Jump to content
lawnchairboy

Electoral College

Recommended Posts

lawnchairboy

"If America ever loses its liberty, the fault will surely lie with the omnipotence of the majority"  (translation)

 

It is absolute madness to consider the eradication of the electoral college. 

 

 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEWKS

Also madness to consider no more farting cows, or gas powered motorcycles! :( You mean I'd have to pedal my arse for miles just to get some delicious Kale? WT...! :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mickeym3

06804EB1-70A1-4AB4-828D-E2E6B4CF0716.jpeg.1642320a46d88ea0f7c0cf269eaa990c.jpegThe pendulum swing is coming...and it will resemble a axe. Better hug your IC engine today...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twisties

One person, one vote.  Thank you very much.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

Surest route to secession movements as low-population states are disenfranchised.  Might as well apportion senate seats based on population....that'd be next.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker

Can someone explain a mechanism that allows the EC to protect the voice of voters in small states?  Because I don't see one.  Electors are already apportioned based on population, though every state does get at least three.  What I see is disenfranchisement of voters by the practice of some states of awarding ALL their EC votes to whichever candidate wins the state, rather than proportionally according to how the voters voted.  Sorry, if you're in a 49% minority in your state, your vote means nothing!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red

"Surest route to secession movements as low-population states are disenfranchised." 

 

John,

this is exactly what is going on in N.Cal, S and E Oregon and Washington.  Just Google State of Jefferson for the story on the movement to create a 51st state out of parts of existing states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

It's curious that when a Dem wins the White House, there's no hue and cry for eliminating the EC, but only when a Rep wins.  Coincidence?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby
1 hour ago, John Ranalletta said:

It's curious that when a Dem wins the White House, there's no hue and cry for eliminating the EC, but only when a Rep wins.  Coincidence?

 

I don't recall a Democrat or other party winning the White House on Electoral College points....that didn't also win the popular vote. I did not research that so I might be wrong. So no coincidence or conspiracy!

 

No matter your position, more people voted against Trump than for Trump. Or perhaps that was Fake News?

 

I will also add that I think the two party system has gotten to the point it is hurting this country. You may be the best candidate for the office you are running for, but you hardly stand a chance running on a Libertarian, Independant, or Green ticket. And that isn't just for national elections. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

I agree re: 2-party system, but (IMO) it's embedded down to county and township levels of government - almost tribal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

"Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."

 

Only population centers would control presidential elections in this country if popular vote adopted, not my idea of good.  YMMV of course. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddd

I haven't bothered to vote in a presidential race for 40 years because my vote meant nothing no matter the candidate.  I lived in Texas for over 30 years and now live in Utah.  In both these states... 

 

A vote for the republican just adds one more to the predetermined outcome. 

 

A vote for a democrat never has any effect on determining who wins the election.

 

California is just the reverse...a vote for a republican has zero effect on who is elected, and a vote for a democrat just adds one more to the predetermined outcome.

 

Silly me, but I think that republicans in California and democrats in Texas might like their votes to count for something.  If the EC is such a great method why is it only used for presidential elections.  Millions of votes on both sides in every presidential election mean ZIP, NADA, ZERO, ZILCH.  This is fundamentally unfair...period...end of story.

 

If you are in favor of the EC please explain why the voters mentioned above should NEVER have a say in who is elected.  

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddd
6 minutes ago, lawnchairboy said:

...Only population centers would control presidential elections in this country if popular vote... 

 

 

 

Bull.  If every vote is counted the presidential election votes in the more rural areas will still help determine who is elected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

Bull back atcha.  Presidential candidates  would have no interest or time to spend in flyover land in a popular vote system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

Yes eddd.  My vote doesn’t usually count for much in the “commonwealth”.  Northern Va, Hampton roads and Roanoke tend to Fu$& up common sense on a lot of things.

 

 

😁

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby

In todays world you don't have to be in a "population center" to be swayed by a potential candidate. Decades ago, yes there would be little reason to stop in towns of 10,000 people. Today about anything you need to know is on TV or on the internet. Politicians can work social media to reach more voters than any "whistle stop"! 

 

Today, more than ever, votes from less populated areas could mean even more. Assuming the Electoral College wasn't in place........

 

Then there is the fact that electors CAN vote for another person than was officially the winner of the vote tally. This has happened. 

 

The last election where the popular vote was won by the losing candidate was the 2000 election. So this isn't a once in a lifetime happening. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roadscholar

The next time your kid loses a football or baseball game on the playground, teach him to try to change the rules in his favor so maybe he can win then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddd
2 minutes ago, roadscholar said:

The next time your kid loses a football or baseball game on the playground, teach him to try to change the rules in his favor so maybe he can win then.

 

Do the football or baseball game rules provide that one team's points are given more weight than the other team?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddd

Football and baseball rules have been changed over the years when inequities are noted.  It has nothing to do with who won the last game, but rather what is fair to all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

Like the EU, the US isn't very united and with the exception of national defense and road building, should be broken into areas of common interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby
57 minutes ago, roadscholar said:

The next time your kid loses a football or baseball game on the playground, teach him to try to change the rules in his favor so maybe he can win then.

If my kid's team scored more points or runs yet was determined to be the loser, yes I would see about changing the rules.

 

Even more important, and I think needs fixing first, is Gerrymandering. What has been done in Texas to influence elections should NEVER be allowed. And it goes on everywhere by both parties. This, like Electoral College, is the political way of tipping the balance into a chosen direction. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

Gerrymandering cuts both ways.  I'm guessing that if Indianapolis metro was one lump instead of the current congressional districts, the 7th District with the highest percentage of Black & Hispanic residents might not have a Black Democrat as it rep.  

 

image.png.b8493e811a8984285450a4887ca0ac30.pngimage.png.b6f8ef2e2ca88049620f3eb7b81852f3.png 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roadscholar

The lesson is don't teach your kids to be corrupt because they can't win on a level playing field (and it is). The electoral college has been around for a couple hundred years and has worked just fine, not a bad track record. It appears the constitution is about the only thing keeping this country together so quit trying to mess with it to gain an advantage. It's pretty simple, if you're not happy about losing pick a candidate(s) that can win.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whip

Should not need more than this to win a national election.

 

 

1EEF18A9-9EED-46E8-92A0-960BE5E3D768.jpeg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddd

The graph above totally ignores the fact that within every blue county there were "red votes" just as there were "blue votes" in every red county.  

 

But the more pertinent point is that people vote...counties don't.

 

Let me know when you've come up with a sensible and defensible reason why my vote (and millions of others) make no difference just because we live in a state that is dominated by one party or another.

 

The ec is a relic of a time when things were vastly different.  Somehow the country has survived many changes to the constitution.  It will easily survive the removal of this ridiculous method that ignores the votes of millions every election.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roadscholar
1 hour ago, eddd said:

The ec is a relic of a time when things were vastly different.  

 

Actually they weren't, the only difference is the number of people, the percentages are about the same. Edd you just need to move to a different state, again.  :grin:   :wave:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby
1 hour ago, roadscholar said:

 It's pretty simple, if you're not happy about losing pick a candidate(s) that can win.   

Who said the one I voted for didn't win? 

 

It is not about that at all.....

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby
1 hour ago, John Ranalletta said:

Gerrymandering cuts both ways.  I'm guessing that if Indianapolis metro was one lump instead of the current congressional districts, the 7th District with the highest percentage of Black & Hispanic residents might not have a Black Democrat as it rep.  

 

image.png.b8493e811a8984285450a4887ca0ac30.pngimage.png.b6f8ef2e2ca88049620f3eb7b81852f3.png 

I have many black public office holders for my "district". Democrat and Republican. I voted for some of each.  I happen to be white. Why should the Indianapolis voters care if they got an Asian, Black, Indian, or White representative. I will take the candidate that does the most good! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
2 hours ago, John Ranalletta said:

Gerrymandering cuts both ways.  I'm guessing that if Indianapolis metro was one lump instead of the current congressional districts, the 7th District with the highest percentage of Black & Hispanic residents might not have a Black Democrat as it rep.  

 

image.png.b8493e811a8984285450a4887ca0ac30.pngimage.png.b6f8ef2e2ca88049620f3eb7b81852f3.png 

 

 

The entire point of this is to lump as many minority voters, who generally vote Democrat, as possible into one district, so they get to elect only one representative, while making them tiny minorities in all the other districts, in an attempt to ensure a larger number of Republican representatives, at both the state and national level.  Districts should be drawn by independent commissions based on commonality of interests.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

Maybe, but if there were no districts, Black/Hispanic voters in economically-depressed 7th District would not likely have any representation (IMO).  

 

If national trends applied, non-Black/Hispanic voter turn out would win out.  

 

FT_17.05.10_Voter-turnout.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta

The EC issues is a states' rights issue.  The Constitution only prescribes the number of delegates a state can have.  It does not dictate how the states direct those delegates to vote, e.g. "winner take all", etc.

 

If Democrats, who seem to be the most anxious about abolishing the EC would only put more $ and effort into winning Senate, & Representative seats in Red states, they could control the outcomes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De

I don't think all states do it this way but there is no need to kill the EC, but some rule changes might bring it closer in line with the popular vote.  I think many states have a winner takes all approach when in reality the EC Electors can vote in any way they want. I think a few states now have them vote apportioned to the popular vote in that state. If that was country wide the EC and popular vote should not be opposite of each other.  And by preserving the EC you can have a proportionate formula that does not make low population states irrelevant

 

For me gerrymandering is a problem in that candidates only have to pander to their bases and that helps drive the polarization and stagnation we see today. If congressional districts were drawn to avoid gerrymandering the representatives beholden to the nut job fringes on both ends of the spectrum would be fewer and further between and more pragmatic representation would be the norm.  But even more powerful than that is that people need to vote more and that will do more to minimize extremism as I feel that extremists are over represented in our elections because they vote all the time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

"correcting the record on the electoral college" is interesting in today's National Review.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red

Whip, thank you for the map.  Oregon has 36 counties.  It only took three of the highly populated counties to elect one party to both legislative houses with super majorities and the governorship.   Not playing well with the other 33 counties.  There is now active recruiting in 11 of the 33 counties to put in their lot with the State of Jefferson moovemint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whip

Without the EC the major issues for every election would be how to help the highest populated areas. Rural America could be the slaves of the Metroplexs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddd
5 hours ago, Whip said:

Without the EC the major issues for every election would be how to help the highest populated areas. Rural America could be the slaves of the Metroplexs. 

 

Since we've always had the EC how could you possibly know with any certainty what would happen without the EC?   

Projecting that the without the EC elected presidents would only care about people in metroplex areas and ignore rural voters and their concerns is a pretty sad outlook.  

With the EC there is no doubt that "swing states" receive massive amounts of attention while states that routinely vote with one party or the other are routinely ignored. 

 

Why not just come right out and say it:  "I'm a Republican or support the Republican candidate, and the EC is the best chance for Republicans to get elected in instances where they might not win the popular vote, therefore I support the EC."   If you just say that that then you don't need misleading graphs and unsupported opinions to make your point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEDZ

Dumping the EC would be like dumping the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddd
28 minutes ago, TEDZ said:

Dumping the EC would be like dumping the Senate.

 

Your comment brings up an very salient fact concerning the senate.  We already have the smaller population states with a very significant advantage in the senate.  Wyoming has one senator per 290,000 residents.  California has one senator per 20,000,000 residents.  Since residents of these smaller states already have an advantage in the senate I fail to see why they need an additional advantage when it comes to electing  the president. 

But more to the point, really my only point in the EC discussion, is that my vote and millions of the votes of others NEVER have ANY impact on who is elected to the highest office in the country based on which state they live in.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TEDZ

Upon her Senate victory on 2000, Hillary said she would work to eliminate the EC.  This was on the heels of Al Gores loss.   I wonder if Bill ever brings that up.

Does the Senate and the EC prevent two wolves and one sheep from voting what’s for dinner?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
poodad
On 4/3/2019 at 3:20 PM, roadscholar said:

 

Actually they weren't, the only difference is the number of people, the percentages are about the same. Edd you just need to move to a different state, again.  :grin:   :wave:

Actually, they are. A big reason for the electoral college was so that slave states could get representation based on total population (including slaves) even though slaves could not vote. See "three-fifths compromise"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roadscholar

Three-Fifths Compromise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Impact before the Civil War[edit]

The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[16]Along with this must be considered the number of slave and free states, which remained mostly equal until 1850, safeguarding the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.

Historian Garry Wills has postulated that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of 1800. Also, "slavery would have been excluded from Missouri ... Jackson's Indian removal policy would have failed ... the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from Mexico ... the Kansas-Nebraska bill would have failed."[16] While the Three-Fifths Compromise could be seen to favor Southern states because of their large slave populations, for example, the Connecticut Compromise tended to favor the Northern states (which were generally smaller). Support for the new Constitution rested on the balance of these sectional interests.[17]

After the Civil War[edit]

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and explicitly repealed the compromise. It provides that "representatives shall be apportioned ... counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." A later provision of the same clause reduced the Congressional representation of states who denied the right to vote to adult male citizens, but this provision was never effectively enforced.[18] (The Thirteenth Amendment, passed in 1865, had already eliminated almost all persons from the original clause's jurisdiction by banning slavery; the only remaining persons subject to it were those sentenced for a crime to penal servitude, which the amendment excluded from the ban.)

After the Reconstruction Era came to an end in 1877, however, the former slave states subverted the objective of these changes by using various strategies to disenfranchise their black citizens, while obtaining the benefit of apportionment of representatives on the basis of the total populations. These measures effectively gave white Southerners even greater voting power than they had in the antebellum era, inflating the number of Southern Democrats in the House of Representatives as well as the number of votes they could exercise in the Electoral College in the election of the president.

The disenfranchisement of black citizens eventually attracted the attention of Congress, and in 1900 some members proposed stripping the South of seats, related to the number of people who were barred from voting.[19] In the end, Congress did not act to change apportionment, largely because of the power of the Southern bloc. The Southern bloc comprised Southern Democrats voted into office by white voters and constituted a powerful voting bloc in Congress until the 1960s. Their representatives, re-elected repeatedly by one-party states, controlled numerous chairmanships of important committees in both houses on the basis of seniority, giving them control over rules, budgets and important patronage projects, among other issues. Their power allowed them to defeat federal legislation against racial violence and abuses in the South.[20][not in citation given]

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

Eddd: I would not support getting rid of the electoral college, independent of which party/individual  is in the White House.  It has nothing to do with who is in office now (or in the past).   We are a constitutional republic or we are not.  

 

If my reading is correct Lincoln got less than 40% of the popular vote in 1860 but still won the electoral college and the election.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
35 minutes ago, lawnchairboy said:

 

 

If my reading is correct Lincoln got less than 40% of the popular vote in 1860 but still won the electoral college and the election.  

 

 

 

To be fair, that 40% was the highest of all the candidates running.  I think the "disband the EC" folks are complaining that the person that won the majority of the popular vote did not get the  EC votes......so if Lincoln had gotten the highest popular votes yet lost the election, I think your point would have had value.......unless I'm missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

Fair enough.  If indeed Lincoln received the highest proportion of the 1860 popular vote then you are right, it was an assumption on my part that was Not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddd
4 hours ago, lawnchairboy said:

Eddd: ... We are a constitutional republic or we are not...  

 

 

 

Yes we are, but since there have been 27 amendments to the constitution it can obviously be changed. The founding fathers included Article V specifically for this purpose.  Nothing is sacred about the EC. 

 

Throughout this discussion I have yet to see anyone provide a logical/defensible reason why my vote and millions of other should never have any voice in determining who is elected president.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbelectric
On 4/3/2019 at 1:20 AM, Red said:

"Surest route to secession movements as low-population states are disenfranchised." 

 

John,

this is exactly what is going on in N.Cal, S and E Oregon and Washington.  Just Google State of Jefferson for the story on the movement to create a 51st state out of parts of existing states.

This is laughable. Not in your wildest dreams will a “State of Jefferson” ever happen. Do yourself a favor and don’t spend any money on the fantasy. That includes flags and bumper stickers. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Living the Dream
1 hour ago, eddd said:

 

Yes we are, but since there have been 27 amendments to the constitution it can obviously be changed. The founding fathers included Article V specifically for this purpose.  Nothing is sacred about the EC. 

 

Throughout this discussion I have yet to see anyone provide a logical/defensible reason why my vote and millions of other should never have any voice in determining who is elected president.  

 

I don't know if this works but, if you have a city of over 8 million that predominantly vote liberal, a city, just a city and you have a state, a rural State that vote predominantly conservative, yet, only has a full population of the state at less than 600k,......and knowing that city people and rural people have very differing views, who would win a popular vote, liberal or conservative?   Methinks the EC is the great leveler for instances such as this.  Metropolitan areas are typically liberal leaning, even in Texas, the major cities voted blue.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Ranalletta
37 minutes ago, mbelectric said:

This is laughable. Not in your wildest dreams will a “State of Jefferson” ever happen. Do yourself a favor and don’t spend any money on the fantasy. That includes flags and bumper stickers. 

 

I tend to agree that secession won't happen.  OTOH, sanctuary cities and states have established a precedent for simply ignoring and/or acting in defiance of federal laws.  That could become a trend where disaffected municipalities and states pick and choose which federal laws they will enforce or follow.  Great time to be alive watching this near-300-year experiment auger in.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbelectric
19 minutes ago, Living the Dream said:

 

I don't know if this works but, if you have a city of over 8 million that predominantly vote liberal, a city, just a city and you have a state, a rural State that vote predominantly conservative, yet, only has a full population of the state at less than 600k,......and knowing that city people and rural people have very differing views, who would win a popular vote, liberal or conservative?   Methinks the EC is the great leveler for instances such as this.  Metropolitan areas are typically liberal leaning, even in Texas, the major cities voted blue.

Demographics are changing. Using electoral votes to win elections when the population votes otherwise just doesn’t make for progress, and actually doesn’t represent the populous. Therefore, change needs to happen. Or a balance. Folks need to get educated. That is “ my “ dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddd
1 hour ago, Living the Dream said:

 

I don't know if this works but, if you have a city of over 8 million that predominantly vote liberal, a city, just a city and you have a state, a rural State that vote predominantly conservative, yet, only has a full population of the state at less than 600k,......and knowing that city people and rural people have very differing views, who would win a popular vote, liberal or conservative?   Methinks the EC is the great leveler for instances such as this.  Metropolitan areas are typically liberal leaning, even in Texas, the major cities voted blue.

 

Is this your answer to my question why my vote and millions of other should never have any voice in determining who is elected president?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...