DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Gallup: 61 percent support abolishing the Electoral College

Gallup: 61 percent support abolishing the Electoral College

A strong majority of Americans support amending the U.S. Constitution to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote system, according to a new poll from Gallup.

The survey found that 61 percent support moving to a popular vote system, up 6 points from 2019 and up 12 points from 2016.

Eighty-nine percent of Democrats and 68 percent of independents support replacing the Electoral College system, while only 23 percent of Republicans favor moving to a popular vote system.

President Trump won the Electoral College in 2016 despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by about 3 million votes.

A candidate has won the White House while losing the popular vote only four times in U.S. history. But it’s happened twice in the past five presidential elections, with Trump and George W. Bush both winning the White House and losing the popular vote count.

At the moment, public sentiment is near what it was after Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore in 2000, when 60 percent supported abolishing the Electoral College and 36 percent opposed.

Democratic support for abolishing the Electoral College is the highest on record, while GOP support is near its all-time low.

The nation was fairly evenly divided when Gallup polled the question after Trump’s victory in November of 2016, when 49 percent supported amending the Constitution and 47 percent opposed it.

It would require a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress and 75 percent support among the 50 states to abolish the Electoral College, an extremely unlikely prospect in this polarized political environment.

The Gallup survey of 1,019 U.S. adults was conducted Aug. 31-Sept. 13 and has a 4 percentage point margin of error.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/51...ectoral-college

100 percent from less populated States oppose.

Once Democrats control 51% of the electoral college votes - then this doesn't matter...

Just pass laws stating that Electoral College votes from all states go to the winner of the popular vote.

I think you will need a Constitutional Amendment to do that.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

You do not.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/electoral-college

You may occasionally (depending on the state) require the state constitution to be amended.

The closest the United States has come to abolishing the Electoral College occurred during the 91st Congress (1969–1971).[1] The presidential election of 1968 resulted in Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes (56% of electors), Hubert Humphrey 191 (35.5%), and George Wallace 46 (8.5%) with 13.5% of the popular vote. However, Nixon had received only 511,944 more popular votes than Humphrey, 43.5% to 42.9%, less than 1% of the national total.[2]

Representative Emanuel Celler (D–New York), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, responded to public concerns over the disparity between the popular vote and electoral vote by introducing House Joint Resolution 681, a proposed Constitutional amendment that would have replaced the Electoral College with a simpler two-round system based on the national popular vote, similar to that used in French presidential elections. With this system, the pair of candidates who had received the highest number of votes would win the presidency and vice presidency provided they won at least 40% of the national popular vote. If no pair received 40% of the popular vote, a runoff election would be held in which the choice of president and vice president would be made from the two pairs of persons who had received the highest number of votes in the first election. The word "pair" was defined as "two persons who shall have consented to the joining of their names as candidates for the offices of President and Vice President."[3]

On April 29, 1969, the House Judiciary Committee voted 28 to 6 to approve the proposal.[4] Debate on the proposal before the full House of Representatives ended on September 11, 1969[5] and was eventually passed with bipartisan support on September 18, 1969, by a vote of 339 to 70.[6]

On September 30, 1969, President Richard Nixon gave his endorsement for adoption of the proposal, encouraging the Senate to pass its version of the proposal, which had been sponsored as Senate Joint Resolution 1 by Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana).[7]

On October 8, 1969, the New York Times reported that 30 state legislatures were "either certain or likely to approve a constitutional amendment embodying the direct election plan if it passes its final Congressional test in the Senate." Ratification of 38 state legislatures would have been needed for adoption. The paper also reported that six other states had yet to state a preference, six were leaning toward opposition and eight were solidly opposed.[8]

On August 14, 1970, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent its report advocating passage of the proposal to the full Senate. The Judiciary Committee had approved the proposal by a vote of 11 to 6. The six members who opposed the plan, Democratic Senators James Eastland of Mississippi, John Little McClellan of Arkansas, and Sam Ervin of North Carolina, along with Republican Senators Roman Hruska of Nebraska, Hiram Fong of Hawaii, and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, all argued that although the present system had potential loopholes, it had worked well throughout the years. Senator Bayh indicated that supporters of the measure were about a dozen votes shy from the 67 needed for the proposal to pass the full Senate.[9] He called upon President Nixon to attempt to persuade undecided Republican senators to support the proposal.[10] However, Nixon, while not reneging on his previous endorsement, chose not to make any further personal appeals to back the proposal.[11]

On September 8, 1970, the Senate commenced openly debating the proposal[12] and the proposal was quickly filibustered. The lead objectors to the proposal were mostly Southern senators and conservatives from small states, both Democrats and Republicans, who argued abolishing the Electoral College would reduce their states' political influence.[11] On September 17, 1970, a motion for cloture, which would have ended the filibuster, received 54 votes to 36 for cloture,[11] failing to receive the required two-thirds majority of senators voting.[13] A second motion for cloture on September 29, 1970, also failed, by 53 to 34. Thereafter, the Senate majority leader, Mike Mansfield of Montana, moved to lay the proposal aside so the Senate could attend to other business.[14] However, the proposal was never considered again and died when the 91st Congress ended on January 3, 1971.

Depending on what map you review there are currently 25 Red States, and the rest Blue or Purple. (purple leaning either way)

Anyway, to make the point you make is like saying, if you are in a High population state, your vote shouldn't count as much as a person from a low population state.

Roughly 63 million voted for Trump, 65 Million voted for Clinton and roughly another 5 or 6 million voted for "other".

One vote from New York should mean the same as one vote from Arkansas.

A Vote is a Vote,,,no matter where it's cast.

But everyone's vote counting the same would be fair and they would lose. They will never allow that.

This is true.

Personally I am not in favor of having this conversation before the election. I don't need or want to change the attention from Trump and how bad he is for the country. Let's just get enough votes to get him out.

And personally I think the blatant and extensive gerrymandering by the GOP is much worse. Yes the Dems have done it too - but nothing like on the same level.

That would be the case if this were a democracy. This country is not. It is a representative republic.

I never actually claimed otherwise. I said that it will never be changed to where everyone's vote will count the same. As with anything that could change in the future though.

I mean every election held in this country is decided by the majority with the exception of the president. So we only have one to go.

Read this, maybe it will help you understand:

https://act.represent.us/sign/democracy-republic/

It might be "fair," but it could very well lead to Civil War part II. We might be headed that way anyway.

It's not something I'm necessary arguing for (though many states have already passed such laws).

I think the much more reasonable, and proactive step would be DC/PR statehood.

My opinion on the topic:

Why the Electoral College is important:
Without it, there would be a huge disparity for the wants of the urban vs rural areas.

The problem with the Electoral College:
Not every vote counts. If you are a republican in NY or California why bother voting? The state's electoral college votes are going to the democrat running for president. If you live in Alabama or Mississippi and are a democrat, why vote? The electoral college votes are going to the republican candidate.

My Solution:
I think Maine has it right.
Keep the electoral college but get rid of the all or nothing. Do it like Maine. Each state divides up its electoral college votes rather than giving all of them to one candidate.

I don't get this part? The electoral college locks in a huge disparity between the relative voting power of people in rural vs. urban states.

If there was a popular vote for president, then sure California matters more than Arkansas, but then a person in California matters the same as a person in Arkansas.

That seems more important to me.

jc

Definitely - why is it a bad thing that every citizen's vote is counted equally?

Land doesn't vote.

Why is it good that smaller states will be silenced?

Because states aren't important... people are important.

Then why are there borders between them? Why are there different laws? Why can some have legal pot, but not all?

The United States is a federation of separate states, or countries. At least that was the original intent. Something that works in CA does not work in AR. People in IA don't want to live like people in WA. One size fits all does not work in this country.

j/c:

I am not going to argue w/the one-sided folks, but I understand the importance of the Electoral College. Do people research why it's important and why it was implemented before they start spouting off their opinions?

No, they don't.

If people are important, why do you want a process that screws over the people living in smaller states? 10 states have more than 50% of the population. Where are candidates going to go for votes? Those 10 states. Who are policies going to benefit? The people in the larger states in order to win votes. They no longer need to care about the smaller states as they are no longer needed to win.

The electorial college requires help from the smaller states to win. After all, this is the United States.

Yes. I encourage folks to research why the Electoral College was implemented? Why it is important? And, what it would take to get rid of it?

It is my opinion that people are making emotional decisions rather than informed decisions on this topic.

The last election is exactly why we have the electoral college. Trump lost California by 4 million votes, and won the rest of the country by 1 million votes. One cluster of people in one state shouldn't decide the presidency. Like Erik said, it's the "United States" of America.

Precisely. And then there's the 'but, but, but, but" people.

Yep. And there actually was a debate back in the day when we were writing the Constitution. Arguments were made for both sides. Men, such as James Wilson wanted a popular vote. Roger Sherman argued that that would lead to a monarchy. James Madison was instrumental in why we made the decision we did. The Founding Fathers put a lot of thought into this. It was a long-range plan that was designed to ensure the Federalist views that this nation embraced.

1.) The electoral college doesn't solve the first problem you mentioned. It makes it worse.

Right now, presidential candidates only go to: Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin, and then occasionally to Ohio, Texas, Nevada.

If you have a popular vote for president - then the presidential candidates would go wherever the people actually are.

2.) You are making a (very odd) assertion that states are homogeneous. Sure - the votes in San Francisco matter more if we have a popular vote for president. But so do the (very republican) votes in rural California -- which do not matter at all now, because their choice for president is entirely decided by the fact that are grouped with San Franciscans. Popular voting is good for those people too.

3.) "Popular vote for president" does not mean "States don't mean anything" -- as you pointed out, states can still pass their own laws on: state taxes, roads, guns, abortion, electricity, schools, drugs, etc. By living in a small state you have much more control over what your state is doing than you do when you live in a large state. That doesn't change based on the presidential vote.

I reject the notion that the founding fathers were particularly better, or more insightful, than 200 years of philosophers, politicians and government workers and citizens who have lived since.

For example, they were 100 years behind everybody else when it comes to slavery.

And as I said above - PR/DC statehood is a better, and more practical path forward than removing the EC. But removing the EC would be good for American democracy.

True...now we have a radical government that is smarter then all the scientists in the world.

I like how people act like our constitution and systems hasn’t changed since 1776.

People really showing ignorance by trying to act like we don’t know how or why the electoral college exist.

Slavery was an American system too, and we changed it. Only white land owners could vote, and we changed it.

Women couldn’t vote, until we changed it. The FBI and CIA didn’t exist until the 1940-50’s.

We didn’t have 50 states in America until 1959. 10 years later, we FINALLY made interracial marriage legal.

I dunno why we got people acting like everything in this country has been set in stone when the complete opposite is true.

And then got the audacity to quote the founding fathers over the topic as if they’re gods.

These dudes declared all men were created equal while simultaneously having black men and women in chains......

Oh, nvm. now I get why some people talk about them like they’re gods. Carry on.

Well, of course you would want DC/PR to be granted statehood. Such a move would swing the balance of power to the Democratic party. I think maintaining a balance is important. Thus, I reject the DC/PR idea and also doing away w/the Electoral College.

We have a difference of opinion and I'm fine w/that. I won't try and persuade you to change your mind and I won't get into a back-and-forth w/others who will follow by trying to make things personal.

That is not what I said. I brought up the point because it was debated and they had a lengthy conversation on it. It wasn't something they just threw together. It was a debate. And btw......I am far from ignorant. But, you just keep resorting to hurling insults around because that sure helps win an argument.

Good post man ... no wonder the meat of it was ignored. Next we'll have a post that says "anyone that wants to debate this topic without challenging my opinion can PM me"

I still think we should focus on simply winning the election.

Preferably the Dems can win the Senate too and then they can play hardball and force through the DC/PR statehoods. Reciprocate the Trump playbook ... I've stopped calling it the GOP playbook because the GOP has totally subjugated themselves to Trump.

It would certainly swing power **toward** the democratic party -- but the average republican state would still have more power/voter in the senate even after DC/PR statehood.

This just helps make it slightly more fair.

I believe, according to Silver, you have to add 6 democratic states into the union before you actually make the senate balanced (so the average democratic state has as much representation as the average republican state)

Yep. People keep telling others to educate/do the research, yet can’t even practice what they preach on the topics being discussed.

Well, they did get a lot of thing right, and what this country's accomplished in it's short existence is nothing short of phenominal. The blueprint the founding fathers laid out absolutely had flaws and those should be and have been addressed, but we shouldn't just change things on a whim for political gain.

Just FYI for the board, PR becoming a state has been discussed even under republican leadership.

Because BOTH parties don’t view it as “swinging the balance” lmfao. They view it as American citizens NOT getting fair representation that the constitution is supposed to provide.

But of course we have trump supporters now talking about PR as if they aren’t Americans.