• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Electors still relevant?

BrotherFease

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2019
Messages
5,704
Reaction score
3,784
Location
Western New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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.
 
The electoral college also gives the small states some power. I forget how, but I know I've heard that somewhere.
 
It's time for the EC to go.
 
It's time for the EC to go.

Agreed... or at least modified so that the votes do not come in by State but instead by County or some other structured manner.
 
Not after NPV goes into effect
 
Agreed... or at least modified so that the votes do not come in by State but instead by County or some other structured manner.

What does that look like?
 
The electoral college also gives the small states some power. I forget how, but I know I've heard that somewhere.


To put it plainly, the highest populated states have the lowest vote per capita, the lowest populated states have the highest vote per capita.

LARGEST STATES
California - 40 million residents, 55 electoral college votes, 727k votes per elector
Texas - 29 million residents, 38 electoral college votes, 763k votes per elector
Florida - 21 million residents, 29 electoral college votes, 724k votes per elector
New York - 19 million residents, 29 electoral college votes, 655k votes per elector
Penn - 12.8 million residents, 20 electoral college votes, 640k votes per elector
Illinois - 12.7 million residents, 20 electoral college votes, 635k votes per elector

SMALLEST STATES
Wyoming - 577k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 192k votes per elector
Alaska - 731k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 243k votes per elector
North Dakota - 762k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 254k votes per elector
South Dakota - 884k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 294k votes per elector
Vermont - 623k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 207k votes per elector
Delaware - 973k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 324k votes per elector
Montana - 1 million residents, 3 electoral college votes, 333k votes per elector.

In the most extreme example, a vote in Wyoming holds about 3.5 times more weight than a vote in either California or Texas.
 
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.
While states have the power to appoint electors, I think it should be illegal for them to suggest/require than an elector choose any particular person. Electors are supposed to elect. Preventing them from doing so should be recognized as a violation of the constitution.
 
While states have the power to appoint electors, I think it should be illegal for them to suggest/require than an elector choose any particular person. Electors are supposed to elect. Preventing them from doing so should be recognized as a violation of the constitution.

Not sure I understand your commentary correctly, but I would say that the primary function of an elector, is prevent a demagogue from being President. If we mandate they pick a certain candidate, then we're essentially destroying the very fabric of an elector. You might as well go toward a point system.
 
Not sure I understand your commentary correctly, but I would say that the primary function of an elector, is prevent a demagogue from being President. If we mandate they pick a certain candidate, then we're essentially destroying the very fabric of an elector. You might as well go toward a point system.

I'm suggesting the complete opposite. I'm suggesting it should be illegal to make them promise to vote for anyone. They should elect whom they consider the best person for the job.
 
I'm suggesting the complete opposite. I'm suggesting it should be illegal to make them promise to vote for anyone. They should elect whom they consider the best person for the job.

Cool. We agree. Electors should be free to pick whoever they want. Historically electors vote for the candidate they were "assigned". In 2016, we had the most faithless electors in over 100 years, because Clinton and Trump were seen as bad candidates.
 
Cool. We agree. Electors should be free to pick whoever they want. Historically electors vote for the candidate they were "assigned". In 2016, we had the most faithless electors in over 100 years, because Clinton and Trump were seen as bad candidates.

Agreed. Electors should actually elect, IMHO.
 
Not sure I understand your commentary correctly, but I would say that the primary function of an elector, is prevent a demagogue from being President. If we mandate they pick a certain candidate, then we're essentially destroying the very fabric of an elector. You might as well go toward a point system.

I don't know how the concept of an elector can ever be regarded as part of a democratic process.
 
To put it plainly, the highest populated states have the lowest vote per capita, the lowest populated states have the highest vote per capita.

LARGEST STATES
California - 40 million residents, 55 electoral college votes, 727k votes per elector
Texas - 29 million residents, 38 electoral college votes, 763k votes per elector
Florida - 21 million residents, 29 electoral college votes, 724k votes per elector
New York - 19 million residents, 29 electoral college votes, 655k votes per elector
Penn - 12.8 million residents, 20 electoral college votes, 640k votes per elector
Illinois - 12.7 million residents, 20 electoral college votes, 635k votes per elector

SMALLEST STATES
Wyoming - 577k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 192k votes per elector
Alaska - 731k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 243k votes per elector
North Dakota - 762k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 254k votes per elector
South Dakota - 884k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 294k votes per elector
Vermont - 623k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 207k votes per elector
Delaware - 973k residents, 3 electoral college votes, 324k votes per elector
Montana - 1 million residents, 3 electoral college votes, 333k votes per elector.

In the most extreme example, a vote in Wyoming holds about 3.5 times more weight than a vote in either California or Texas.



And this was added by design. It's a feature, not a bug.
 
And this was added by design. It's a feature, not a bug.

Correct. It's part of the Connecticut Compromise. The Senate benefits the small states, the congress benefits the large states.

The EC was created out of compromise and last minute backdoor dealings. It was how we got the small colonies to play ball, and join the union. The small colonies were afraid that NY and Virginia (which demanded that slaves get counted toward the number of congressional representatives) were going to overpower them and threaten their existence.
 
Correct. It's part of the Connecticut Compromise. The Senate benefits the small states, the congress benefits the large states.

The EC was created out of compromise and last minute backdoor dealings. It was how we got the small colonies to play ball, and join the union. The small colonies were afraid that NY and Virginia (which demanded that slaves get counted toward the number of congressional representatives) were going to overpower them and threaten their existence.


I think you mean the House of Representatives...and how exactly does it benefit the large states ?
 
Back
Top Bottom