Should we eliminate the electoral college??

[HoughMade]

This whole discussion reminds me of Billy Squier's big hit from 1981, and to a lesser extent Mickey Avalon's minor "hit" of 2009.

It's not going to be changed any time soon.

...but hey, 8 pages into at least the 3rd or 4th discussion on this topic.

 

[chipbennett]

Actually yes. I've come across people making the form of argument, "we are a republic, therefore we must keep the EC." But that's nonsense because the EC isn't what makes us a republic. All else staying the same, we'd still be a republic without it. My objection is justifying the EC in such wording that it implies we would somehow cease to be a Republic if we got rid of the EC and elected a president by popular vote.

At this point, if we eliminate the EC, we would have very little remaining of a republic. The Senate being elected by popular vote was a bigger blow, and allowing the fed.gov to tax individuals directly has facilitated untold encroachment, but the EC would be close to the nail in the coffin.

 

[jamil]

At this point, if we eliminate the EC, we would have very little remaining of a republic. The Senate being elected by popular vote was a bigger blow, and allowing the fed.gov to tax individuals directly has facilitated untold encroachment, but the EC would be close to the nail in the coffin.

What the hell are you talking about? A republic is essentially a representative form of government. States appointing Senators didn't make us a Republic. We didn't become less "republicy" having changed it to public election. Whether we have the EC or elect the president by popular vote, we're every bit as "republic" either way. Now, that may weaken states' power within our federal system. But that's an issue affecting federalism and not republicanism.

 

[Greyson]

Isn't it called a 'republic' because we have representatives in several the States who represent us by placing federal level votes?

 

[DRob]

Eliminating the EC would result in a nationwide situation similar to that in Illinois, Colorado, New York, and a few other states in which concentrations of population, also known as big cities, decide everything for the entire state. Hillary won only 57 of the 3151 counties in the USA. DID YOU KNOW? Trump Won 3,084 out of 3,151 Counties. Hillary Only Won 57 ? TruthFeed

 

[Brad69]

So 5 people vote from NY and 5 from LA and we call it day too easy!

 

[OakRiver]

So 5 people vote from NY and 5 from LA and we call it day too easy!

Exactly.

We would have candidates and their Administrations focused on investing in New York, Texas, Florida, California, and a handful of swing states while the majority of the country is ignored.

 

[chipbennett]

What the hell are you talking about? A republic is essentially a representative form of government. States appointing Senators didn't make us a Republic. We didn't become less "republicy" having changed it to public election. Whether we have the EC or elect the president by popular vote, we're every bit as "republic" either way. Now, that may weaken states' power within our federal system. But that's an issue affecting federalism and not republicanism.

The critical point (to which you alluded) is that we are a federal republic - a republic of sovereign states. And we absolutely did weaken that model of government by changing Senators from state-legislature apportion to direct election (and by allowing the fed.gov to tax individuals). The fed.gov was intended to deal primarily with issues of state interest/important, and to resolve inter-state matters - not to deal with intra-state issues, or to deal directly with the people. It is the very reason that the federal legislature is bicameral, with one body representative of the people, and one body representative of the states.

As far as I am concerned, the two go hand-in-hand. We are a federal republic, which is the form of government defined and guaranteed to the several states, by the Constitution. So, while it may be true that we don't become "less republicy" in the pure sense of the term "republic", we DO become "less republicy" in the sense of the term as defined by the Constitution.

 

[jamil]

The critical point (to which you alluded) is that we are a federal republic - a republic of sovereign states. And we absolutely did weaken that model of government by changing Senators from state-legislature apportion to direct election (and by allowing the fed.gov to tax individuals). The fed.gov was intended to deal primarily with issues of state interest/important, and to resolve inter-state matters - not to deal with intra-state issues, or to deal directly with the people. It is the very reason that the federal legislature is bicameral, with one body representative of the people, and one body representative of the states.

As far as I am concerned, the two go hand-in-hand. We are a federal republic, which is the form of government defined and guaranteed to the several states, by the Constitution. So, while it may be true that we don't become "less republicy" in the pure sense of the term "republic", we DO become "less republicy" in the sense of the term as defined by the Constitution.

Okay then. So now that we've gotten the definitions straight, we can stop this nonsense of saying that without the EC we'd be a direct democracy. I'm fine with people saying it would weaken the federal republic. At least the EC is related to that.

 

[chipbennett]

Okay then. So now that we've gotten the definitions straight, we can stop this nonsense of saying that without the EC we'd be a direct democracy. I'm fine with people saying it would weaken the federal republic. At least the EC is related to that.

I don't think I've ever said that? If I did, mea culpa.

 

[jamil]

I don't think I've ever said that? If I did, mea culpa.

You haven't. But others have, and even the Praeger video implies it. All I'm trying to do is get people's facts straight.

 

[ATM]

 

[Jludo]

Exactly.

We would have candidates and their Administrations focused on investing in New York, Texas, Florida, California, and a handful of swing states while the majority of the country is ignored.

As oppose to now, when we have candidates focus on a handful of swing states while the majority of the country is ignored. In fact candidates wouldn't care about states at all, if it were direct popular vote candidates would care about the big cities themselves, not the states they're in.

I think it's an ok position to hold but we should at least acknowledge that what we want is for our vote to hold more weight than the vote of someone who lives in, say, Los Angeles. Let's not pretend we're looking for 'fair' representation, we want representation tilted in our favor.

 

[chipbennett]

As oppose to now, when we have candidates focus on a handful of swing states while the majority of the country is ignored. In fact candidates wouldn't care about states at all, if it were direct popular vote candidates would care about the big cities themselves, not the states they're in.

I think it's an ok position to hold but we should at least acknowledge that what we want is for our vote to hold more weight than the vote of someone who lives in, say, Los Angeles. Let's not pretend we're looking for 'fair' representation, we want representation tilted in our favor.

Yes, that's how representation of sovereign states in a federal republic works. Well-spotted!

 

[jamil]

As oppose to now, when we have candidates focus on a handful of swing states while the majority of the country is ignored. In fact candidates wouldn't care about states at all, if it were direct popular vote candidates would care about the big cities themselves, not the states they're in.

I think it's an ok position to hold but we should at least acknowledge that what we want is for our vote to hold more weight than the vote of someone who lives in, say, Los Angeles. Let's not pretend we're looking for 'fair' representation, we want representation tilted in our favor.

I think "fair" is not the best way to put it because both sides have a legitimate "fairness" beef. It's not fair that in the EC, a person in high populated urban state has less voting power than a person in a low populated rural state. But conversely, if it were popular vote, it's not fair that 50 of the highest populated urban counties would have enough voting power to elect a president who would impose the policies of an urban community on rural communities.

Both systems have flaws.

People get too hung up on the "fairness" of popular vote. California has nearly 18 million voters. Almost 7.5 million Californians voted. Hillary's margin of victory was 3.4 million. Why should it matter to the rest of the nation if they went for Hillary by 5 million? Or 10 million?

Our nation isn't homogenous. That's why we have state governments, where each can have a government more suitable to the culture of the region. And that was partly the idea behind our federalist system, to balance the power between states and national government. But the more collectivists we elect, the further from that we get. And we wind up with urban mindset politicians running things.

The founding fathers did well to weight rural states a little more than urban ones. But I think they naturally failed to imagine a future scale like we have today. And I think the EC is becoming ineffective.

Yes, that's how representation of sovereign states in a federal republic works. Well-spotted!

But the other side is a "we" too. And eventually they'll have enough electoral power that even the EC won't matter a whole lot.

 

[rhino]

We should not eliminate the electoral college.

 

[Woobie]

We should not eliminate the electoral college.

We could have just started and ended the thread with this.

 

[2A_Tom]

We should not eliminate the electoral college.

We could have just started and ended the thread with this.

On INGO?

 

[Brad69]

HRC can be president of California and New York
We can extend the wall!
Problem solved!

 

[jamil]

We could have just started and ended the thread with this.

On INGO?

Yeah. And miss all this fun?