It isn’t. People have been whining about the electoral college for decades. Like come on bro, stop acting like this is some new wave. It isn’t.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
It's a stabilizing force for our democracy, even if you didn't like the results of last week's election.
By Allen Guelzo and James Hulme November 15, 2016 at 8:57 a.m. EST
There is hardly anything in the Constitution harder to explain, or easier to misunderstand, than the electoral college. And when a presidential election hands the palm to a candidate who comes in second in the popular vote but first in the electoral college tally, something deep in our democratic viscera balks and asks why the electoral college shouldn’t be dumped as a useless relic of 18th century white, gentry privilege.
Actually, there have been only five occasions when a closely divided popular vote and the electoral vote have failed to point in the same direction. No matter. After last week’s results, we’re hearing a litany of complaints: the electoral college is undemocratic, the electoral college is unnecessary, the electoral college was invented to protect slavery — and the demand to push it down the memory hole.
All of which is strange because the electoral college is at the core of our system of federalism. The Founders who sat in the 1787 Constitutional Convention lavished an extraordinary amount of argument on the electoral college, and it was by no means one-sided. The great Pennsylvania jurist James Wilson believed that “if we are to establish a national Government,” the president should be chosen by a direct, national vote of the people. But wise old Roger Sherman of Connecticut replied that the president ought to be elected by Congress, since he feared that direct election of presidents by the people would lead to the creation of a monarchy. “An independence of the Executive [from] the supreme Legislature, was in his opinion the very essence of tyranny if there was any such thing.” Sherman was not trying to undermine the popular will, but to keep it from being distorted by a president who mistook popular election as a mandate for dictatorship. AD
Quarrels like this flared all through the convention, until, at almost the last minute, James Madison “took out a Pen and Paper, and sketched out a mode of Electing the President” by a “college” of “Electors … chosen by those of the people in each State, who shall have the Qualifications requisite.”
The Founders also designed the operation of the electoral college with unusual care. The portion of Article 2, Section 1, describing the electoral college is longer and descends to more detail than any other single issue the Constitution addresses. More than the federal judiciary — more than the war powers — more than taxation and representation. It prescribes in precise detail how “Each State shall appoint … a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”; how these electors “shall vote by Ballot” for a president and vice president; how they “shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate” the results of their balloting; how a tie vote must be resolved; what schedule the balloting should follow; and on and on.
Above all, the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Some historians have branded the electoral college this way because each state’s electoral votes are based on that “whole Number of Senators and Representatives” from each State, and in 1787 the number of those representatives was calculated on the basis of the infamous 3/5ths clause. But the electoral college merely reflected the numbers, not any bias about slavery (and in any case, the 3/5ths clause was not quite as proslavery a compromise as it seems, since Southern slaveholders wanted their slaves counted as 5/5ths for determining representation in Congress, and had to settle for a whittled-down fraction). As much as the abolitionists before the Civil War liked to talk about the “proslavery Constitution,” this was more of a rhetorical posture than a serious historical argument. And the simple fact remains, from the record of the Constitutional Convention’s proceedings (James Madison’s famous Notes), that the discussions of the electoral college and the method of electing a president never occur in the context of any of the convention’s two climactic debates over slavery. AD
If anything, it was the electoral college that made it possible to end slavery, since Abraham Lincoln earned only 39 percent of the popular vote in the election of 1860, but won a crushing victory in the electoral college. This, in large measure, was why Southern slaveholders stampeded to secession in 1860-61. They could do the numbers as well as anyone, and realized that the electoral college would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents.
Yet, even on those terms, it is hard for Americans to escape the uncomfortable sense that, by inserting an extra layer of “electors” between the people and the president, the electoral college is something less than democratic. But even if we are a democratic nation, that is not all we are. The Constitution also makes us a federal union, and the electoral college is pre-eminently both the symbol and a practical implementation of that federalism.
The states of the union existed before the Constitution, and in a practical sense, existed long before the revolution. Nothing guaranteed that, in 1776, the states would all act together, and nothing that guaranteed that after the Revolution they might not go their separate and quarrelsome ways, much like the German states of the 18th century or the South American republics in the 19th century. The genius of the Constitutional Convention was its ability to entice the American states into a “more perfect union.” But it was still a union of states, and we probably wouldn’t have had a constitution or a country at all unless the route we took was federalism. AD
The electoral college was an integral part of that federal plan. It made a place for the states as well as the people in electing the president by giving them a say at different points in a federal process and preventing big-city populations from dominating the election of a president.
Abolishing the electoral college now might satisfy an irritated yearning for direct democracy, but it would also mean dismantling federalism. After that, there would be no sense in having a Senate (which, after all, represents the interests of the states), and further along, no sense even in having states, except as administrative departments of the central government. Those who wish to abolish the electoral college ought to go the distance, and do away with the entire federal system and perhaps even retire the Constitution, since the federalism it was designed to embody would have disappeared.
None of that, ironically, is liable to produce a more democratic election system. There are plenty of democracies, like Great Britain, where no one ever votes directly for a head of the government. But more important, the electoral college actually keeps presidential elections from going undemocratically awry because it makes unlikely the possibility that third-party candidates will garner enough votes to make it onto the electoral scoreboard. AD
Without the electoral college, there would be no effective brake on the number of “viable” presidential candidates. Abolish it, and it would not be difficult to imagine a scenario where, in a field of a dozen micro-candidates, the “winner” only needs 10 percent of the vote, and represents less than 5 percent of the electorate. And presidents elected with smaller and smaller pluralities will only aggravate the sense that an elected president is governing without a real electoral mandate.
The electoral college has been a major, even if poorly comprehended, mechanism for stability in a democracy, something which democracies are sometimes too flighty to appreciate. It may appear inefficient. But the Founders were not interested in efficiency; they were interested in securing “the blessings of liberty.” The electoral college is, in the end, not a bad device for securing that.
2018 - 52.26M people voted for a Democratic Senator, 34.72M people voted for a republican Senator
2016 - 51.49M people voted for a Democratic Senator, 40.40M people voted for a republican senator
2014 - 20.87M people voted for a democratic senator, 24.63M people voted for a republican senator
Currently, about 1/3 of the senators come from each election. So in the last three elections: 124.6M people have voted to be represented by a Democratic Senator, and 99.75M people have voted to be represented by a Republican Senator
And Republicans Control the Senate 53-45-2...
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
here's a quick video that explains how it works and why it was created in the first place.
i've said this before, but i think its hilariously pathetic that americans who move overseas can still mail in a vote, but americans who move/live in US territories aren't allowed to.
so if i go move to canada, i can still vote. but if i move to PR, where i'm still an american citizen on the american system....nah cuz.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
here's a quick video that explains how it works and why it was created in the first place.
i've said this before, but i think its hilariously pathetic that americans who move overseas can still mail in a vote, but americans who move/live in US territories aren't allowed to.
so if i go move to canada, i can still vote. but if i move to PR, where i'm still an american citizen on the american system....nah cuz.
We don't need no ballots from those crap hole countries!!!!!
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
I love that the same folk who constantly whine about gerrymandering want to abolish the entire system in their favor. I mean, it's exhausting trying to keep up with this hypocrisy. Will justify it to themselves in any way.
I do not believe in homogeneous society. I think having different states with different cultures should be heard in the same way that California and New York would be. Abolishing the electoral college would lead to 1984 type of group think. The largest cities controlling the country from their hubs, somehow people think that would be good for the country......
I love that the same folk who constantly whine about gerrymandering want to abolish the entire system in their favor. I mean, it's exhausting trying to keep up with this hypocrisy. Will justify it to themselves in any way.
In both cases we are arguing for the votes of each person to be counted equally... no hypocrisy there...
If every vote was counted equally - Democrats would win more elections.
Actually - what no one accounts for -- is that if every vote was counted equally, the Republican party would shift very slightly to the left (to draw in more centrists), and the split would still be 50/50.
And in that America, the opinion of legislatures would more closely match their constituents.
Seems like a win to me.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
Unless I missed a comment from someone else - I think I was the only person who mentioned gerrymandering. And I didn't suggest dropping the Electoral College, I said let's just beat Trump.
Regarding gerrymandering - you dismiss it as if it's an acceptable "tactic" .... I disagree. Strongly. You can call that "whining" if you like and then chose to dismiss it? I guess that's your right. I know why you'd dismiss it.
Of the 59 seats that were shifted per election due to partisan gerrymandering, 20 shifted in favor of Democrats while 39 shifted in favor of Republicans. This means that from 2012 to 2016, the net two-party impact amounted to an average gain of 19 Republican seats per election, which is still more than the number of seats in a dozen U.S. states.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
2018 - 52.26M people voted for a Democratic Senator, 34.72M people voted for a republican Senator
2016 - 51.49M people voted for a Democratic Senator, 40.40M people voted for a republican senator
2014 - 20.87M people voted for a democratic senator, 24.63M people voted for a republican senator
Currently, about 1/3 of the senators come from each election. So in the last three elections: 124.6M people have voted to be represented by a Democratic Senator, and 99.75M people have voted to be represented by a Republican Senator
And Republicans Control the Senate 53-45-2...
Not sure of the point you're trying to make. Some of those states favor republicans, some democrats. National stats mean nothing.
I love that the same folk who constantly whine about gerrymandering want to abolish the entire system in their favor. I mean, it's exhausting trying to keep up with this hypocrisy. Will justify it to themselves in any way.
In both cases we are arguing for the votes of each person to be counted equally... no hypocrisy there...
If every vote was counted equally - Democrats would win more elections.
Actually - what no one accounts for -- is that if every vote was counted equally, the Republican party would shift very slightly to the left (to draw in more centrists), and the split would still be 50/50.
And in that America, the opinion of legislatures would more closely match their constituents.
Seems like a win to me.
If there were more Republicans, would you still want a popular vote? For some reason, I doubt this is the case.
You want a way to ensure that your side wins.
Hyperpartisanship is the problem. Trying to change the system so that your side will win would likely have consequences that you're not considering.
Look, I would love for the system to change, but just changing the surface so that Democrats win more isn't the answer. Putting different icing on a rancid cake won't fix things.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
I love that the same folk who constantly whine about gerrymandering want to abolish the entire system in their favor. I mean, it's exhausting trying to keep up with this hypocrisy. Will justify it to themselves in any way.
In both cases we are arguing for the votes of each person to be counted equally... no hypocrisy there...
If every vote was counted equally - Democrats would win more elections.
Actually - what no one accounts for -- is that if every vote was counted equally, the Republican party would shift very slightly to the left (to draw in more centrists), and the split would still be 50/50.
And in that America, the opinion of legislatures would more closely match their constituents.
Seems like a win to me.
I always find the electoral college argument funny. Democrats forget that ca was reliably republican until 1992. CA was democrat from 1952 until the civil war. It shifted republican until 1932 with fdr. It shifted back republican in 1952 for ike, and remained republican until 1992, with the exception of 1964. You guys will be screaming for the electoral college whem CA shifts again
Unless I missed a comment from someone else - I think I was the only person who mentioned gerrymandering. And I didn't suggest dropping the Electoral College, I said let's just beat Trump.
Regarding gerrymandering - you dismiss it as if it's an acceptable "tactic" .... I disagree. Strongly. You can call that "whining" if you like and then chose to dismiss it? I guess that's your right. I know why you'd dismiss it.
Of the 59 seats that were shifted per election due to partisan gerrymandering, 20 shifted in favor of Democrats while 39 shifted in favor of Republicans. This means that from 2012 to 2016, the net two-party impact amounted to an average gain of 19 Republican seats per election, which is still more than the number of seats in a dozen U.S. states.
I did no such thing, don't put words in my mouth.
I think you're proving my point here. You've just taken gerrymandering, changed the verbiage and sent it to the highest level possible. That is essentially what abolishing the college comes down to.
Changing the district lines is peanut by comparison.
If there were more Republicans, would you still want a popular vote?
yes.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
If there were more Republicans, would you still want a popular vote? For some reason, I doubt this is the case.
Yes - I want people to have the same say in government, regardless of where they live.
Quote:
You want a way to ensure that your side wins.
This isn't some weird "gerrymandered argument" -- in fact, the very idea of the Census (enshrined in the constitution) is that people should have equal say in government regardless of where they lived.
The Senate was based on preserving states rights -- at a very different time when states were barely united -- it's a vestige of the past.
Quote:
Hyperpartisanship is the problem. Trying to change the system so that your side will win would likely have consequences that you're not considering.
There are a number of House and Senate members (both Democrat and Republican) who know that they have no chance of being defeated by the other side. If they were -- they would be forced to take up more moderate positions.
Quote:
Look, I would love for the system to change, but just changing the surface so that Democrats win more isn't the answer. Putting different icing on a rancid cake won't fix things.
I don't understand how it is "so Democrats win more" -- the goal is to have a person in North Dakota, a person in California, and a person in Ohio have a similar say in the choice of the president.
Right now - a person in North Dakota, and a person in California have no say in Government. Only the person in Ohio matters.
That is wrong.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
2018 - 52.26M people voted for a Democratic Senator, 34.72M people voted for a republican Senator
2016 - 51.49M people voted for a Democratic Senator, 40.40M people voted for a republican senator
2014 - 20.87M people voted for a democratic senator, 24.63M people voted for a republican senator
Currently, about 1/3 of the senators come from each election. So in the last three elections: 124.6M people have voted to be represented by a Democratic Senator, and 99.75M people have voted to be represented by a Republican Senator
And Republicans Control the Senate 53-45-2...
Not sure of the point you're trying to make. Some of those states favor republicans, some democrats. National stats mean nothing.
The question is: "Does the current makeup of the senate represent the people who vote for senators"
The answer is: "It does not."
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
I like how people act like our constitution and systems hasn’t changed since 1776.
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.
So glad this is in the debate thread, #DEBATABLE
And you sure get insulted easy, maybe you are too thin skinned for politics.
But everyone's vote counting the same would be fair and they would lose. They will never allow that.
It might be "fair," but it could very well lead to Civil War part II. We might be headed that way anyway.
I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that in this country, the majority rules. But, that is clearly not the case with the Presidential election.
It's funny, but if we just counted the votes, Al Gore would have won and so would have Hillary.
If you really want to change something, make Gerrymandering illegal (if it isn't already). Make Voter Suppression punishable up to 10 years in prison..
Also, make it so nobody can close polling stations like so many states have done this year.
Just some thoughts
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
I understand the need to have everyone's vote count, especially when it comes to electing the president.
But basically getting rid of the Senate? After all the federal government has done to to gain power over the state governments since the founding of our country? We might as well just get rid of states too, right?
This country has never been "majority rules." Why? Because that form of government really stinks, and our founding father's knew that (research the tyranny of the majority). Majority rule is how you get the 51% ruling over the 49%. There needs to be protections for the minority. It can't just be "majority rules."
I can't understand how someone, in good faith, can say the we need to expand the power of the federal government by instituting socialist programs that are mandatory for all citizens, while then saying that "majority rules."
Sounds like some of you want a "Hunger Games" government, where then densely populated East and West coasts control the federal government, and lord over the less populated middle America, even though they have no idea what life is actually like in a rural area. Is that really what you want?
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?
Obviously not because if they did, they wouldn't think that way.
I am not worried about it. 38 states are needed to amend the constitution. No way that happens.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
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?
Obviously not because if they did, they wouldn't think that way.
I am not worried about it. 38 states are needed to amend the constitution. No way that happens.
That's just not fair to those that think California and New York should decide what's best for the entire country.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
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?
Obviously not because if they did, they wouldn't think that way.
I am not worried about it. 38 states are needed to amend the constitution. No way that happens.
That's just not fair to those that think California and New York should decide what's best for the entire country.
New York and California can’t decide anything. They’re states, not citizens. The citizens of this country should have equal say though. Despite where they live.
We are a republic of independent states. Get that through your head and then you might begin to understand how this country was set up.
If it wasn't, the framers would have never required 2/3 of states to ratify a constitutional change. They would have left if to popular vote.
Get the people of the less populated states to think your way, you will get your change. Don't sit here and whine about it.
Not under trump they don't... Anytime a state doesn't do what he wants them to do, or a state votes against him, like California did and will do again, he tries to retaliate... He's a vengeful little man.
The only time he allows states to have thier way is if he doesn't want to take responsibility.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
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?
Obviously not because if they did, they wouldn't think that way.
I am not worried about it. 38 states are needed to amend the constitution. No way that happens.
De jure, but de facto you only need 270 states worth of electoral votes to agree to assign their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote.
>170 electoral votes worth of states have already passed such laws:
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
And I believe almost all of them are being challenged in court. Can you imagine the outcry if Trump or any republican wins the popular vote in this or a later election? All those blue state electors would have to vote for Trump.
And I believe almost all of them are being challenged in court. Can you imagine the outcry if Trump or any republican wins the popular vote in this or a later election? All those blue state electors would have to vote for Trump.
Yes - that would be the point...
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
And I believe almost all of them are being challenged in court. Can you imagine the outcry if Trump or any republican wins the popular vote in this or a later election? All those blue state electors would have to vote for Trump.
Yes - that would be the point...
So, if the people of a blue state voted dem, and the electors has to vote red because of the popular vote, you think that's right?
And I believe almost all of them are being challenged in court. Can you imagine the outcry if Trump or any republican wins the popular vote in this or a later election? All those blue state electors would have to vote for Trump.
Yes - that would be the point...
So, if the people of a blue state voted dem, and the electors has to vote red because of the popular vote, you think that's right?
Why not just get rid of all the states?
Yes - I think that is correct. The president presides over everybody - and so all people should have an equal vote.
States do a ton of different things other than just elect the president -- schools, energy, housing rules, alcohol/drug rules, highways, etc. By living in a state, you get a unique say in that process. By living in a small state, you get a pretty big say in that process.
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
We are a republic of independent states. Get that through your head and then you might begin to understand how this country was set up.
If it wasn't, the framers would have never required 2/3 of states to ratify a constitutional change. They would have left if to popular vote.
Get the people of the less populated states to think your way, you will get your change. Don't sit here and whine about it.
Not under trump they don't... Anytime a state doesn't do what he wants them to do, or a state votes against him, like California did and will do again, he tries to retaliate... He's a vengeful little man.
The only time he allows states to have thier way is if he doesn't want to take responsibility.
LOL....Geesh
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Get the people of the less populated states to think your way, you will get your change. Don't sit here and whine about it.
If those smaller states ran themselves better then maybe people would want to live in them. Sorry but people flock to the coasts for a reason. Jobs, education, lifestyle... etc. Notice no one is packing their bags for Alabama or Mississippi. Wonder why that is? But those left behind in those poorly run, poorly educated states should have more say than the ones that left for a better life I guess. Stupid logic in my mind.
Get the people of the less populated states to think your way, you will get your change. Don't sit here and whine about it.
If those smaller states ran themselves better then maybe people would want to live in them. Sorry but people flock to the coasts for a reason. Jobs, education, lifestyle... etc. Notice no one is packing their bags for Alabama or Mississippi. Wonder why that is? But those left behind in those poorly run, poorly educated states should have more say than the ones that left for a better life I guess. Stupid logic in my mind.
You don't even know people are leaving CA and NY in droves right now. That's pretty sad.
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/fkjZc8B/Bull-Dawg-Sig-smaller.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)