The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy!

Take it up with the guy you voted into office.

""The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. This election is a total sham and a travesty. Our nation is totally divided! The world is laughing at us. Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before.

We can't let this happen. Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country."

Or are you saying that he's a idiot and we should should not follow him?

I'm going to hold the pathological liar to his word. For once.

 

Two things. First, the states elect the President and that's how it should be.

Second, if Trump was trying to get the popular vote he would have campaigned differently and, given how close the race was, and his ability to go over the top, he probably would have won the popular vote. Bush similarly said after the 2000 race that if he was trying to get the popular vote he would have spent more time on get out the vote efforts in Texas. Point being the races in 2000 and 2016 likely wouldn't have been any different if they were determined by popular vote and thay was decided BEFORE the campaign because they would have campaigned differently.

 

You're welcome.

Agreed. When are you going to march for the revolution?

 

Why? You don't trust the American people to choose their president? I though trusting the American people was a conservative thing?

Speculation. But if we didn't have this anachronistic holdover from the 18th century that deprives millions of their vote, it wouldn't be an issue.

Like it has been in 2 of the past 5 elections where the American voters have been denied their vote.

- - - Updated - - -

Why not?

 

I agree that nothing can be determined until, and if it is changed. Surely with different rules one would campaign differently. I propose we keep the electoral award in each state as it is, fairly distributed by population, but split those individual state electoral votes by percentage of popular vote. So say Florida has 29 electoral votes, so Florida had approx. 9 million votes, Trump won 49.1%= 14.21 electoral votes....Clinton got 47.8% =13.86 electoral votes and so on.

 

No point in arguing it now. The Republicans have pulled this shabby trick again and I think this time they mean us to have no more elections, not real ones. Trump will simply throw any real opposition into the camps he will have established for Muslims, Hispanics and miscellaneous "others" by that time and then walk away with another "mandate" to steal us blind while tightening his tyranny. By 2024 I think even he will tire of the sham and appoint either himself or his son as President-for-Life by "popular approbation" of course.

The American Experiment is over, it failed.

 

1. It has nothing to do with trust. We're not the United Provinces, we're the United States. The states vote for President - this was part of the deal for the states to relinquish some of their sovereign power recognized so firmly in the DOI.
2. American voters haven't been denied their vote in any election. As I said, it is the states who elect the President - anyone operating on a different understanding was misinformed. No one is deprived of their vote, it still counts *according to the rules of their state*.
3. It is hardly speculation that candidates would have campaigned differently if they weren't fighting for the EV.

 

Why not just have a general election where the voters decide?

The states are represented in Congress, particularly in the Senate. The president represents the people and should be elected by them.

But your suggestion is much closer to the intent of the Founders, who were appalled at how the election system they envisioned morphed into what it is today:

Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, "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 [tasks]."[25] The founders assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."[26] In other words, the people did not place the name of a candidate for a president on the ballot, instead they voted for their local elector, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for president.

Some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[27] So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[28] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[27]

When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[25] According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay,

The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[29]

The founders assumed that electors would be elected by the citizens of their district and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.

Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the framers’ original intent that they advocated for a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[29] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

 

I gave you an honest reply, and even agreed that I would prefer to see popular vote as the deciding factor in elections. How about an honest answer from you in regard to changing the rules of an election after the fact? Would it not be a disaster for demacracy to change preset rules of an election after the fact in order to change the results?

 

The current system is violates what the Founders intended:

Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, "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 [tasks]."[25] The founders assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."[26] In other words, the people did not place the name of a candidate for a president on the ballot, instead they voted for their local elector, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for president.

Some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[27] So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[28] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[27]

When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[25] According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay,

The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[29]

The founders assumed that electors would be elected by the citizens of their district and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.

Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the framers’ original intent that they advocated for a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[29] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

But regardless, why should election of our president be up to the states? The states are represented in Congress, especially the Senate. The president is the president of all Americans. Why should they make the decision?

They have. For example, almost half the voters in my state, Florida, voted for Clinton. But my votes were wiped out by because all of Florida's votes go to Donald in the general election.

True, they would probably campaign more in places where people are, as opposed to just a handful of high population "swing states" like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

 

OP is spamming. How many times must he post the same Trump quote in one thread?

As to the founders, they didn't see fit to include the Bill of Rights in the original Constitution. Shall we do away with that in order to follow original intent?

It's been a week now since the election. Time for the whining to stop.

 

Not trusting a federalization of powers is more conservative.
Fish with different bait. Maybe you'll catch something next time

bang your head if you want to.

 

Why?

The current system is an anachronistic leftover from the 18th century that doesn't reflect the will of the people.

Even the Founders were appalled it developed that way, and said that the current system violates the spirit and intent of the Constitution:


Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, "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 [tasks]."[28] The founders assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."[29] In other words, the people did not place the name of a candidate for a president on the ballot, instead they voted for their local elector, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for president.

Some states reasoned the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[30] So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[31] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[30]

When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[28] According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay,

The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[32]

The founders assumed electors would be elected by the citizens of his district, and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.

Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the framers’ original intent, they advocated for a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[32] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

 

Do you really want to hang your hat on Hamilton's opinions?

Alexander Hamilton shot back in Federalist 84 that a Bill of Rights would be a terrible idea: I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights,in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.

 

March? We do our talking at the ballot box.

 

Now wait, let's see what the President elect said about the electoral college........oh wait now he said something else....oh wait, now he FLIP FLOPPED his wet noodle again...and says something else

 

Ok, so lets say that I agree with you, and that the EC is flawed, wrong, and should be banished. Can you address the fact that the EC system was in place prior to this recent election, and that our entire country knew before the election even happened that we would be using the EC system? Are you actually suggesting that we should change the rules for an election after the election has happened to produce a different outcome? I fully understand that you do not agree with having Trump win when the popular vote may be higher than the EC, but please address the fact that the rules for this election were in fact established in advance, and that you understand the implications of changing election rules after the fact in order to change the outcome.

 

There is an irony that the Democratic candidate won the election "democratically" while the Republican candidate won the election of the republic. Since the constitution says we are a Republican, the Republican becomes the president. If we were a democracy the Democrat would become president.

Democrats would never support changing the system because they believe the shifting demographics are going to give them Texas and Florida - and soon.

 

Not necessary. But Madison was the "father of the constitution" and as their letter indicate, the system we have today is not what the Founder's intended.

- - - Updated - - -

No, a Republic form of government just means that the government is operated and laws passed by representatives. Under a pure democracy, the people would vote on every proposed legislation and government action.

But being a Republic does not mean that your representatives are not elected by the people.

 

Sure.

The rules are the EC voters can constitutionally vote for whomever they want, so there is no legal impediment to them voting in accordance with the wishes of the American voters.

And in fact, it is their job to do it.

More fundamentally, the EC was set up because, 240 years ago with the USA was founded as the world first modern democracy, many feared that the majority of the voters (or the "mob" as many conservatives here call a majority) could not be trusted to not be swayed or duped by a con man, a pathological liar, or a charlatan with no experience.

So they established the EC system, with the intent that voters would elect EC electors on a district by district basis, electing people who would "possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]" and "men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]".

In this was, the Republic would be protected from the con men and charlatans the people might otherwise elect.


Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, "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 [tasks]."[28] The founders assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."[29] In other words, the people did not place the name of a candidate for a president on the ballot, instead they voted for their local elector, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for president.

Some states reasoned the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[30] So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[31] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[30]

When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[28] According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay,

The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[32]

The founders assumed electors would be elected by the citizens of his district, and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.

Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the framers’ original intent, they advocated for a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward," Madison told George Hay in 1823.[32] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

So as intended by the Founders, it is the job of the EC to protect us from con men, pathological liars, utterly amoral people, and people who are wholly unprepared to be president.

We have today a person described by leaders in his own party as "utterly amoral," a "pathological liar" "fraudster," “narcissist" "phony" "dangerous national security risk" "con man" "national embarrassment" who is "wholly unprepared to be president." A person who lost the popular vote by a margin that is approaching a million votes, but is slated to take over the WH only by virtue of the weird idiosyncrasies of an anachronistic system ironically designed to protect the Republican from the very guy who is now president-elect.

So it is not only legally permissible, but it is the Constitutional duty of EC voters to be independent and evaluate whether Donald is properly the president elect.

And if they are not going to do that, then why are we even bothering with this archaic system?

 

Sour grapes. Before the election the libs were claiming Hillary would win with 400 electoral college votes. Now that she lost they hate the system.

 

So at least two of the founders wanted to revise the Constitution to change the electoral college, but obviously they were not all the founders, and the many other founders in Congress didn't agree with them.

As to why it should be the states - again, we are not the United Provinces, we are the United States. We are "the Union". Who is the President but the President of these United States?

So here: I said they're not wiped out, because your vote in FL is a vote for who your state will allocate its EV to, but you insist that your vote was wiped out because in the end it didn't count. By that same logic, if we had a pure popular vote then the votes of the "almost half" of the nation that didn't vote for the winning side wouldn't count.

But, once again, when you vote for President, you're actually voting for how your state will allocate its votes.

Thus diminishing the relevance of smaller states even further. This compact was made between the states as a balance of the two concerns, reflected both in the Senate (2 per state)/House (by pop) and in how EV's are allocated (in the same manner).

- - - Updated - - -

so many kept saying that the popular vote doesn't matter, all that matters is electoral votes, which Trump would never win.

.... but now they want to adjust that to fix the results of this election. It's a daydream - Trump has won, end of story.

 

Ok, let's clarify a couple things.

First off, Hamilton died in 1804 so he had no further thoughts beyond that time.

Secondly, Madison was responding to a letter from George Hay and not campaigning for a change himself.

Thirdly, as to the snippet from the letter you posted, there is no "many years later". Below you will see that passage taken from the transcript of the letter.

BTW, if there had been a district rule in effect in 2000, Bush would have won by a larger margin.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_2-3s10.html

I agree entirely with you in thinking that the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward at the same time with that relating to the eventual choice of President by the H. of Reps. The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example.

 

I'm not suggesting that, but it should be the first order of business for the new congress. Nobody would mind the EC if the mathematics weren't off or if those poor white southern states were still being ignored. My, what a crock that is. Freaking welfare queens in the South.

 

The Democrats would NEVER support the change because they believe the growing demographics of "welfare queens" and growing Latino populations will give them Texas and Florida very soon. They would not want to risk white blue collar and middle income voters in the Midwest and Rustbelt offsetting this.