Are Electors still relevant?

[Ikari]

Clinton was a terrible candidate. however, there is no comparison when it comes to competency. the EC should have prevented him from becoming president, as that is one of its roles. if it will not fulfill its role, then it's time to for it to go.

Well we're looking at this with the 20/20 vision of Hindsight. Trump was relatively unknown at that time, in political terms. Hillary was well known, and people didn't like her and she ran a terrible campaign. You cannot fault the EC for being unable to predict the future.

 

[Helix]

It's more of a 50 game series than a singular championship game. It doesn't matter if you blow the other team out in a couple of games if you lose the majority of them.

haven't you and i already been over this in another thread?

 

[Helix]

Well we're looking at this with the 20/20 vision of Hindsight. Trump was relatively unknown at that time, in political terms. Hillary was well known, and people didn't like her and she ran a terrible campaign. You cannot fault the EC for being unable to predict the future.

Tweety was well known as a confirmed moron for decades. George Washington even described him perfectly in his farewell address warning against political parties. the EC didn't act as stopgap, and now we are paying and will continue to pay the consequences for it. either way, my opinion is a "get more votes or go home" system is preferable.

 

[Ikari]

Tweety was well known as a confirmed moron for decades. George Washington even described him perfectly in his farewell address warning against political parties. the EC didn't act as stopgap, and now we are paying and will continue to pay the consequences for it. either way, my opinion is a "get more votes or go home" system is preferable.

Probably should have put more "faith" into faithless electors.

lol

But it sucks, I get you. I thought it would have been funny if Trump beat Clinton, 4 years later I ain't laughing at that. I thought he was going to be something else, I didn't think it would be quite as bad as it really was. And I don't think many folk actually did. Which is why Biden has a good chance to beat him. Though why the Dems went with Biden, I don't know.

In the end, however, I prefer the EC since it's a balance between the People and the States which is something we strove to create. We're a Republic, not a strict/direct democracy. It's the reason we have the House of Representatives and the Senate. I suppose if you wish to say the EC no longer plays a role, then we can say the same of the Senate. I mean, the State Governments no longer get to appoint their Senators as they were meant to do, they're elected by the People of the State, so it seems rather redundant, yes?

The EC did what it was meant to do, balance out the system so that we don't just pay attention to the most populated cities and need to spend some time at least in the middle of the country. If Hillary didn't like it, she should have gotten more EC votes. The EC wasn't unknown to her, she just did a crap job at campaigning.

 

[Helix]

Probably should have put more "faith" into faithless electors.

lol

But it sucks, I get you. I thought it would have been funny if Trump beat Clinton, 4 years later I ain't laughing at that. I thought he was going to be something else, I didn't think it would be quite as bad as it really was. And I don't think many folk actually did. Which is why Biden has a good chance to beat him. Though why the Dems went with Biden, I don't know.

In the end, however, I prefer the EC since it's a balance between the People and the States which is something we strove to create. We're a Republic, not a strict/direct democracy. It's the reason we have the House of Representatives and the Senate. I suppose if you wish to say the EC no longer plays a role, then we can say the same of the Senate. I mean, the State Governments no longer get to appoint their Senators as they were meant to do, they're elected by the People of the State, so it seems rather redundant, yes?

The EC did what it was meant to do, balance out the system so that we don't just pay attention to the most populated cities and need to spend some time at least in the middle of the country. If Hillary didn't like it, she should have gotten more EC votes. The EC wasn't unknown to her, she just did a crap job at campaigning.

i used to be a firm supporter of it, but not anymore. i doubt that i'll ever see it rescinded, but that's my preference.

 

[BrotherFease]

I think they are more important now than ever. And you touched on the other aspect of our government is that is even more "imbalanced" than the EC. I mean, if the anti-EC people really wanted to complain they would be going after the Senate.

I think you're spot on. You could easily point out that Wyoming and Vermont have less than a million residents, yet they have the same number of Senators as NY, California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and Penn. In California you literally have one Senator for every 20 million resident, where as Wyoming, it's about 250k residents per Senator.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Are you saying that if there were no EC, a significant number of people would have voted to other way, or voted in staying at home ?
Do you have any evidence to support this ?

I have the same evidence you have. Trump won by the rules that were in place. Sorry if you cannot accept the fact Trump overcame and won paying by the rules. Do you do this all the time. Cry and then try and change the rules because you didn't win. If you change the rules Trump would play by the new rules and most likely still win because he is a winner. Hillary was dealt a pat hand and screwed it up. She is not a leader.

 

[Rich2018]

I have the same evidence you have. Trump won by the rules that were in place. Sorry if you cannot accept the fact Trump overcame and won paying by the rules. Do you do this all the time. Cry and then try and change the rules because you didn't win. If you change the rules Trump would play by the new rules and most likely still win because he is a winner. Hillary was dealt a pat hand and screwed it up. She is not a leader.

So you have no evidence to suggest the votes cast would number any different than in there was no EC.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Translation, you're unable to explain how having a president elected by popular vote is "mob rule"

"Mob rule" is better likened to the majority being terrorized into submission by a minority

That's how the Nazis and Bolseviks (its very name meaning minority) came to power

So I oppose the EC because I oppose "mob rule"

I have already explained it. Our forefathers explained. The smaller states would never have joined the union had they not had a say in government. The founding fathers were against mob rule. That is why we have a senate, a constitution, and an EC. They did not agree with you plain and simple. Get over it. The system worked then and can work now. Sorry but your mob rule was addressed by the wisdom of our forefathers thank God.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

So you have no evidence to suggest the votes cast would number any different than in there was no EC.

Neither do you. Trump won by the rules that were in place. He is a winner.

 

[Ikari]

i used to be a firm supporter of it, but not anymore. i doubt that i'll ever see it rescinded, but that's my preference.

That's fair enough, I think that people can have rational reasons for wanting to switch to the popular vote. But I do think the fundamental of it is sound and just. This is a Republic, the States matter. The founders were worried about popularism, which I think is a legitimate concern. I don't think they ever thought our party system would have devolved and stagnated to such a degree that the choice was Clinton/Trump or Biden/Trump. But that's not on the EC. When your choice is Pile of **** A and Pile of **** B, you're going to get a Pile of **** no matter what.

 

[Rich2018]

I have already explained it. Our forefathers explained. The smaller states would never have joined the union had they not had a say in government. The founding fathers were against mob rule. That is why we have a senate, a constitution, and an EC. They did not agree with you plain and simple. Get over it. The system worked then and can work now. Sorry but your mob rule was addressed by the wisdom of our forefathers thank God.

But they did have a say - 2 senators per state and representatives based on their state's population

The so called "wisdom" of the founders allows for the mob rule of a minority over a majority.

Neither do you. Trump won by the rules that were in place. He is a winner.

Then in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we assume the votes would be the same.

 

[BrotherFease]

Neither do you. Trump won by the rules that were in place. He is a winner.

Yep. I compare it to baseball. The rules state that the team with the most runs wins the baseball game, not the team with the most hits. Statistically, it's pretty improbable for a team to win a baseball game without getting the most hits, but it happens, sometimes. Just look at the 1960 World Series between the Yankees and the Pirates. The Yankees hold the record for the most runs scored in a World Series at 55. Ironically, the Yankees lost to the Pirates in a 7 game series. Basically what happened was this: When the Yankees won, they pitched blowouts. The final scores were 16-3, 10-0, and 12-0. When the Pirates won, they won between 1 to 3 runs.

Under the Electoral College system, it's pretty unlikely that the EC winner and the National Popular Vote winner fail to match. It has only happened 9% of the time or 5 out of 58 times.

Our logical justification should never be "we dislike the results", therefore change the rules. It should always revolve around the concept of does the EC provide the best outcome for the American People.

For the record, I wasn't fan of Trump or Clinton.

 

[jamesbyoung]

Why don't you tell us ?

Nah, that will make it just that much sweeter when you wake up and find it has happened and you can do nothing but cry.

 

[MamboDervish]

I have been doing some homework or refresher on early presidential elections. I discovered/re-learned that the founders were really torn on our presidential election system. Half wanted to go with the direct vote for President aka national popular vote, while the other half wanted congress to pick the President. Their compromise or 11th hour decision was electors. The belief here was that the average Joe were uneducated/uninformed on the issues, needed political experts to vote on their behalf, and feared they would pick a tyrant. Electors were the middle-ground people. They were not members of the U.S Senator or Congress. They were local political figures and had a broad understanding of the world around them.

Fast forward to 2020. We live in an age of the internet, social media, television, radio, and wide range of transportation options. Most of the population has some sort of post High School education. On one hand, we're all more educated than we were in the late 18th century, but at the same time, very few people actually watch the news on a regular basis. We have people to live in their own bubble and vote by party line. You watch Fox News, you get the impression that Trump is a victim and the Democrats are evil. You watch CNN or MSNBC, you get the impression that Democrats are heroes and Trump is a clown dressed in a suit.

Does the concept of electors really matter anymore? Originally they were suppose to be free thinking and provide a check on the American people. In the 20th century, we literally had only 7 faithless electors total. So far this century, we have had 8 total. The 2016 election brought forth 6 of the 8. I am just curious if we still need political experts to vote on our behalf.

Lots of people express the idea that the EC should be done away with - but nobody seems willing to explain how the hell we do that. The states that disproportionately benefit from it simply have to much power in the Senate. If you represent one of those over-leveraged states, what on earth is your motive for changing that? You'd have to be insane to vote for any system that disempowers you. However it might tickle one to imagine it, there's simply no way it will ever happen.

 

[BrotherFease]

That's fair enough, I think that people can have rational reasons for wanting to switch to the popular vote. But I do think the fundamental of it is sound and just. This is a Republic, the States matter. The founders were worried about popularism, which I think is a legitimate concern. I don't think they ever thought our party system would have devolved and stagnated to such a degree that the choice was Clinton/Trump or Biden/Trump. But that's not on the EC. When your choice is Pile of **** A and Pile of **** B, you're going to get a Pile of **** no matter what.

I hope you realized there were a lot of electors who disliked Clinton and Trump, but couldn't vote their conscience. This was a direct violation of the intention of the founders. Preventing a demagogue or tyrant was the reason for humans voting. I remember before the real election, newspaper columnist were writing: This is why we have the electoral college, to prevent somebody like Trump from being President. Ironically the faithless electors were more so against Clinton. A Democrat elector in Colorado wanted to vote for John Kasich, but was forced to step aside.

 

[BrotherFease]

But they did have a say - 2 senators per state and representatives based on their state's population

The so called "wisdom" of the founders allows for the mob rule of a minority over a majority.




Then in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we assume the votes would be the same.

Aren't you concerned about a demagogue possibly becoming President? Electors serves as a "check".

 

[Jay59]

But they did have a say - 2 senators per state and representatives based on their state's population

They watered even that down for the EC

The so called "wisdom" of the founders allows for the mob rule of a minority over a majority.

Intentionally so, since direct vote had already been voted down. So, wisdom is a reasonable word. In any event, the system works as designed.

Then in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we assume the votes would be the same.

Direct popular vote would significantly change the campaign, so probably not. That said, the difference would likely be small.

Yep. I compare it to baseball. The rules state that the team with the most runs wins the baseball game, not the team with the most hits. Statistically, it's pretty improbable for a team to win a baseball game without getting the most hits, but it happens, sometimes. Just look at the 1960 World Series between the Yankees and the Pirates. The Yankees hold the record for the most runs scored in a World Series at 55. Ironically, the Yankees lost to the Pirates in a 7 game series. Basically what happened was this: When the Yankees won, they pitched blowouts. The final scores were 16-3, 10-0, and 12-0. When the Pirates won, they won between 1 to 3 runs.

See also 1985, where it almost happened again.

Under the Electoral College system, it's pretty unlikely that the EC winner and the National Popular Vote winner fail to match. It has only happened 9% of the time or 5 out of 58 times. Our logical justification should never be "we dislike the results", therefore change the rules. It should always revolve around the concept of does the EC provide the best outcome for the American People.

For comparison, consider that Senatorial elections are direct popular vote.

For the record, I wasn't fan of Trump or Clinton.

Who was? I know a few rabid Trump supporters, but many more Trump voters. I know of no one that supported Clinton for herself.

For what it's worth, there are many more Trump supporters now. He answered the skeptics.

 

[Rich2018]

Aren't you concerned about a demagogue possibly becoming President? Electors serves as a "check".

No, since they elected Trump, they clearly have failed in their purpose.

 

[Rich2018]

Nah, that will make it just that much sweeter when you wake up and find it has happened and you can do nothing but cry.

Expected answer.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

But they did have a say - 2 senators per state and representatives based on their state's population.

The reason for the senate was so the states with less population would have an equal say in the federal government. This was done so several small states would not be out voted by a single state. They protected the rights of the minority. That was the reason for the constitution. They didn't want people like you who support mob rule voting away the rights of the minority or the individual.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

No, since they elected Trump, they clearly have failed in their purpose.

You are a sore loser. And will we have to change the rues again if your candidate loses by popular vote? Get a grip.

 

[Rich2018]

They watered even that down for the EC

Maybe so but it still exists, and should not in any democracy

Intentionally so, since direct vote had already been voted down. So, wisdom is a reasonable word. In any event, the system works as designed.

How do you know it works as designed as that Trump's election is the law of unintended consequences working in practice ?

Direct popular vote would significantly change the campaign, so probably not. That said, the difference would likely be small.

There's no evidence that there'd be a difference at all.

 

[Rich2018]

You are a sore loser. And will we have to change the rues again if your candidate loses by popular vote? Get a grip.

No, I don't like the presidential system of government at all, much preferring the parliamentary system

But we have what we have
Never-the-less the winner of the presidential election should be the winner of the popular vote.

The reason for the senate was so the states with less population would have an equal say in the federal government. This was done so several small states would not be out voted by a single state. They protected the rights of the minority. That was the reason for the constitution. They didn't want people like you who support mob rule voting away the rights of the minority or the individual.

How do you know that the people of a less populous state represent a minority and not the majority view in Congress

Your love of the EC means that a minority can rule the majority - that is mob rule

Where a minority can dictate to a majority: The Nazis, KKK, Bolsheviks, Japanese Imperialists, Chinese communists, Taliban - all are/were minorities that dominated the majority
Mob rule.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

No, I don't like the presidential system of government at all, much preferring the parliamentary system

But we have what we have
Never-the-less the winner of the presidential election should be the winner of the popular vote.

The winner of the presidency should be by the United States as well as the people of the entire country. Taking away the vote of most of our states by population means we are no longer the United States of America.