Why we have an electoral college [W:196]

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Tucker Case said:

Those who are "most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

People who "possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

Click to expand...

then this would exclude the people from making the direct vote, which was the idea behind the EC and part of our mixed government.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

haymarket said:

Yes, I gave you his exact words and he perfectly described system placing the power to pick he President in the hands of a small group of elites.

Why would that exact word be necessary when what he described is obviously an elite group which can thwart the will of the people based on what he thinks is the information they have and their discernment?



If I say I intend to snuff out the last breath of air from a person and make sure they never darken the world again - does it matter that I did not use the word MURDER or does any rational person with a modicum of common sense know what I am threatening to do?

If I say I am going to take five gallons of gasoline and soak your furniture and light a match on it - does it matter that I did not use the word ARSON or does any rational person with a modicum of common sense know what I am threatening to do?

If I say I want to take a bat and glove and play on the diamond for nine innings against another team - does it matter that I did not use the word BASEBALL or does anyone with common sense know what game is going to be played?

Hamilton clearly and undeniably is describing a tiny small elite group of people empowered to overrule the will of the people if they believe that will needs to be thwarted. No other conclusion can be made by a rational person with common sense who reads his words and understands that the EC system he is discussing does just that.

538 people empowered to act overruling the decision of scores and scores of millions because they are believed to have special abilities or qualities as Hamilton described they had, is indeed an elite body by every possible definition. If you have common sense and are rational.

Click to expand...

you failed, because you said exact words which you didn't because hamilton does not use the word "elite"

so you lied by stating you posted his "exact" words.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Master PO said:

you failed, because you said exact words which you didn't because hamilton does not use the word "elite"

so you lied by stating you posted his "exact" words.

Click to expand...

I gave you his exact words in which he described a tiny group of elites who could thwart the will of the people.

From Federalist 68

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Click to expand...

Why would that exact word be necessary when what he described is obviously an elite group which can thwart the will of the people based on what he thinks is the information they have and their discernment?

here is the definition of ELITE

e·lite
əˈlēt,āˈlēt/Submit
noun
1.
a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities.
"the elite of Britain's armed forces"

Click to expand...

That fits the words of Hamilton to a tee.

If I say I intend to snuff out the last breath of air from a person and make sure they never darken the world again - does it matter that I did not use the word MURDER or does any rational person with a modicum of common sense know what I am threatening to do?

If I say I am going to take five gallons of gasoline and soak your furniture and light a match on it - does it matter that I did not use the word ARSON or does any rational person with a modicum of common sense know what I am threatening to do?

If I say I want to take a bat and glove and play on the diamond for nine innings against another team - does it matter that I did not use the word BASEBALL or does anyone with common sense know what game is going to be played?

Hamilton clearly and undeniably is describing a tiny small elite group of people empowered to overrule the will of the people if they believe that will needs to be thwarted. No other conclusion can be made by a rational person with common sense who reads his words and understands that the EC system he is discussing does just that.

538 people empowered to act overruling the decision of scores and scores of millions because they are believed to have special abilities or qualities as Hamilton described they had, is indeed an elite body by every possible definition. If you have common sense and are rational.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

haymarket said:

I gave you his exact words in which he described a tiny group of elites who could thwart the will of the people.

From Federalist 68




Why would that exact word be necessary when what he described is obviously an elite group which can thwart the will of the people based on what he thinks is the information they have and their discernment?



If I say I intend to snuff out the last breath of air from a person and make sure they never darken the world again - does it matter that I did not use the word MURDER or does any rational person with a modicum of common sense know what I am threatening to do?

If I say I am going to take five gallons of gasoline and soak your furniture and light a match on it - does it matter that I did not use the word ARSON or does any rational person with a modicum of common sense know what I am threatening to do?

If I say I want to take a bat and glove and play on the diamond for nine innings against another team - does it matter that I did not use the word BASEBALL or does anyone with common sense know what game is going to be played?

Hamilton clearly and undeniably is describing a tiny small elite group of people empowered to overrule the will of the people if they believe that will needs to be thwarted. No other conclusion can be made by a rational person with common sense who reads his words and understands that the EC system he is discussing does just that.

538 people empowered to act overruling the decision of scores and scores of millions because they are believed to have special abilities or qualities as Hamilton described they had, is indeed an elite body by every possible definition. If you have common sense and are rational.

Click to expand...

his exact words do not include the word "elite" , you lied

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Master PO said:

his exact words do not include the word "elite" , you lied

Click to expand...

Where did I say his exact words used the word ELITE?

Re: Why we have an electoral college

haymarket said:

Where did I say his exact words used the word ELITE?

Click to expand...

i will everyone else be the judge!

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Masterhawk said:

but our current winner take all system condenses the election down to a few states called 'swing states'.

Click to expand...

Not every state is winner take all.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Lutherf said:

There was a lot of discussion regarding the fact that Hillary won the popular vote and should therefore have won the election. The fact of the matter is that we DO elect our president via popular vote but we do so indirectly. Your vote counts at the state level and then the states vote for president. You might not like it but that's the way it works.....and here's why the system was designed that way -

Politico has the popular vote count at 62.5M for Hillary and 61.2 M for Trump. That's a difference of 1.3M votes and I've heard suggestions that the final total will be Hillary by more than 2 million votes. That's a pretty compelling argument but if you look into it:

PRESIDENT
From the LA County Recorder's office, Hillary got over 2.1 million votes in the county while Trump got less than 700k.

That alone is 1.4 million of Hillary's overage.

Here's the NY Times figures for NY.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york

The 5 Boroughs that are generally considered to be New York City are Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island. If you look at the votes in those boroughs you'll find that Hillary beat Trump by 1.5 Million votes.

Just TWO CITIES accounted for roughly 150% of Hillary's popular vote win.

THAT, folks, is why we have an electoral college. It prevents the possibility that voters in just two cities can control the election of a president.

Click to expand...

Most opponents of I hear oppose ending the Electoral College because they say small states would be completely ignored in Presidential elections and that is simply unfair. Well, right now major American cities are completely ignored in Presidential elections so how is that fair? If you live in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Fransisco, Boston and even Houston and Dallas you are essentially a spectator in the selection of your President. To the argument that its unfair if just two places would decide the outcome, right now that is in fact the case; Florida and Ohio.

I grimace at the thought of how liberal, especially socially liberal, America would get if the major US cities counted in Presidential elections but I also believe in being honest. Plus, its gotten socially liberal anyway. The only fair thing is the end the Electoral College and either do a direct vote or some sort of hybrid system where if there winner of the Electoral College doesn't win the popular vote, the runner up is elected Vice-President and gets 1/3 of the cabinet appointments, which ones selected by lottery.

IMHO, the main reason conservatives support the present system is it gives conservatives an unfair advantage. And, by the way, we have an Electoral College because the founders didn't believe average citizens with limited education and limited access to news media would be savvy enough to elect the nation's Chief Executive Officer.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Fender said:

In all likelihood, Adolf Hitler would not have been Chancellor in 1933 if the Weimar Republic had an Electoral College. If the many Germanic states had individual representation in a national election, Hitler would have never been able to collect a plurality (as he was loathed by all of the northern Germanic states, especially Prussia). As it was, the Nazi's came into power via direct popular vote.

Click to expand...

Really? Your first post on this board and you immediately go straight to Hitler and the Nazi's?

Well anyway, welcome to the forum, and I wish you good luck.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Smeagol said:

Most opponents of I hear oppose ending the Electoral College because they say small states would be completely ignored in Presidential elections and that is simply unfair. Well, right now major American cities are completely ignored in Presidential elections so how is that fair? If you live in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Fransisco, Boston and even Houston and Dallas you are essentially a spectator in the selection of your President. To the argument that its unfair if just two places would decide the outcome, right now that is in fact the case; Florida and Ohio.

I grimace at the thought of how liberal, especially socially liberal, America would get if the major US cities counted in Presidential elections but I also believe in being honest. Plus, its gotten socially liberal anyway. The only fair thing is the end the Electoral College and either do a direct vote or some sort of hybrid system where if there winner of the Electoral College doesn't win the popular vote, the runner up is elected Vice-President and gets 1/3 of the cabinet appointments, which ones selected by lottery.

IMHO, the main reason conservatives support the present system is it gives conservatives an unfair advantage. And, by the way, we have an Electoral College because the founders didn't believe average citizens with limited education and limited access to news media would be savvy enough to elect the nation's Chief Executive Officer.

Click to expand...

How can you possibly believe that major cities are ignored? Major cities are the whole reason that states like CA, NY and IL go Democrat. The rest of the state might vote Republican but if 70% of the population is in that city then the whole state goes that way.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Lutherf said:

How can you possibly believe that major cities are ignored? Major cities are the whole reason that states like CA, NY and IL go Democrat. The rest of the state might vote Republican but if 70% of the population is in that city then the whole state goes that way.

Click to expand...

If a state is going to be blue or red, there's no reason to campaign there.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Master PO said:

then this would exclude the people from making the direct vote, which was the idea behind the EC and part of our mixed government.

Click to expand...

Which is why the electoral college is a failure and has been from very early on.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Tucker Case said:

Which is why the electoral college is a failure and has been from very early on.

Click to expand...

disagree mixed goverment is the best goverment and high form of goverment , democray of making people the dominat factor is an low form and unstable goverment

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Beaudreaux said:

Not every state is winner take all.

Click to expand...

oops sorry, I meant every state except like two. So in nebraska, there's 4 winner take all systems instead of one for the entire state (2 for the entire state and one for each district).

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Master PO said:

disagree mixed goverment is the best goverment and high form of goverment , democray of making people the dominat factor is an low form and unstable goverment

Click to expand...

There's nothing to disagree about. The intention of the electoral college was to make it so that the most capable people chose the president. From 1824 onward, it has never actually worked this way. That's simply a fact.

Personally, I think that's a great idea to have only competent people chose the president. Unfortunately, the system was corrupted almost immediately so that now it actually allows the least competent to have more powerful votes.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Tucker Case said:

There's nothing to disagree about. The intention of the electoral college was to make it so that the most capable people chose the president. From 1824 onward, it has never actually worked this way. That's simply a fact.Personally, I think that's a great idea to have only competent people chose the president. Unfortunately, the system was corrupted almost immediately so that now it actually allows the least competent to have more powerful votes.

Click to expand...

when it comes to the EC people are on 1 side of the fence or another.as for a competent president, if the constitution was followed as the founders intended the president would have very little affect on our lives liberty of property

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Tucker Case said:

Which is why the electoral college is a failure and has been from very early on.

Click to expand...

Tucker Case said:

The Nazi's seized power before the election of 1933. Hitler was appointed chancelor by von Hindenberg prior to Nazi seizure of power as well.

The Nazi's did not come to power because of a direct popular vote.

Click to expand...

In continental governments, it is usually the case that the head of government represents a party which had minority of the national vote. A coalition is formed. As what happened when Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor.

The electoral college makes that sort of result rare, since the candidate needs to win the majority of the 51 separate elections for president.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Master PO said:

when it comes to the EC people are on 1 side of the fence or another.as for a competent president, if the constitution was followed as the founders intended the president would have very little affect on our lives liberty of property

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about a competent president. I was talking about a competent electoral college.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Athanasius68 said:

In continental governments, it is usually the case that the head of government represents a party which had minority of the national vote. A coalition is formed. As what happened when Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor.

The electoral college makes that sort of result rare, since the candidate needs to win the majority of the 51 separate elections for president.

Click to expand...

The electoral college is not winning the majority of 51 separate elections. It can be won winning only 11 states. A majority would require 26.

It can also be won with less than 25% of the popular vote. Hitler had 36% of the popular vote in '32. Your claim that Hitler could not have been in power with an electoral college is simply false.

This is because the EC, as it is currently designed, means a candidate does not even need plurality of the vote to win the US presidency. If Hitler won the right geographical portions of Germany, in an electoral college system, he would have been chancellor even earlier.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Tucker Case said:

I didn't say anything about a competent president. I was talking about a competent electoral college.

Click to expand...

why do you think the EC has become a issue, for 1 reason is because the federal government is outside of the constitution along with the presidents execution of the law, involved in the lifes liberty and property of the people, where he should not be.

if the constitution were to have be followed per the founders, the president would not have the impact he does today

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Tucker Case said:

The electoral college is not winning the majority of 51 separate elections. It can be won winning only 11 states. A majority would require 26.

It can also be won with less than 25% of the popular vote. Hitler had 36% of the popular vote in '32. Your claim that Hitler could not have been in power with an electoral college is simply false.

This is because the EC, as it is currently designed, means a candidate does not even need plurality of the vote to win the US presidency. If Hitler won the right geographical portions of Germany, in an electoral college system, he would have been chancellor even earlier.

Click to expand...

Ok-- winning the 11 most populous states garners one 280 electoral vote. I would imagine the 25% figure is determined using some mathematical formula or other.

There has only been five elections where the total national vote winner did not win the electoral college vote. That seems a better record than across much of Europe where the head of government typically is a member of a party which won less than 50% of the national vote, and where of course, the head of government did not win a national election.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Master PO said:

why do you think the EC has become a issue

Click to expand...

Because the system had a design flaw: it didn't dictate a system of how electors were chosen. It left it up to the states.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Athanasius68 said:

Ok-- winning the 11 most populous states garners one 280 electoral vote. I would imagine the 25% figure is determined using some mathematical formula or other.

There has only been five elections where the total national vote winner did not win the electoral college vote. That seems a better record than across much of Europe where the head of government typically is a member of a party which won less than 50% of the national vote, and where of course, the head of government did not win a national election.

Click to expand...

You're mixing your terms here. You talk about US elections in terms of winning popular vote but talk about Europe in terms of less than 50% of the national vote. Most US presidents had less than 50% of the national vote.

Since George H.W. Bush, Obama is the only President who was first elected with more than 50% of the vote. Two of the last four didn't even achieve a plurality (assuming Trump does, indeed, take office).

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Tucker Case said:

Because the system had a design flaw: it didn't dictate a system of how electors were chosen. It left it up to the states.

Click to expand...

That wasn't a flaw. The states had formed an interdependent confederation before the Constitution and nothing in the Constitution was intended to change that.

Re: Why we have an electoral college

Lutherf said:

That wasn't a flaw. The states had formed an interdependent confederation before the Constitution and nothing in the Constitution was intended to change that.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that it being intentional means it isn't a flaw?