The Electoral College: Purpose, Problems, Alternatives

[sjmay]

Sure, and that has zero to do with the election of a POTUS. The EC was only useful for handing slave states more votes for the white minority there, and as a possible check on voters wanting to elect an incompetent, ill-meaning, corrupt idiot.

Incorrect. First, it has everything to do with the election of a President, it was NEVER going to be direct democracy, the whole point in the beginning, was States power, as the country grew, it got a long way away from States power and the people relying on the state, and instead now relies on the Federal government...

But maybe you will do what haymarket absolutely refuses to....

Why do you think the Electoral College is/was invented....for what purpose?

 

[jmotivator]

I guess we'll all check with you before debating the EC about the proper time for such discussion. If it's not 20 months or so out from the next Presidential election, when should we have this debate?

Nah, you can always tell when the "Tear up the constitution!!!" talk is coming because the Democrats just lost.

 

[Athanasius68]

Here is how
The National Popular Vote Compact works. There's a link to help. The possibility of a popular vote "tie" is infinitesimal. A tie under the compact is mathematically impossible, because it represents a majority of the votes.

Out of 100 million votes cast, a simply unrealistic scenario. But a close vote...? Certainly plausable.
And a NATIONAL recount...? Recall the dimpled Chad...

 

[NWRatCon]

In Federalist 68 Hamilton makes the case for the EC to be a buffer between the electorate and a charismatic un-dignified and unqualified Con-Man. The idea that even if the electorate in general was fooled by a con-man there would be a buffer of educated electors to keep such a person from becoming president. We saw how that worked for us, which proves the EC is obsolete; if it ever was viable it no longer is.

I used to follow this line of reasoning (The buffer theory), but, like the 25th Amendment, it is unworkable in practice.

 

[NWRatCon]

No, I don't think they are,

I think what they are saying is those votes in the big cities/states, shouldn't be the ONLY ones that matter.....

Do away with the EC, and watch what happens in campaigns,

CA, TX, FL, OH, IL, NY, PA, NJ, etc, that is where they go, they will go to every population center...and ignore the less populated areas

Ahem, which is what they do now.

 

[JasperL]

And if you abolish the EC, you only matter if you live in a populous state, you don't see the irony there?

No, a vote cast in the Appalachians in Tennessee means exactly as much as a vote in NYC.

Here in Tennessee I might as well stay home if I was only voting for President, because I know the state will go to the Republican. Republicans in CA might as well stay home for the same reason. With a popular vote, we all have the same impact - precisely the same. And to say that Tennessee won't matter is just ignorant nonsense. The three major cities in Tennessee aren't as big as NYC, but they're populous enough to matter, same as medium size cities in Texas or NY or CA.

If I'm buying ads for the President, the question is where can my dollars have the most impact. Why would dollars spent in a populous state like CA in Sacramento (MSA about 2M) have more impact than a dollar spent in Nashville, MSA about 2M? Knoxville has roughly the same population as Fresno. Omaha about the same as Sarasota. Etc.......

 

[sjmay]

Ahem, which is what they do now.

No, that's what Hillary did, and that's why she lost, the election.

 

[JasperL]

Nah, you can always tell when the "Tear up the constitution!!!" talk is coming because the Democrats just lost.

OK, so we should never debate this issue, jmotivator has decided!!! Thanks. We'll be sure to not care.

 

[Irwin Corey]

I used to follow this line of reasoning (The buffer theory), but, like the 25th Amendment, it is unworkable in practice.

"The Buffer Theory" was a major selling point for the EC, and we've seen, as a buffer, the EC fall flat on it's ass.

 

[sjmay]

No, a vote cast in the Appalachians in Tennessee means exactly as much as a vote in NYC.

Here in Tennessee I might as well stay home if I was only voting for President, because I know the state will go to the Republican. Republicans in CA might as well stay home for the same reason. With a popular vote, we all have the same impact - precisely the same. And to say that Tennessee won't matter is just ignorant nonsense. The three major cities in Tennessee aren't as big as NYC, but they're populous enough to matter, same as medium size cities in Texas or NY or CA.

If I'm buying ads for the President, the question is where can my dollars have the most impact. Why would dollars spent in a populous state like CA in Sacramento (MSA about 2M) have more impact than a dollar spent in Nashville, MSA about 2M? Knoxville has roughly the same population as Fresno. Omaha about the same as Sarasota. Etc.......

LOL Love the naivete.

Sacramento is about an hour from San Fransisco, San Jose, etc, rough guess, population of those areas are 3.5 million, when you count Sacramento, San jose, Oakland, San Fran, Stockton etc,

Nashville and surrounding area, is about 1 million....give or take?

So literally all you have to do, is win the popular vote in those FIVE areas, and TN doesn't matter.....

 

[JasperL]

No, that's what Hillary did, and that's why she lost, the election.

The argument is she ignored some states she wrongly decided were sufficiently "blue" that campaigning there made no difference. So you're kind of making the point for popular vote. If the state isn't in "play" there is no reason to spend resources there, so Trump doesn't spend money in CA and Hillary doesn't swing through Mississippi. She might go into Jackson, MS if she believed she can get another 50,000 votes in that state, and Trump would be an idiot for not trying to get GOP voters out in CA and NY.

 

[sjmay]

"The Buffer Theory" was a major selling point for the EC, and we've seen, as a buffer, the EC fall flat on it's ass.

Why? Because you don't like the President?

Tell me why the EC failed, or the "buffer theory" failed again?

 

[NWRatCon]

How do I know what is in the Constitution what your team is done changing it? You would have to add something to address a popular vote tie, that is what I'm requesting. The Constitution today has tie breaking procedures and has covered every eventuality.

I'll take the orderly transition of power while you hunt for a way to make things disorderly by claiming a tie isn't possible. There have been plenty of things in my lifetime that were impossible, and yet they have happened.

I have not advocated for a change in the constitution. Go look, I'll wait...

 

[Napoleon]

No, each vote in every state is now relevant, which isn't true today in effect.

How so when your State commits its electoral college votes to an outcome that may not reflect what the residents of that State said at the ballot box? Seems to me you’re just recreating the same problem in a different way.

 

[haymarket]

Lets be honest here. The goalpost will move until they "win". We see this behavior in toddlers as well.

The last time democrats "won" many were enslaved until many Americans died stopping them led by republicans.

Treating every vote as equal no matter where it comes from is a win for the American people.

 

[sjmay]

The argument is she ignored some states she wrongly decided were sufficiently "blue" that campaigning there made no difference. So you're kind of making the point for popular vote. If the state isn't in "play" there is no reason to spend resources there, so Trump doesn't spend money in CA and Hillary doesn't swing through Mississippi. She might go into Jackson, MS if she believed she can get another 50,000 votes in that state, and Trump would be an idiot for not trying to get GOP voters out in CA and NY.

I just showed you why that was false, when the population of 5 cities in CA....just FIVE.....are more populated than 22 states in the Union......tell me again where the campaigns are going to be.

 

[haymarket]

So you can,t/won't answer to what you think the Electoral College was there for....

That says a lot about you as a poster.....completely, intellectually dishonest, can't formulate their own opinion....can't answer a direct question.

Hamilton tells us what is there for in Federalist #68. I already stated that, and answered the question.

 

[jmotivator]

OK, so we should never debate this issue, jmotivator has decided!!! Thanks. We'll be sure to not care.

I'm not saying you shouldn't debate the issue, I'm just saying you are wrong, and your favored party has a dangerous habit of screaming to tear down the system when you lose.

It's one of the reasons I had to laugh years ago when Liberal Internet was on fire because Trump said he couldn't commit to accepting the outcome of the elections if he lost... that is Democrats in EVERY election forever.

 

[haymarket]

Why do you think that is a good idea?

Because anything else violates the sacred principle of one man.on vote per person with no vote counting more than any there vote.

 

[haymarket]

In Federalist 68 Hamilton makes the case for the EC to be a buffer between the electorate and a charismatic un-dignified and unqualified Con-Man. The idea that even if the electorate in general was fooled by a con-man there would be a buffer of educated electors to keep such a person from becoming president. We saw how that worked for us, which proves the EC is obsolete; if it ever was viable it no longer is.

Exactly. And there is no evidence that even one single meeting of Electors did what Hamilton promised the nation they would do.

 

[Irwin Corey]

Why? Because you don't like the President?

Tell me why the EC failed, or the "buffer theory" failed again?

You must be a tRump supporter, but IMHO most people in America and throughout the world believe DJT IS the greatest CON-MAN EVER IN HISTORY. He was and is unqualified for the job, is anything BUT dignified and, IMHO has disgraced the office of President of the United States to the point that the next PRESIDENT's greatest task will be restoring dignity to the office they hold.

 

[sjmay]

Hamilton tells us what is there for in Federalist #68. I already stated that, and answered the question.

I didn't ask what Hamilton said about it,

I am asking what you think it was set up for, again you refused to answer.

 

[haymarket]

No, I don't think they are,

I think what they are saying is those votes in the big cities/states, shouldn't be the ONLY ones that matter.....

Do away with the EC, and watch what happens in campaigns,

CA, TX, FL, OH, IL, NY, PA, NJ, etc, that is where they go, they will go to every population center...and ignore the less populated areas

That is the current system where you don't have be even on the ballot in well over 35 states and don't even need a single persons vote in over 35 states to be elected President.

 

[sjmay]

Because anything else violates the sacred principle of one man.on vote per person with no vote counting more than any there vote.

What sacred principle?? That hasn't been the principle since the US BEGAN.....

 

[haymarket]

The team that does get the most points, wins. The team that gets the most points in Michigan wins; the team that gets the most points in New York wins; the team that gets the most points in North Carolina... ECT.
Ironically, proposals such as the compact could lead to a situation where the person who receives the least points in Michigan, or New York or North Carolina wins

The points, are NOT EQUAL. What part of that do you fail to understand?

Lets be brutally frank here- you defend the system because you believe it benefits your team. Everything else is just self serving BS.