Why the Electoral College exists.

[Helix]

Whatever means necessary will take a very long time if it ever happens. I am not sure that the establishment politicians in either party really want to give it up altogether.

i'm fairly sure that they don't.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

i'm fairly sure that they don't.

Chances are it will never go away in my lifetime or yours. It will simply continue to be an advantage to whichever party wins the most elections in the state legislature. Maybe at some point in the distant future, there will be a change that prevents the politicians from abusing it, without actually abolishing it.

 

[Helix]

Chances are it will never go away in my lifetime or yours. It will simply continue to be an advantage to whichever party wins the most elections in the state legislature. Maybe at some point in the distant future, there will be a change that prevents the politicians from abusing it, without actually abolishing it.

a SCOTUS ruling that makes it more difficult for them to get away with it would be nice. i'm not getting my hopes up yet, though.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

a SCOTUS ruling that makes it more difficult for them to get away with it would be nice. i'm not getting my hopes up yet, though.

I don't think SCOTUS can get involved. Reapportionment is constitutionally relegated to the states. The individual state Supreme Courts can get involved if states laws are changed without amending their constitutions, if those laws are challenged.

 

[Helix]

I don't think SCOTUS can get involved. Reapportionment is constitutionally relegated to the states. The individual state Supreme Courts can get involved if states laws are changed without amending their constitutions, if those laws are challenged.

i was referring to cases like this one :

Supreme Court gerrymandering ruling hangs on Justice Kennedy | TheHill

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I always feel conflicted on the EC issue. I like the idea that it gives a boost to smaller states because it does make candidates come to those states and pay attention to their specific issues. On the other hand, how do you argue against the fact that it does value certain voters over others?

It doesn't really. if all states were given the same number of electoral votes, then it would be a fair statement. However, that is not the case. California's 50 something electoral votes is much more then my state's 9. It's based on population and how many House representatives each state has.

 

[code1211]

To put in as many liberal congresspeople as possible. Draw a rural district with a slice into a major city if it’s too red

Yup! That should correct the Gerrymandering.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

i was referring to cases like this one :

Supreme Court gerrymandering ruling hangs on Justice Kennedy | TheHill

I will have to claim ignorance of that case, other then to say that it should be addressed in that specific state's Supreme Court,

 

[SirGareth]

The computer you are typing on and the internet you are surfing on was designed by those acne faced imbeciles.

The hell you say? I've been designing network hardware and software infrastructure for over 40 years, 95% of our young engineers come from Asia, our (US) kids are too stupid to compete. I also tutor physics and math to your fellow imbeciles. I have their measure.

Why don't you advise me of what you think you know that I don't?

 

[Redress]

Which part of Hamilton favored the electoral college over a popular vote election confused you? And what really matters is what was expressed by the founding fathers.

Why are you arguing something I never claimed. Both Hamilton and Madison where arguing for the Electoral College in the Federalist Papers. I never said otherwise. I said the reason they used for arguing for the EC was not as presented in the OP. Reading Is Fundamental. Please try it. The actual words written, without your totally and completely inaccurate spin on them.

 

[PirateMk1]

Chances are it will never go away in my lifetime or yours. It will simply continue to be an advantage to whichever party wins the most elections in the state legislature. Maybe at some point in the distant future, there will be a change that prevents the politicians from abusing it, without actually abolishing it.

Gerrymandering doesn't exist in Iowa. Its done by computer and strict set of rules. So its partially happened in your lifetime.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Gerrymandering doesn't exist in Iowa. Its done by computer and strict set of rules. So its partially happened in your lifetime.

After googling that in Iowa, I like what they are doing, at least at first glance. However it is still up to each individual state. That is something that is not forced onto all states nor should it be. It is certainly a positive for Iowa.

 

[Carjosse]

They do that is why they get 55 electorial votes. 53 of which represent the people of the state which is about 20% of the electoral votes needed to win.



that has nothing to do with the presidency in a way. it is one vote. if you cast 1 vote in CA then it counts as 1 vote for your candidate. what CA doesn't get to do is dictate to others who they should vote as president like you want them too.
nope they don't lose EC votes. the only way to lose EC votes is if people move from one state to another.



based on what? there is a formula already in place based on the number of seats in the house. that is what you also have to remember. there are only so many
seats available. you don't even live in the US so who cares. here in the US we care that all votes are counted not just those of large urban centers which distort
voting records.

That formula is ridiculous. California has ~12.5% of the population of the US but they only get 10% of the EC votes, there is under representation but smaller states are extremely over represented because of three EC vote minimum that are taken from the larger states. There is more people for each electoral college vote in California, therefore their votes count for less. How can votes form large areas "distort" the results, they are votes too. Whether you like it or not Americans in urban centres matter too.

 

[Carjosse]

Weird, that's not even remotely close to what I said.



Not considering what President's actual job is, which is to be the chief administrator of a federal union of states, all of which are equal.

But those who voted for Trump, by and large, voted to be left alone, and leave others alone. Those who votes for Hillary, by and large, would rather see the whole country remade in the image of their own politics, whether or not the rest of the country wants it.

You live in a country where you don't vote for your Prime Minister or Crown, so all this righteous talk about "everyone should have equal say" when it comes to choosing the chief executive is more than a little hilarious. If we chose your way, Hillary still would not be President.

Again that is partisan bull****, you saying you support the system because it made Hilary lose. It is delusional to claim otherwise, you are claiming that because they vote Hilary it is okay their votes don't matter. Canada's executive is largely subordinate and responsible to the legislature and does not have the same amount of power.

 

[Harshaw]

Again that is partisan bull****, you saying you support the system because it made Hilary lose. It is delusional to claim otherwise, you are claiming that because they vote Hilary it is okay their votes don't matter. Canada's executive is largely subordinate and responsible to the legislature and does not have the same amount of power.

That's not even a little bit what I said. See if you can figure out what I DID say, and get back to me.

 

[Carjosse]

That's not even a little bit what I said. See if you can figure out what I DID say, and get back to me.

It is, you are saying the electoral college did its job because the big bad government candidate the city people supported lost.

 

[Harshaw]

It is, you are saying the electoral college did its job because the big bad government candidate the city people supported lost.

Zzzzzzzt.

 

[ludin]

I thought the original argument had more to do with including the population of slaves into the equation even though they couldn't vote. Of course that was in response to the North having the advantage in the population of possible voters.

The less populous southern states protested a popular vote. Their theory was that if a popular vote was all that mattered why bother coming to less populated states. It was more than southern states though.

They argued that a popular vote would exclude states from having a say since no one would bother hearing them.
You need the mass population centers to win that is where you would go.

The EC was a compromise. Each state would have its own popular vote. Those states could then
Distribute their electors as needed. The winner would need a majority of the electors.

This Made running for president a real national race.

 

[ludin]

it has to be done at the federal level, as the states will cheat like they do now. the districts should be drawn by a computer using only census population data. not that it will ever happen as both teams love to subvert democracy by cheating, but ideally, that's how to solve the problem.

The judiciary of the state is more than capable of sorting out any bias.
Again the federal government needs less power not more.

No state is going to turn their rep districts over to the Feds.
That is one constitutional right they will not give up.

 

[haymarket]

For those of you that want to get rid of the EC.

The reason that the EC exists is because we are not one whole country.

Actually we are one whole country. Regardless if the far right likes it or not.

So when you start out with such a fundamental off the rails error, everything that follows is built upon quicksand and fails.

 

[ludin]

That formula is ridiculous. California has ~12.5% of the population of the US but they only get 10% of the EC votes, there is under representation but smaller states are extremely over represented because of three EC vote minimum that are taken from the larger states. There is more people for each electoral college vote in California, therefore their votes count for less. How can votes form large areas "distort" the results, they are votes too. Whether you like it or not Americans in urban centres matter too.

No they get 20% of the EC's needed to win. To win all you need is 270. They have 55.
They are not over represented because only 1 side of the EC cares about the nUmber of people.

You think by combining them all to together you have an argument and you don't.

So I will explain it only one more time. You probably won't get it this time either.

The EC is made up of 2 things. The number of reps a state gets and 2 senators.

The number of reps a state gets is based in population.
So CA get 53 reps based on population.
They get 2 more for the senate. The senate is not based on population. Since all states have equal power all states get 2 senators.
The 2 senators do not count when it comes to population representation.

ND on the other hand is a small state. They get 1 rep for their population and no more.
As a state they are equal in power to CA and get 2 senators.

You can't take the whole EC and say it represents the people because it doesn't.

It is easy for them to distort the vote.
Just this past election CA along cast more votes than 26 other states combined.
The popular vote lead that clinton had came from CA and NY.

until they were counted trump was winning the popular vote.

2 states negates the votes in almost all the other combined.
That is what the EC was designed against.

 

[Carjosse]

No they get 20% of the EC's needed to win. To win all you need is 270. They have 55.
They are not over represented because only 1 side of the EC cares about the nUmber of people.

You think by combining them all to together you have an argument and you don't.

So I will explain it only one more time. You probably won't get it this time either.

The EC is made up of 2 things. The number of reps a state gets and 2 senators.

The number of reps a state gets is based in population.
So CA get 53 reps based on population.
They get 2 more for the senate. The senate is not based on population. Since all states have equal power all states get 2 senators.
The 2 senators do not count when it comes to population representation.

ND on the other hand is a small state. They get 1 rep for their population and no more.
As a state they are equal in power to CA and get 2 senators.

You can't take the whole EC and say it represents the people because it doesn't.

It is easy for them to distort the vote.
Just this past election CA along cast more votes than 26 other states combined.
The popular vote lead that clinton had came from CA and NY.

until they were counted trump was winning the popular vote.

2 states negates the votes in almost all the other combined.
That is what the EC was designed against.

That is the whole point the EC should represent the people but it doesn't all it does is make the votes of people in certain states count for more. California and New York are not negating anyone, they are voting for how they want to be president just like every other American and they deserve the same say as everyone else in the country. The electoral college is the system distorting the votes. Why does the fact that California has more votes than 26 other states matter? They are Americans too. The electoral college should really just be abolished, just because the founding fathers created it does not mean it is good and relevant to the modern era.

A candidate can win the electoral college and become president with only 22% of the popular vote, that should tell you how horrible the system is. Having the electoral college defeats the entire purpose of having a popular vote in the first place, if you are just going to ignore the majority of voters anyways why even bother?

 

[TurtleDude]

Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators were elected by State assemblies, not popular vote. So it was removed even one more step.

the 17th amendment made senators the whores of special interests rather than the servants of their own state. before the 17th amendment, there was no reason for say NYC or LA millionaires to try to buy the election of a senate candidate in Missouri or Wyoming

 

[Helix]

The judiciary of the state is more than capable of sorting out any bias.
Again the federal government needs less power not more.

No state is going to turn their rep districts over to the Feds.
That is one constitutional right they will not give up.

hopefully the SCOTUS will stop them from political gerrymandering or at least make it more difficult to cheat.

 

[haymarket]

No they get 20% of the EC's needed to win. To win all you need is 270. They have 55.
They are not over represented because only 1 side of the EC cares about the nUmber of people.

You think by combining them all to together you have an argument and you don't.

So I will explain it only one more time. You probably won't get it this time either.

The EC is made up of 2 things. The number of reps a state gets and 2 senators.

The number of reps a state gets is based in population.
So CA get 53 reps based on population.
They get 2 more for the senate. The senate is not based on population. Since all states have equal power all states get 2 senators.
The 2 senators do not count when it comes to population representation.

ND on the other hand is a small state. They get 1 rep for their population and no more.
As a state they are equal in power to CA and get 2 senators.

You can't take the whole EC and say it represents the people because it doesn't.

It is easy for them to distort the vote.
Just this past election CA along cast more votes than 26 other states combined.
The popular vote lead that clinton had came from CA and NY.

until they were counted trump was winning the popular vote.

2 states negates the votes in almost all the other combined.
That is what the EC was designed against.

Read the words of Founding Father Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 68 in which he attempts to sell the nations people to support the proposed Constitution.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.

Hamilton clearly tells the young nation that one of the highest priorities - if not the highest - of the EC system is to protect the nation against a foreign power raising creature of their own to the nations highest office.

That is what the EC was designed against.

And there is not one report that such actions were even discussed in the 2016 casting of electoral votes - let alone where it actually was implemented to prevent such a thing.

So the EC failed in 2016 and its main purpose was not even followed.