Poll: most people who voted in 2016 want to abolish the Electoral College

Trump wants the Popular vote to decide Presidential elections

- - - Updated - - -

Hillary won 20 states.

 

Well that's proof alright 1084 samples, online, Civis's best guess of what the 2016 electorate's demographic composition was! I take it these dopes were the same people that guessed that Hillary was going to win!

The simple fact these dishonest stooges are running a scam is they took a 1084 sample from an online survey! 1084 samples from and online survey, come on, either they didn't get enough participation to actually get a real sample of voters or they simply cherry picked "THE ONLY" 1084 that met their criteria

 

True But even if the national election was determined by states won the old cow would have lost that way too! National elections can not be determined by a few densely populated states, that's why the electoral was conceived. My personal opinion is, anyone promoting popular vote is un-American and simply looking for system where fewer states will DICTATE what the majority don't want.

Never going to happen anyway, democrats are either going to be more nationally INCLUSIVE or they are going to go the way of the dodo!

 

We weren't established as a true democracy, and I think it's a good thing. Our Founders wanted power dispersed. They didn't want any single group or office--the President, the courts, the legislature, the states or even the people to have too much power. The makeup of the Senate and the Electoral college is how the people were limited. The makeup of the House is how the people have more power. It's a good thing, and getting rid of the EC changes the dynamics of the Presidential race to where a few states would dominate.

 

Almost no major country has a direct election of the President (or more precisely the chief executive of the country). Most of Europe has a parliamentary system in which people don't even directly vote on the Prime Minister.

 

Yes, I actually do. The framers and state ratifying conventions worked very hard on this in the knowledge that the tyranny of a majority is just as bad as the tyranny of a despot. While they knew in the final analysis it is the vote of the people that counts, they shielded and barricaded those votes from governance as much as they could.

As you believe majority rule should prevail, do you think we should do away with the Senate? Why should a tiny state like Delaware have just as many senators as California? Should Supreme Court rulings that run contrary to majority will be set aside? Why even have a constitution? Let the popular vote elect representatives (or a parliament) and the president and let them have at it. No senator, judge, governor or state legislator need apply.

 

"In my view, it's slavery. "

Nope! If you will read the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, Sept 6, 1787 you will find that it is because the small states like Delaware and New Hampshire didn't want to be continually dominated by the states with large populations like Virginia and Pennsylvania. Delaware and New Hampshire had almost no slaves according to censuses at the time.

Of course the large states exert significant power in the EC. But the small states *can* band together and defeat the large states when their interests become large enough. That *is* what happened in the 2016 election.

From the minutes:
"Mr. MADISON remarked that as a majority of members wd. make a quorum in the H. of Reps. it would follow from the amendment of Mr. Sherman giving the election to a majority of States, that the President might be elected by two States only, Virga. & Pena. which have 18 members, if these States alone should be present"

Nothing about slaves exists in the minutes of that day when the Electoral College was established!

 

The Founding Fathers knew from history that "true democracies" ALWAYS end badly. Usually at the hand of a dictator.

That's why they set up a Federalist Republic with representatives of the people guided by a Constitution.

 

Funny how the left wing mind works...as long as it benefits them it is OK!

 

Are there that many liberal states? Wow, the cancer is spreading...

 

One more time for the ignorant among us, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. Go look up the difference. Your comment is an opinion and not a very good one. It shows you do not understand the historical reasoning used by the founders to establish a free and lasting nation. It is brilliant in its ability to prevent any group or person from taking over the nation while at the same time giving people a voice.
If this nation falls, it will be because of ignorance such as yours!

 

Ignorance is as ignorance does:
*Democracy = a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
*Republic = a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

There is no fundamental difference between the two except in your twisted mind ...

 

In a democracy, the majority rules.
That's not necessarily the case here.
There you go.

 

Wow a whole year? Lol. It takes decades to study the founding period, the architects of the Constitution, and why each of them thought the way they did. Many ignorant youngsters today think the Constitution is out dated and needs change. What they fail to understand is that human nature is the same as it was, the struggle to achieve a lasting government takes human nature into account based off histories teachings and lessons learned. If you are not a student of history and human nature you likely will fall into the popular vote group. Very dangerous.

 

Rhetoric becomes you so.

Find me one other developed nation that employs an archaic Electoral College that also misrepresents that popular vote to elect the executive as does the US. There is not one where voters at a sub-nation level ("state" in the US) are represented disproportionately in the election of a Head of State with constitutional powers.

Where electoral colleges are employed, the Head of State is selected from the major party controlling the Legislature. If the country has a President, the position is powerless.

Of course not.

From the city-hall to the LaLaLand-on-the-Potomac all elected positions should be by majority vote. Which means this as regards the Legislature:
*The HofR is based upon proportional voting, and
*The Senate is fixed at two senators per state, which gives "states" equal representative status in the designation and passage of laws.

It is really quite simple - you just have to put your mind to the question: How and where does proportionality rule, and where the disproportionality of only two congressmen (or women) rule?

Never took a civics course, I see.

More asininity ...

 

No current Western state uses the popular vote of the people to determine its head of government.

Seems to work OK for the UK, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan...

 

True - they use a parliamentary system of some sort.

But, that's s false argument.

They also don't give extra weight to some districts over and above others, while the PURPOSE of the electoral college is to get more weight to some voters than to others.

In the US, we also give no representation in congress to Washington, DC - even though there are at least two smaller states that have 2 senators and 2 representatives each.

Plus, in our system we allow gerrymandering as a method of letting the party in the majority to put their thumb on the scales to PREVENT equality in democracy.


Please find a prominent western nation that has a government that is LESS REPRESENTATIVE than is ours.

 

And you do not understand that there is no fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic.

Period.

 

Bollocks. You are grossly misinformed.

Any elected head of legislature in many countries is legitimately the head of government ...

None of which have a popularly elected head-of-government unless by means of the Legislature.

We have opted for a tripartite system of governance: Executive*, Legislative and Judicial. All three independent, which maintains a correct balance-of-power ...

*Our only electoral injustice is the Electoral College which is outdated and unnecessary.

 

France does.

And the head of the majority party becomes Prime Minister. It works, all are "directly elected" by voters, without the slightest interference of an "Electoral College" that is disproportionate.

They do directly vote on the PM, since at each election the party-head is, if the party wins a majority, ipso facto, Head of Government. So, the people know who they are electing as Head-of-government when they vote.

Give it up will you. You are WAY out of your depth ...

 

I quite reading at this point. Using ANY past election as your justification for changing voting systems is being, at best, delusional. There is zero question that voting habits would change in a mob rule type voting system. Opposition party in deep red and blue states would would actually have an incentive to go out and vote. On the other hand, it would be the largest voter suppression effort since Jim Crow laws. It would effectively eliminate 80% of the country from the process while consolidating all voting power into just a half dozen major urban areas. Obviously democrats know this and this is the major reason they are so in favor of it.

While the electoral college thats currently in place has some issues that need to be addressed to better align with current voting habits, not those of the 1790s, its far and away the best system of voting in the world.

 

Thank goodness such nonsense will never happen. Leftists are just gonna have to be stuck with the better system we have in place. A system that saved over 3k counties from being ruled by 300...

 

Find me one developed nation with a system of governance thats lasted as long as the US govt has.


The beauty of the EC is that it has no inherent bias towards any ideology or demographic. It's not a perfect solution for today, but its unbiased nature is unmatched anywhere else.

 

Cite a single Western state uses the popular vote of the people to determine its head of government.

According to you, the fact that a Popular Vote does not win the head of government is a major debility for any functional democracy on earth ..
The countries I cited have do not popularly elect their head of government and have no issue with their functioning democracies -- this proves the folly of your statement.

The 2016 election, where the EC did exactly what it was intended to do, proves otherwise.

 

The French President is the head of state, not the head of government.
The French PM, the head of government, is not popularly elected, but appointed by the President.