CAN WE GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The American people are not up to changing how they vote - regardless of the monumental errors that the EC makes in determining a PotUS. As seen vividly the last time when Hillary Clinton clearly won the popular-vote by a margin of 2.1%, but lost the election in the Electoral College! An outcome of the presidential vote that has occurred five-times in the history of the US!

In any reasonable and responsible country, a population should see clearly the unacceptable distortions in their electoral voting mechanism. The Electoral College is a farce - when a state's minority vote against a candidate is thrown-away and the majority of the EC allocates the total vote to its winner, the travesty of electoral-unfairness is manifest.

And the voting for the presidency is not the only defect of our supposedly free-electoral system. The employment of Gerrymandering at the state level is also a travesty of voting fairness. It isn't "honest" because it is being clearly manipulated by vested interests on both sides of our political system's duality (Rep&Dem).

Why do American voters largely disregard this unfairness? Good question!

The US is suffering from a comparatively poor level of Civics-education nationally at the high-school level. Which is underscored in this review here of the situation in US high-schools: A Look at Civics Education in the United States

 

He was in favor of looting the rich and giving it to the poor like most modern democracies. Kind of like Robinhoods of old only with mortars and tanks.

 

From here:

Correction noted and thanks given ... !

 

Not sure what you are getting at. The states are "forced" to behave in the Electoral College by awarding ALL ITS VOTES to the winner.

Which is a travesty of electoral justice and should not exist in any Real&True Democracy ...

 

Incompetent rebuttal: red baiting.

Incompetent rebuttals are arguments where the salient premise is based on: [highlighted pertains to your comment]
non arguments, a non argument isn't really debatable or they are not worthy of debate owing to any of the following types noting the fact they all have one thing in common--they lack sufficient dignity worthy of a response, they come in many different flavors, especially those which contain vacuous declarations and/or allegations (which cannot be substantiated, i.e., 'making stuff up'), rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities such as 'some people are saying' 'everyone knows' 'well-established fact'.) ad hominems, loaded terms & phrases,, off topic/irrelevant deflections, sentiments (words that reveal emotional attitude devoid of fact, logic and reason) red baiting ( everyone on the left are communists, commies, etc) off point arguments/deflections (off point is a sibling to off topic, where off topic is attempting to highjack the thread. It's done a lot in internet forums, and if the person to whom you directed the topic change accepts it, then you're off into a new direction, but, as such, of course, doesn't refute the original premise offered), egregious strawman arguments, egregious cynicism, off-the-charts ill-logic, 'kill the messenger" tactics, i.e., attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument, itself ( the only time kill the messenger is valid is for a well-established discredited source, such as Alex Jones, David Duke, etc, ), childish remarks, trivialising your opponent's argument -- cheap shot, childish or sophomoric comments/logic arising from ignorance (for example, NYTimes is a 'radical leftist rag' -- that's a remark born out of ignorance, it's also an 'kill the messenger' tactic) and then there is the classic thought-terminating cliché; these are cult-tropes, born out of groups who have a demagogue leader who is the master of implanting them in his flock. See, the demagogue doesn't like dissent, so when anyone challenges someone in his flock, he, being a master mind manipulator, will have planted a number of thought-terminating clichés into the minds of his subjects ( via repetition) so they will toss it up to the opponent in an attempt to kill the conversation ( wrongfully thinking it improves their argument ) so TTCs are simple terms catch phrases or words whose sole purpose is, to kill the conversation, such as 'TDS' "NeverTrumper" "Leftist Loony" (noting that the terms are not necessarily devised by the demagogue himself, they could be created by other believers, or have already been around and adopted by and they catch on with the group ) etc., pithy aphorisms assumed to be always true ( aphorisms exist because empirical observations tend to be true, but cannot be used as the salient premise to refute an argument as they are not, nor cannot be, absolute), last, but not least, and a significant debate sin, is posturing; posturing type comments, come in two basic categories, one is where you flaunt, i.e, for example, your military service, but of course if the argument can be improved by your qualifications of expertise in a field, that is okay, what I mean is something like 'I served while you were dodging the draft" whereupon your service doesn't improve your argument about whether dodging the draft was moral, or not, or flaunting your education, or authority of some kind, unless it's pertinent to the argument, and the other type of posturing are those comments which are motivated by puffing oneself up, and this is done by shaming, belittling, mocking, patronizing, 'mansplaining', flaming, where one talks down to ones opponent in order to puff oneself up.

 

Red baiting back at 'cha dude! Haven't seen that one used lately.

 

The states WANT to award all their electoral votes to the winner of the state, the states DO NOT WANT to award their electoral votes to the winner of NY and CA.... which is the compact's entire idea.

 

You are welcome to consider shareholder profits a "hang up" I am totally hung up with making a return on my investment. I understand you like your system enough to be smug and unfriendly about it. I like making money, but would never force it on you or look down on others with different beliefs. When it comes down to it, true wealth is spending life how you see fit. For me, I couldn't live under the limitations many governments impose on its subjects.

 

Yes, you are right, it's two thirds of Congress but three fourths of states. Even harder to achieve!

 

Actually, 38.

 

Why do you proclaim me incorrect and then not refute anything I said??? To repeat I said the state legislatures pick the electors any way they choose, but that some states might have giant hurdles to get over because some/many/most would have to change their constitution, though some would just sweep the law and their constitution under the rug as Georgia did this past election. I know nothing about Colo.'s constitution.

 

Your fantastic maths only work for your very carefully picked example of California!

Take Wyoming: it has about .175% of the population and .55% of the EC. That means that 1 vote in Wyoming has the same power as 3.1 votes in California.

Texans are in an even worse situation: they represent 7.9%, yet only have 6.4% of the EC.

You're saying that the EC are proportionate to the state population is an outright lie.

 

In other words you are admitting that your side would not be willing to compromise to allow the PotUS to be determined by nation-wide popular vote.

Then this entire thread is basically a moot point.

 

Exactly

 

You can't give the tiny states any fewer votes, constitutionally.

They get a half of a percent, and you think that's out of whack? California gets 10%!!!!

Sheesh.

 

The solution is simple. Trump offered to get rid of the Electoral College and replace it with Trump University. He added "it will be beautiful like no one has ever seen before".

 

You do know that it is based on the number of members in Congress which is based on population. Remember Alaska has two Senators and one Comgressman so Alaska has 3 ECs.

 

Eliminating EC, but keeping the senate defeats the purpose.
Senators confirm presidential appointments. Each state has only 2 senators, regardless of the population within those states.
If you switch the president to popular vote then we’ll just have a totally dysfunctional government, as the president won’t even be able to appoint his own staffers without kissing opposition’s behind. Elimination of EC would work only in 2 cases: you either eliminate the senate and completely restructure the government of the US, or you switch appointment confirmation process to HR instead of the senate. Both cases require constitutional amendments.

In just a few short months everyone will get to enjoy the show where Biden will struggle getting his political appointments filled. Eliminating EC will result in this lock being extended to perpetuity with rare occasions when parties of the senate and the president line up.

 

Ithink that would be far too much democracy for Republicans.

 

f

Which is already the case now. Nothing would change in that respect.

 

Exactly.

The GOP (in its present form), cannot hope to have a POTUS elected for a very long time.

Not until the moderates have taken control of the party.

 

Still, what you don't want to understand is that this system gives each citizen of Wyoming 3 times as much voting power as a California citizen. You call that fair and democratic?!

 

You wouldn't know a fair democracy if it hit you in the face.

 

Yes. If not for the electoral college, Wyoming residents wouldn't even bother to vote. And, by the way, the electoral college hasn't hurt the democrats' ability to win elections. If there were no EC California voters would have an infinite amount of voting power compared to voters in Wyoming. Take your pick.

 

There is plenty of democracy for those who understand the structure of this country. States are not provinces, they are semi-independent countries - they have their own criminal code, insurance, healthcare and other laws. 90% of your legal environment is based on state laws, not federal laws. In fact, from federal perspective, murder and rape isn’t even a crime!
So, yes, there is plenty of democracy, as each state elects its government via popular vote. Federal government exists as a unifying entity for states, not people. EU was designed in a similar fashion, but there each country, regardless of the number of residents it has, can block legislation for the entire EU. This ability is mimicking the power of the US senators as enough senators from states with tiny populations can block legislation favored by states holding majority of the US population.
Those who struggle to understand this fairly basic concept tend to advocate abolishing the electoral college.