The Electoral College - yet again

The Electoral College - yet again.


One of the wisest decisions of the founding fathers (no mothers, aunts, so NOT P.C.) was a modicum of geographical representation. The Senate. And the Electoral College some find archaic and should be substituted for a direct, popular vote.

I found this picture yesterday and if one image is worth 1,000 words, this one is more so.

​

There is a problem with the Greatest State of California which carries too much weight compared to any two other states with its' "winner take all" assignment of Electoral College votes. California 55, N/Y + Penn. = 49

Just for the number of E.C. votes. IMG function ain't workin'

In '12, Romney got more votes in California than the total votes cast in many States.
Yet Romney received zero California Electoral College votes.
It seems California's Romney voters got no representation, a number higher than the total votes of many States.
I do believe the States should control how their electors are assigned.
In California's case I would prefer assigning an elector for a congressional district's presidential vote. Let the 2 extra votes be winner take all 2.
Second choice assigned as a percentage of the popular vote.
Neither would have changed the outcome. Just seems more fair.

POINT: The Electoral College is a good system with an appropriate amount of geographical representation as well as popular representation.


Moi

r > g

Stop Creeping ism
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

okay, let's just make everyone's vote inversely proportional to the population density of their town. i'll move to the middle of alaska's wilderness and my vote will be so powerful that i singlehandedly decide who the president, because i guess we're doing away with the whole "all votes are worth the same" thing.

or, you know, you could just accept the fact that the majority of the population disagrees with you and try to convince them

 

The electoral college is awkward in that by trying to level out the effect by densely populated states, it lessens the value of their votes.
Perhaps there should be a map of electorates containing a similar number of voters and the electoral college would not be necessary.

 

STATES decide how their Electors are split up or not they could have them divide up closely based on the popular vote however they decide largely not to and if your going for a popular vote where do most people live where the Electoral votes are higher so they will still decide the president far more likely than not and get most of the political interest. Plus you need a Constitutional Amendment the States with the power are very unlikely to vote to give it up and you need a supermajority to get such a change passed.

 

There is a reason the Founding Fathers set up the EC. That reason is as valid today as it was in the 19th century. And we are lucky they set up the process.

 

Wasn't it the end of the 18th Century ?

 

Congressional Districts

 

Let's be honest. The Op wants city folk to have 2/3 of a vote because its inconvenient for rural folk and their agenda for those urbanites to have a whole vote. If You can't seem to persuade them to do what you want and believe what you want, so just disenfranchise them a little bit.

 

I'm a liberal Democrat. My party lost. I'm still strongly in favor of the EC because I realize that now just as in 1789...without it...less populous states would be disenfranchised.

The fact that the EC was grossly manipulated last time only means that we have to be prudent to protect our democracy

 

What is the purpose of Congressional Districts?

 

The only reason Republicans like the Electoral College is that it has benefited them twice since 2000. But this is likely to change at some point. The day Republicans win the popular vote and Democrats the electoral College, that's when they'll realize how lousy it is. Republicans are unable to visualize anything. They have to experience them first hand or they don't exist. Pretty much like babies do...

 

My understanding is that the EC was ratified in 1804 -- I think that would be the early part of the 19th century. Maybe there is more history that I don't know about.

 

Can you explain how the EC was "grossly manipulated"? First I have heard of that.

 

You know who the real disenfranchised are? The people who don't live in swing states and therefore literally know their vote is meaningless. I understand the logic of state sovereignty, but there is a better way of states providing electors to the general college. The all or nothing way it's done now is completely ludicrous to me. I would either be for a weighted electoral college meaning states provide electorates weighted to the vote in the state or a direct popular vote which is also weighted; where everyone votes for their top 3. That way every candidate has a more even chance of winning. Not the way it is now where if a state has 3 electorates and the republicans win, all three are now republican electorates, or vice versa.

As for the OP specifically, leaving aside the sovereignty and "disenfranchisement" of states, why is it once again such a terrible idea that everyone's vote equals the same thing. Direct popular vote (ideally being weighted where people each vote for a descending list) is, by far, the most reasonable way to go for a presidential national election.

 

The founding fathers (circa 1803) set up the EC because slave states demanded it. It was about defending rural states only in the sense that rural states were slave states. The south knew they couldn't ever win a popular vote, being slaves couldn't vote themselves, but they could win if non-voting slaves were counted in the electoral college tally, if only at 3/5 of a person. Creating the EC was not the finest hour for the USA.

The story that the founders trusted the wise elder electors over the common people is nonsense. Even back then, electors were nobodies who just did what they were told.

If the EC and defending rural areas is so awesome, why doesn't a single state use an EC system for governor? After all, those evil cities shouldn't dominate the rural areas of the state, right? Why is "property has voting rights!" valid at the federal level, but not the state level? The answer is that states never had contradicting slavery policies within themselves, so there was no need to defend slavery in a voting system within a state.

 

When a bill of rights was proposed in Congress in 1789, North Carolina ratified the Constitution. Finally, Rhode Island, which had rejected the Constitution in March 1788 by popular referendum, called a ratifying convention in 1790 as specified by the Constitutional Convention.

AND
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timel...atification_of_the_United_States_Constitution

It was a done deal by 1800
It was a done deal at the end of the 18th Century

Constitutionally, Washington became president - 1789
in the 18th Century.

<ta-da>
​

 

They do not understand the electoral college system. They probably are completely ignorant that the popular vote never elected Washington nor presidents until 1824. Even then 6 of the 24 states had the state legislators pick the president. 18 states put the vote up in a state per popular vote.

To date, this nation has never at any time used a system where the votes of each states are collected then added to other states until finally all states votes are rounded up to be included.

Democrats make a point of the popular vote. But from John Q Adams forward, popular votes though allowed, only mattered for the state of the votes.

States vote on a state by state basis. This is why you can't use popular vote.

Congress decided who became president.

I do not favor the public vote at all. Too many errors get made. For instance the error of electing Obama.

 

Didn't YOU ask for areas of similar population size?
That is a Congressional district.

I favor a win for a presidential electoral vote based on Congressional districts
as opposed to the assignment as a percentage of popular vote or Winner Take All.




Or were you asking about, sort of, what is a Congressional District.
It is the area that can elect on member of the House of Representatives of Congress.
A census it done every 10 years and the House of Representatives has reapportionment.
States may gain or lose districts and must redraw district lines.

For a good time, look up the 3/5ths Rule ​

 

you really didn't need to explain the electoral college to me, i know how it works. and i think it's dumb as hell and nothing but a way to avoid doing what people want

 

I was confused- I didn't know that the EC is only for presidential elections.
So yes, congressional districts would be a fairer way to elect a president.

 

The best and most honest thing this Country did .... Was the Electoral College !

 

Except you would nullify the power of concentrated votes such as
San Francisco. Big win, small win would not matter.
Fairer?




The E.C. was created as a safe guard in case the people voted wrong
in a presidential election. Electors can only be bound by State law
to vote as promised. California has such a law. I seem to remember in
the way back time, there was an elector who was supposed to vote for
JFK but, couldn't bring himself to vote for a Roman Catholic.

 

We just had primary voting on Tuesday less than 20% of registered voters cast a ballot and a very significant portion of those eligible to vote don't even register.

 

I don't wish to go by your version so let's go by historians version.

Looking at states, much of all states are rural.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

It should not be that cities are evil. The Democratic party however happens to be evil. I know, democrats reject this. But they have Stockholm syndrome when it comes to party allegiance. They may not notice they are captives, but in real life, they really are. Take some of their politicians promises. Ever notice they keep running on the same issues over and over.

Put me in power they bray,. I will keep abortion legal. Hell, that is out of their control. Democrats are using this currently here in CA. I, Democrat will ensure you get a full ration of illegals by speaking of them in the way one speaks of legal citizens of other countries following the rules to enter and gain citizenship here. Daily on TV supposedly the same democrats who guaranteed us more illegals keep this as a running promise.

Examine every issue ran on by Democrats and the new guy says he promises to fix the same problem the last winning Democrat promised to fix.

Take Trump, he is actually fixing things. The next republican can run on something else and not promise the same things that Trump won on as his issues.

Why the presidential difference in city vs rural?

Look, in the city, they have all kinds of improvements made. True it was largely done by Democrats. I would rate Democrats, as evil as they are, a bit better in cities than rural.

But at what? Believe it or not, since I have sold property for a living since 1971 and been party to some developments, what we did was put in the streets, sidewalks, gutters and sewers as part of the development. Democrats did not lift a finger. But we followed Democrats laws for the most part. True some cities end up for a period staying republican. But over time as the city expands, Democrats manage to take over the city.

Who are your teachers? Seldom are they republicans. We republicans will build you highways and cities faster than we will teach you at a school how to do it. We do, Democrats want ultimate control. FDR almost entirely took all of America over. He managed to dig a deep pit for Government and drag the entire nation into it and they told him, thank you FDR. For what? For using OPM. We all know the value of OPM standing for other people's money. When you take out that car loan, it is not your money, it is OPM and so is your home loan. If you borrow for a neat boat, OPM. Your credit cards are OPM. Then you complain over bankers. Go figure.

 

Another reason for the electoral college is it's important for independent government bodies (the states) to assure the integrity of election results.
With the winner take all system, there's virtually no incentive for a state to try to fake its election results. There's not going to be any nation-wide controversy over whether 60 or 70% of the voters in a particular state actually voted for a certain Presidential candidate, because it doesn't matter, the majority still constitutes the voice of that state.