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

From here: (Vox) Poll: most people who voted in 2016 want to abolish the Electoral College



'Nuff said ... ?

 

Yeah but the very purpose of the electoral college is to disregard the opinion of the majority, so this poll is invalid

 

lol wow, that isn't skewed at all...

 

That would be expected. Most people favor democracy. In that spirit I suggest the practice of caucuses should also be abolished. Isn't it time we, as a nation, grew up?

 

No. The Electoral College can only be changed by Constitutional Amendment which requires a majority of the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states.

But, big States could easily break into smaller states. CA for example, could break into several smaller states, and greatly increase the electoral college representation of the folks with in the current state's borders. Under the 6 state plan they would have a total of 64 ECV rather than the current 55 and would have much better representation in the US Senate.

 

Then let's get started on a Constitutional Amendment. First, we must rid ourselves of Donald Dork, and that will take another four years ...

 

If this was to happen it would truly signal the end of the United States.

 

OP, if that would happen then kiss goodbye the reps ever getting in again. America as we know it would be over. If push came to shove and the college was abolished it would be hopefully the time to break the US into 2 unions...the rep and dem run unions.

 

Want in one hand....$hi+ in the other....observe which one fills up faster.

Our Founding Fathers gave us the magnificence of the Electoral College....for a very significant reason: for our own good.

Be glad we have it. Without it, we'd be at the mercy of liberal enclaves of dependent-minded collectivist lemmings all stacked atop one another thinking in mindless, obsequious unison.

The first step down the dangerous road of pure democracy is enacting a purely “popular vote” system of electing our president. After that, it would “progress” (actually “regress&#8221 into purely democratic processes for public policy, laws, economic/trade policy, etc.

Contrary to the thoughts of some of the more socialist/communist-minded fools on this thread, you have to ask yourself one serious question about the prospect of a "popular vote" system to elect our President:

Do you truly believe the majority of U.S. citizens can make educated, informed decisions?

Examples from across the world clearly show that fully democratic elections produce, at best, mediocre leadership and policies. At worst, well - you can do your own research and figure that out for yourself.

Incompetent people are inherently unable to judge the competence of other people or the quality of their ideas. That’s why they are “incompetent”! Doesn’t that make sense? They simply lack either the mental tools or the motivation needed for them to actually educate themselves on important issues and make meaningful judgments.

And you want THOSE people to make decisions - with no intermediary system as a failsafe - that affect not only our people, but the rest of the world?

If so, you have a hell of a lot more faith in the American voting electorate than I do!


Bottom line: democracies fail - under their own weight - for several reasons....but the one common factor is that they do fail!


The following quote has been attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish-born, British professor, lawyer, writer, and historian who lived during the launching of a new democracy - The United States of America:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

He went on to say....

“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage”


We're at 240 years old now....I'd like to think we can shoot for a bit more. However, we're already somewhere between complacency to apathy.

Switching to "popular vote" will only hasten our demise.


No - I think we should keep the Electoral College.

So should you. If we changed, we'd realize it was a mistake -- but only after it was too late.

 

lol, yeah, cause the person with the most votes is not the winner in every other election but this one

Trump got the least votes, Trump won.... who says no prize for coming in second

.

 

I'm sure the dems are planning it. If not write them. If Hil had got in she may have thought about doing it. Dumping the college may force the break up of the states into 2 unions and the reps will be guaranteed to have some states for the conservatives. The breakup would be of the reps initiative. But they are so stupid sometimes the reps may think they will still get back in without a breakup.

 

The founders did not see a good reason to include the public in selecting presidents. The role of president is not to run states, but to be the administrator over the tiny government of DC.

I am sure had the founders intended the president to have awesome power, they would have simply created a new state of sufficient size so all federal operations could be located centrally.

We spent decades where the public played zero role in who became president.

I have lobbied forums to return to that system.

 

Trump wanted it abolished after Obama was elected in 2012... when he thought Obama was gonna lose the popular vote....

 

You are making absolutely no sense.
1. The president has no say in a constitutional amendment. None.
2. Your comment doesn't even interact with what a large State like CA can do now to increase ECV representation, break into several smaller states.
3. If Trump runs for re-election, he will win. If he doesn't, the GOP has just as good of a chance of winning as Dems do, perhaps even slightly better. Pence could easily win two terms.
4. You will never get 3/4ths of the States to let go of the electoral college. The 13 smallest states will simply band together to prevent a few Regional cities from controlling the entire nation.
5. The Electoral College was designed to prevent a Regional Candidate from winning national election, it worked perfectly in 2016.
6. The disparity between the popular vote and the ECV is caused by the fact that a few states have vastly outgrown themselves, compared to the balance of the states.

Senate Representation is even worse and that cannot be altered, even by Constitutional Amendment.

These 62 Senators represent 1/4th of the population of the US.


So do these 6.


But, the solution again is the same, these big states need to break into smaller states.

 

The election is not based on the public votes. It is based on states voting. Most forget that today, states submit to the national archives for permanent record their votes for presidents. Those count. Those are tabulated in January.

Trump blasted Hillary when it came to number of states won. Counties won by Trump made it seem Hillary was not even in the running. Trump demolished Hillary counting counties.

 

Obama did not win due to the popular vote. Obama won both times due to the electoral college.

 

That's why the title is POTUS and not POTPV.
President of the United States
President of the Popular Vote

 

no one said it was, does't change what I said

the person that got the least votes won, that is just a fact, Trump lost the popular vote, Clinton lost the Presidency even though she got more votes then Trump

.

 

Nobody said it changes facts.

The fact is the popular vote is not significant given the actual election is over numbers of states won and adding up the electoral votes. This is the founders original system. Never has been the popular vote. And you can't change what I just said either.

 

Our Nations Founders were incredibly wise. Those that desire wisdom can find a reflection of that in your post. Those that are "wise in their own eyes", can settle for pure democracy....leading to bondage.

 

Those against the Electoral College are ignorant of how it works and why it was set up. If you do the research and have common sense then you will be in favor of the Electoral College. Know your subject before expounding on it.

 

The founders and framers knew we, the United States was a union of the several states. Being a union of the several states they decided to let each state choose by what ever means each state deemed how each state would vote for the presidency via the electoral college. Fear of tyranny by the majority was well founded. Each state had a voice in the electoral process depending on its size or population.

Now each state according to the constitution can decide how to distribute its electoral votes. We have winner take all in 48 states and D.C. But two states, Maine and Nebraska award their electoral by whom won their congressional district with 2 electoral votes to whomever won their state. Other methods are constitutional accepted. In fact prior to the civil war, most states went with whom their state legislature voted for and the people didn't vote in quite a lot of states.

Personally, I think we need to come up with a better way of selecting whom will be the nominees we vote on in November. Our two major parties use to represent 80% plus of all Americans. That is 80% of all Americans identified or affiliated themselves with our two major parties. Today according to Gallup that is down to 57%. That's means 43% of all Americans don't consider themselves to be Republicans or Democrats. The two major parties continue to loose strength. With closed primaries and caucuses, it also means 43% of all Americans have no say whom the two parties choose. Hence the choices of two very disliked, even hated candidates for president last year.

The fact is that our founding fathers, framers hated the thought of political parties. They called them factions. They feared once they came into being that people would put loyalty to party above country, the good of the party above this nation which has come to pass.

 

That's a very good explanation! I have no doubt the country would be divided even more than now if the east and west coast were the deciders of how the country was being run.

Steve

 

Getting 3/4ths of the states to pass it will be the biggest hurdle. If we truly want an and ment that will do something let's start with term limits.

 

Amen bro. Politicians get on the gravy train and ride it far too long. Let them return to real life and get a job, after two terms, just like the president. But no retirement benefits, unlike the president.