If The US Needed a Better Excuse To Abolish The Electoral College...

[notacoach]

Less voters in rural areas. More in cities. She lost.

Right. But the argument wasn't fir this election (that's done and dusted - you can't change rules retroactively) but fairer representation for the future.

 

[dan330]

California had a whopping 55 electoral votes up for grabs, more than any other state in the union, and that state usually goes blue. If you win California, you've got a huge headstart, which I find pretty unfair. California should be split, not from the USA (or secession as some there have protested), but from themselves. The celebrity culture and rich people like it blue. All their votes have been bought. A lot of unheard people in that state, it's unfortunate.

Going by a national popular vote would be corrupt, popular voting already occurs at the state level, that's the way it should stay. I find it simply astounding just how many people have suddenly "woken up" to the idea that the electoral college is how our voting system operates.. if I had to guess, it's all thanks to the internet, and the corrupt mainstream media... of course.

Try the education system!!!!!!!!

 

[jefboyardee]

The Electoral College was implemented to prevent mob rule, ie the swarms of urbanites that flock together, from forcing their collective opinion down the throat of the entire nation.

 

[notacoach]

^not the view of all constitutional scholars - it was also to avoid having to give slaves the vote.

 

[Yoda_One]

^ Misinformed and full of one-sided media Propaganda. [emoji6]


It must be true I read it on the Internet.[emoji38]
Garbage In Garbage Out[emoji57]


https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.c258ec2bb44a


Background:

The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[18] Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern large states would otherwise control presidential elections.[19]

In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[20] Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 laid out the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election.[21]

Alexander Hamilton explained the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued, electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public. No one who is an elector can be a U.S. officeholder, so none of the electors would be immediately beholden to a given presidential candidate.[21]

Another consideration was the decision would be made without "tumult and disorder", as it would be a broad-based one made simultaneously in various locales where the decision-makers could deliberate reasonably, not in one place, where decision-makers could be threatened or intimidated. If the Electoral College did not achieve a decisive majority, then the House of Representatives was to choose the president, and the Senate the vice president, selecting among the top five candidates, ensuring selection of a presiding officer administering the laws would have both ability and good character.[21] Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified, but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity," attaining high office.[22]

Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." What was then called republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism

 

[jefboyardee]

James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

...what he said

 

[notacoach]

None of which actually negates the other factors involved - it's more complicated than that.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/

For the record, again, I'm not disputing the result - it's done and you can't change the rules retroactively. But discussing adapting 18th century failsafes to the 21st is interesting and warranted.

 

[Yoda_One]

:spin:

 

[notacoach]

I don't want to get into a pissing match over this, and that was not my intention in posting. What I am trying to get across, is that it is never as simple as it might initially appear, people do have different interpretations of what was written - and why - which has kept constitutional scholars in business for a couple of hundred years , and that perhaps in 18th century electorate needed something a little different than we do now. Election reform has been discussed by both parties for several decades , so it seems to be something that affects everybody and is worthy of further investigation.

 

[Yoda_One]

One last thing.... If your argument is weak just keep reframing the the same position. My last statement.

 

[notacoach]

So you're saying you don't believe in "discussion". I was actually interested in learning more (from both sides) and expanding my knowledge (on both sides), but you seem determined to shut it down as "there is only my point of view so shut the f*** up". Frustrating.

 

[jefboyardee]

Democrats Only Want Electoral College Reform When They Lose

The news media happily keeps reporting Hillary Clinton’s popular vote total as if it means anything in the scheme of things. Donald Trump won via the electoral college, so Hillary Clinton’s popular vote total is irrelevant. That it may grow to be 2 million votes is still irrelevant. The popular vote is more irrelevant when considering she leads Trump by 1.5 million votes in New York and nearly 3 million in California.​

 

[dontpanicbobby]

Big cities in both States. Hmm, maybe the founding fathers were onto something.

Should I have capitalized founding fathers?

 

[psionandy]

It might not be relevant to the choice of president... But it IS still relevant to the United States. Especially the President Elect who says he wants to be the president for anyone.

He campaigned on being the man who would stand up for those who were being ignored... Claiming those votes are irrelevant is bizarre...

 

[Yoda_One]

Sore .......

 

[psionandy]

Sore .......

Think you pressed post before you finished writing your comments...


.... Unless of course you don't think that the president of the United States is only actually the president of the people who voted for him.. And Mr Trump is very clear he wants to bring the nation together .

The electoral college decides who the president is, but only a fool would ignore the other information given by the electorate...

 

[dan330]

those that favor the Electoral sys...

if the electors vote
with the popular votes...
with their heads...
with their hearts...
with their conscience..
and go with Hillary?

will you accept it?

 

[Yoda_One]

[emoji38]

 

[svim]

He campaigned on being the man who would stand up for those who were being ignored... Claiming those votes are irrelevant is bizarre...

Here in America it is very, very clear that he campaigned on being a man for WHITE voters, hardly the 'ignored' demographic.
Bottom line is the Electoral College delegates are not representative of the voting public, and that's the problem. There's still the misguided, misleading mantra that public votes determine our president in an open election. But the reality is that's just theater. The delegate count is the over-riding, primary factor that all the media focus on during the entire evening coverage on voting day. The citizens get all the attention prior to the election, but it's also a complete dodge because the when the vote counts are tallied up, it's the delegates, not the citizens, that matter. An even bigger insult to logic, EC delegates are not in any way picked by public participation or even a part of any kind of public discussion. In a modern day election for President in America, the choice is now determined solely by an extremely tiny percentage of the citizens.

 

[Yoda_One]

What a :spin: . At the Trump Rallies that I attended[emoji38] there was a cross section of America. White, Black, Young( First time voters attending UCF), Middle-aged, Men, Women, Straight, LGBTQ, Asians, Military, Vets, Christian, Jews, Republicans, Independents and yes, Democrats. So toot your own horn but I have seen the truth and it was the reason he was elected to be our next President.

 

[recDNA]

We don't need to get rid of EC. Each state can make its own rules. Most states are all or none but Maine assigns according to proportion in that state.

There is a movement for each state to change its rules so ALL of that state's ec votes go to popular plurality winner nationwide. This might mean MA's ec votes would all go to a Republican if he won popular vote nationwide even if he only got 20% of vote in MA. Some states have already agreed to do this. When enough states change the rules to add up to 270 ec votes we don't need the other states. They are irrelevant. If all the big states sign on or even a majority of them it will easily add up to 270 ec votes and the popular vote winner would always be president without any need to change the constitution.

That doesn't mean their citizens' votes don't count. Everyones votes go into the nationwide total. As it is now a Democrat in Indiana or a Republican in MA might as well stay home. In the new system everyone's vote counts equally. No more disproportionate advantage to people from lightly populated fly over states.

 

[svim]

What a :spin: . At the Trump Rallies that I attended[emoji38] there was a cross section of America. White, Black, Young( First time voters attending UCF), Middle-aged, Men, Women, Straight, LGBTQ, Asians, Military, Vets, Christian, Jews, Republicans, Independents and yes, Democrats. So toot your own horn but I have seen the truth and it was the reason he was elected to be our next President.

Troll much do you?

 

[Yoda_One]

So now you are going low.

 

[dan330]

What a :spin: . At the Trump Rallies that I attended[emoji38] there was a cross section of America. White, Black, Young( First time voters attending UCF), Middle-aged, Men, Women, Straight, LGBTQ, Asians, Military, Vets, Christian, Jews, Republicans, Independents and yes, Democrats. So toot your own horn but I have seen the truth and it was the reason he was elected to be our next President.

ok..

so the majority counts? then Hilary got the most votes in usa.

but you say drumpf is the president elect.. via the Electoral vote system.. by getting more than 270 electoral votes.

and the electoral voters don't have to vote as directed. They can vote any way they want.. with some limits and a small fine.
So of they vote for Hillary... she is the president elect.
what do you say then?

 

[Yoda_One]

Not worth it.