doublethink to say that the popular vote represents "tyranny", considering the history of the electoral college as an institution intended to guard against the abolition of slavery.

 

[esmith]

Why then do we elect no other offical in the same way if it makes more sense? Why is the presidency the only elected position NOT based on a popular vote?

Because member of the Senate and House are representatives of those people in their State not the representatives of all people within the country. Therefore the majority vote of the people of each individual State chose who they think best represents them. As you well know every Congressman is elected within regions of the State, not by the total population of the State, only Senators are elected in that manner. So in actuality we do elect Congressmen in the same manner.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Because member of the Senate and House are representatives of those people in their State not the representatives of all people within the country. Therefore the majority vote of the people of each individual State chose who they think best represents them. As you well know every Congressman is elected within regions of the State, not by the total population of the State, only Senators are elected in that manner. So in actuality we do elect Congressmen in the same manner.

Why the state middleman? What is the purpouse of that?

And yes. Every single congressmene is voted on by their representated populatin in a POPULAR VOTE. District XX of state whatever is determined by the popular vote of people within District XX. The state itself votes for the senators. The cities vote for mayors. Why suddenly with presidents we no longer have a direct say? What is the logical argument that a President is the cutoff point?

 

[idav]

Because member of the Senate and House are representatives of those people in their State not the representatives of all people within the country. Therefore the majority vote of the people of each individual State chose who they think best represents them. As you well know every Congressman is elected within regions of the State, not by the total population of the State, only Senators are elected in that manner. So in actuality we do elect Congressmen in the same manner.

What your suggesting is that the state reps pick the president which is exactly what makes the electoral unfair in cases when national popular vote doesn't match the proportion of reps.

 

[esmith]

Why the state middleman? What is the purpouse of that?

And yes. Every single congressmene is voted on by their representated populatin in a POPULAR VOTE. District XX of state whatever is determined by the popular vote of people within District XX. The state itself votes for the senators. The cities vote for mayors. Why suddenly with presidents we no longer have a direct say? What is the logical argument that a President is the cutoff point?

What your suggesting is that the state reps pick the president which is exactly what makes the electoral unfair in cases when national popular vote doesn't match the proportion of reps.

Ok, everyone has their opinion, I have mine and nothing anyone says will change it.
So I agree let the House of Representatives chose the President.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ok, everyone has their opinion, I have mine and nothing anyone says will change it.
So I agree let the House of Representatives chose the President.

So your opinion is that it should be changed and the primary method of electing the president should be foregone for the failsafe engineered if a president fails to get a majority? Or are you under the assumption that the HOR elects the president?

And can I ask for why? If Hillary had one intsead of Trump and Trump had gotten the popular vote would you still agree? I"m not here to smack down your opinion I"m just interseted in why.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, everyone has their opinion, I have mine and nothing anyone says will change it.
So I agree let the House of Representatives chose the President.

That would be better than the current system, where most states are all or nothing for one candidate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why suddenly with presidents we no longer have a direct say? What is the logical argument that a President is the cutoff point?

Originally (when the electoral college representation was based on the number of voters in each state and 3/5 the number of slaves), the logical argument was that even if the House was dominated by the North based on the straight number of voters, the South would still have enough weight when choosing a President that they could be reasonably sure of electing a President who could veto any anti-slavery legislation.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Originally (when the electoral college representation was based on the number of voters in each state and 3/5 the number of slaves), the logical argument was that even if the House was dominated by the North based on the straight number of voters, the South would still have enough weight when choosing a President that they could be reasonably sure of electing a President who could veto any anti-slavery legislation.

Historically I understand. However how does this affect us today? What is the current argument that is standing and relevant to issues we face today?

 

[Mister_T]

"Why the electoral college is fair."

Because they person I voted for won.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Historically I understand. However how does this affect us today? What is the current argument that is standing and relevant to issues we face today?

Inertia. That's basically it, IMO.

I reject the argument in the OP. I think that the fairer approach would be to base the election on the popular vote.

... However, that would take a constitutional amendment. Between the small states and swing states that would lose their disproportionate influence, as well as the Republican-held states that would realize that their party is the one that has reaped the benefits of the problems with the current system, I don't think there's a serious hope of getting such an amendment approved by enough states to pass.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Inertia. That's basically it, IMO.

I reject the argument in the OP. I think that the fairer approach would be to base the election on the popular vote.

... However, that would take a constitutional amendment. Between the small states and swing states that would lose their disproportionate influence, as well as the Republican-held states that would realize that their party is the one that has reaped the benefits of the problems with the current system, I don't think there's a serious hope of getting such an amendment approved by enough states to pass.

True. Didn't think it would change just wanted to debate why it should.