Abolish the electorial college?

As a good compromise I support making electorial votes in each state proportional to the percent of vote won. This will give third party candidates a chance to get votes, and allow non-swing states to get some attention from candidates.

 

There’s a point to the electoral college but I’ve generally felt reserved about its bureaucratic nature.

If certain state populaces were representative of electoral points there could be a reform of the system to assure that the people’s votes are represented, and cannot be overrulled by a representative, and eliminate the winner takes all aspect to appreciate the diverse points of view within the states.

This was impractical when the system was established, but today we can do it easily.

 

As to selecting presidents, given his job is to assist the 50 states and territories, he needs to be chosen by states. The public wastes too much time worrying about who is president. The EC is supposed to be a group of experts on presidents so they pick them.

 

Since when is there anything reasonable about disinformation?

Actually no one who understands the difference (which is by no means trivial), and who is aware of the baggage associated with the latter, will call it that.

I'd elaborate, but you're obviously comfortable not knowing what the hell you're talking about.

 

Is this your attempt to back away from what you posted rather than defend it?
If so, I accept your concession.

Given your propensity for having to "modify" your positions under scrutiny, might I suggest you take a little more time and put a little more effort in developing said positions before you post.

 

I've spent my life modifying my positions based on understanding new information. I don't see the point of sticking to a position for posterity's sake. I'm stunned you think learning and adopting is a bad thing. Education is good; people refusing to budge out of some sense of pride, or risk of appearing "wrong," is part of the reason we are in this mess.

 

Perfect!

 

You missed the point, and that's OK.

 

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

 

[The] difference between a democracy and a republic [is] the delegation of the government, the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."
In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents." - Madison

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.

The bill is states replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

 

Mvymvy's posts are more like long books that say the exact same thing. I read a couple; I get his/her point. I just disagree that the EC is not working as intended.

 

Bullshit. Calling an Article 5 Constitutional Amendment Convention a "Constitutional Convention" is not "disinformation," (a term you plainly don't understand) especially not on a casual politics forum. It is a reasonable abbreviation.

If you want to debate the issue further, make a thread on the "Weird, Pedantic Armchair Lawyering" subforum.

 

The Founders in 1787 envisioned the Electoral College as “select assemblies for choosing the President… composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens” (Federalist 64) “acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation” (Federalist 6. The Electoral College was to be “a small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass … most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations” (Federalist 6.This lofty vision of the Electoral College (akin to the College of Cardinals for electing the Pope) was abandoned in the first politically competitive presidential election in 1796. This happened because of the emergence of political parties that nominated candidates at the national level and simultaneously nominated rubber-stamp party activists to be presidential electors at the state level.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes. Over the years, states have used their unqualified and absolute power to enact a variety of laws for how to award their electors in presidential elections.

In 1789, only 3 states used the "winner-take-all" system based on the statewide popular vote. Similar laws in other states only became prevalent decades after the deaths of most of the Founding Fathers. 2 states do not use the system.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

 

The FF intended that the states have as much autonomy as possible, which is why they didn't dictate how the states award those votes. I have no issue with states determining how they select electors. Should some or all change their method, no issue from me. Your repeating your same points over and over is not compelling.

 

It most certainly is ...

... and I most certainly do.

That you somehow imagine it's any more appropriate in a bar than it is in a legislative chamber testifies to your ignorance.

No, "A5 Convention" is a reasonable abbreviation.

If you intend to keep spreading disinformation about A5 Conventions, expect more of the same if I'm around.

 

I'm paid very well to draft contracts, have been for many years, from Wall Street to Main Street. My casual posts here come nowhere near the level of precision that is required in my work, and that's why this place makes such a relaxing procrastination enabler. So take the pedantic -stick- out of your -ass-.

That said, were a convention to amend the Constitution under Article 5 called, and lawyers drafting to allocate risks in contracts during that time tasked with defining it, the defined term, at the highest levels of legal practice, would be "Constitutional Convention." The specifics would follow within the definition, likely in unnecessarily verbose detail, possibly for more than one page, but the defined term would remain "Constitutional Convention." I am highly confident of that, take it as you will, agree or disagree, your prerogative.

Keep calling me ignorant while misusing the word "disinformation," which denotes intent to deceive that none of my posts to this thread contain, instead of the correct word, "misinformation," all you like though. It's funny.

 

Big deal, so was the Obergefell court.

So that demands willful blindness to the circumstances attending the only ConCon in US history. Who knew?

I don't doubt it.

Not necessarily. One who disseminates disinformation may be doing so unawares...

...but you divest yourself of some benefit of the doubt with your every response.

 

Are people to be judged by their determination to defend a given view at a given moment? Or, are they to be evaluated on their ability to be open to new information and alter their views accordingly? Which do you regard as stronger or better or more desirable? Like a scientist, I have views formed from the information available to me at any given time. If & when that changes, there's always the possibility I'll change my views to include that new information, whatever it might be. I'm old enough to know that life is constant change, and I've observed that anyone who tries avoiding change or tries to cling to anything in life as if it was changeless--including ideas or their own personal views--gradually become increasingly out of touch with the world around them. I try not to do that to myself. My political views are based on my set of personal spiritual values. I'm a liberal because I feel everyone is equally important, and should be acknowledged and treated as such. I may disagree with everything someone says--as I actually do with Trump--but I never allow myself to suggest or support any action that would contradict the human rights or legal rights of the person I disagree with--including Trump. I see the universal power & value of the historic Golden Rule, which says: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I try to live it as much as possible. I oppose Trump's (and his supporter's) version, which states: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

 

Oh, I see...
Was it is "new information" to you that "true democracy" necessitates the elimination of the house, the senate and the states?
That is, were you unaware of this fact before I brought it up?
If so - why?
And, since "true democracy" necessitates the elimination of the house, the senate and the states, do you then favor retaining our republic rather the implementing "true democracy"?

 

The Electoral College was intended to soften the impact of open democracy on our governmental system. The founding fathers were all men of substance & success, each in their own way. They wanted the power to remain in the hands of those in their social/educational class. They feared the impact the poor, uneducated masses could have on government with their democratic votes. That's why the only part of government they allowed the public masses to actually vote on was for Representatives to the House. Over the years, our leaders have seen fit to broaden the democratic process for the general public, so the poorer classes today have much more say in governance than was possible in the early years of the Republic. But the struggle between the rule by our upper class elites, and our common masses seems a permanent fixture of our country. Most of our Presidents have come from the upper classes. Certainly Trump's election fits that mold. Trump was born in the wealthiest, elitist class, but was elected President solely because of the EC. He was the second Republican to win that way in the last three elections--which invites the question, "Are Americans choices really being accurately reflected in the current leadership." From 1789 until 2000, only two Presidents were installed by the EC after winning a minority of the people's votes. Recently, in 2000 & 2016, two more instances of this kind of victory has occurred. The first two happened over a span of 211 years of American history. The last two happened over a period of 16 years. What's changed in our society to warrant this apparent condensation of time between EC events? I've heard many Americans complain that they don't vote because their "vote doesn't count." I wondered why they felt that way for many years. But the elections of 2000 & 2016 together demonstrated to me why they felt as they do. In 2016, nearly 4 million more voters across America cast their votes for Hillary than Trump. Yet the EC ignored those votes and gave the victory to Trump. Is it any wonder that so many Americans feel disenfranchised? I used to wonder why the founding fathers had such low esteem for democracy. After seeing the poor, uneducated members of our society vote for Trump in droves, I feel I understand the founding fathers' concern for the first time. You're right, the ED did exactly what it was designed to do. It ignored the mass vote and gave the Oval Office to the wealthy, elitist candidate from the upper class. But this time the class victor was himself uneducated and ill-prepared to assume the responsibilities of the office. Indeed, I predict with confidence, he'll go down as the worst President in U.S. history. It's worth noting that the last previous EC victor was also the weakest of the two competing candidates, and himself got the U.S. involved in two separate, simultaneous wars in the Middle East, and left our economy in shambles. Yes, the EC is doing what it was designed to do, but its record is not one to take pride in if record of its winners' governance is considered.

 

In 1992, 57% of the electorate did not vote for Bill Clinton - yet the EC ignored those votes and gave him the election.
In 1996, 50.8% of the electorate did not vote for Bill Clinton - yet the EC ignored those votes and gave him the election.
Oh, but that was OK, because you approved of the outcome.

Look at you, acting as if Hillary is any different.
Oh, but that would be OK, because you approve of the outcome.

 

If by "true democracy" you mean governance where every citizen has to vote on every issue to decide every action, then no, I don't advocate "true democracy." However, if you mean every citizen gets to cast one vote for the candidate for office of his or her choice, including President of the U.S., then I'd favor and support that solution. I'd keep the Congress, the Supreme Court and the Presidency, but I'd eliminate the Electoral System as it presently functions in Presidential elections & convert them to decided by popular vote. I recognize you have legitimate counter arguments to this idea, and they deserve airing and discussion. However, our popular electorate is more educated and better informed than when the founding fathers devised methods to circumvent popular democracy. Many Americans see that in the last election nearly 4 million votes were ignored by the EC and the Oval Office was given to the candidate with the minority of popular votes. This makes many Americans feel their personal votes don't really count in the final determination, and it undermines their motivation to vote. Another thought, and perhaps even more important, is that the average American today is far more comfortable with the idea that they are citizens of a nation of states united into one entity. Before the Civil War, most Americans identified with their particular state as their "country." The Electoral College was founded on precisely that principal. That's another way it's now outdated. I'm cognizant of the fact that election by popular vote favors the more dense populated areas over those that are rural. Those rural areas DO need to have a say in governance--and they do, thru their elected representatives. However, the President of the United States is generally regarded as the only elected public official who actually represents ALL Americans, and as such SHOULD be elected by those same voters he or she represents. The Electoral System distorts that outcome (as the elections of 2000 & 2016 illustrate). Only Presidential election by direct popular vote resolves this dilemma.

 

So, you were ignorant of the meaning of "true democracy" when you advocated for it?

In the US system, we vote for the people who will represent us in the relevant assembly - the house, the senate and the electoral college. What sound argument do you have for changing our representative system with regard -only- to the electoral college and not the others?

What western democracy elects its head of government by popular vote?

 

1. Yes, I knew the dictionary definition of "true democracy," but I was using the term loosely in my posts--not adhering to the legalese definition of the term.
2. Historically speaking, the three branches of our government have done a pretty descent job of governing our country. That's not to say they're perfect, but they've muddled thru. There are notable problems with our system for sure, but not to the point of deserving liquidation or abandonment of the entire system as a response. Many of the issues we face can be resolved quickly and effectively once our leaders decide to tackle the problem constructively together. Right now, moneyed interests have far too much influence in lawmaking outcomes, and the general public--even when they attempt to earn the attention of office holders, are far too frequently ignored. Also, the practice of gerrymandering voting districts for party advantage has helped lead us to the decidedly uncomfortable and untenable situation we're living with now. All these issues can be fixed, and should be, ASAP. Abandoning the system entirely wouldn't be a constructive solution.
3. I looked up the answer to that question on Google. According to the Pew Center Fact Tank page, "In more than half (65) of the world’s 125 democracies, the head of state – nearly always called a president – is directly elected by voters." (Link: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ands-out-in-how-it-chooses-its-head-of-state/). The title in the link states a profound truth too. I hope you find this helpful.

 

Ah. You use the term in a unique way, know only by you.
Glad I could help clarify your ambiguity for the class.

Nothing here addresses the question I asked.
I'll ask again:
In the US system, we vote for the people who will represent us in the relevant assembly - the house, the senate and the electoral college. What sound argument do you have for changing our representative system with regard -only- to the electoral college and not the others?

This does not address the question I asked.
I'll ask again:
3. What western democracy elects its head of government by popular vote?