Should we eliminate the electoral college??

[Jludo]

Put the current POTUS in the White House twice, and I don't recall this EC conversation either time. The last time I do recall, is Bush II.

It makes sense that the issue would only be brought up when the popular vote is at odds with the electoral college. You never hear complaints that the guy who got 5 million more votes also won the electoral college.

 

[chipbennett]

I wonder how many folks who are big EC fans right now would still be big fans if faithless electors put Hilary in the white house.

Faithless electors can't - and won't - put Hilary in the white house.

 

[pinshooter45]

BTW a "Minority President" as it is called has only been elected 4 times. So I think the System works pretty well.

• John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824
• Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876
• Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888
• George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.

 

[Jludo]

BTW a "Minority President" as it is called has only been elected 4 times. So I think the System works pretty well.

• John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824
• Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876
• Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888
• George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.

Is that good or bad? Only 4, is 4 the right number?

 

[hopper68]

Talked with a friend at a meeting tonight. He is friends with one of Indiana's 11 electoral electors. The elector has received 40,000+ emails urging him to vote Hillary (very few from IN).

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I wonder how many folks who are big EC fans right now would still be big fans if faithless electors put Hilary in the white house.

That's fine. I would respond: beware that pendulum you just put into motion...it will swing the other way and then what will you have to say?

(Sorry for the rhyme).

 

[Cpt Caveman]

The short answer is no we are not a democracy. This is not mob rule. Mob rule allows the people to vote themselves fortune out of the Govt till. Which is our money. Thats why they created the electoral college.

 

[jamil]

The short answer is no we are not a democracy. This is not mob rule. Mob rule allows the people to vote themselves fortune out of the Govt till. Which is our money. Thats why they created the electoral college.

Oh. So you're saying we're NOT a welfare state? Good to know.

 

[ATM]

...(Sorry for the rhyme).

No crime. For what it's worth (maybe a dime), I thought it was sublime ...this time.

Sorry, I'll be quiet now.

Back to EC discussion.

 

[Jludo]

The short answer is no we are not a democracy. This is not mob rule. Mob rule allows the people to vote themselves fortune out of the Govt till. Which is our money. Thats why they created the electoral college.

I don't believe the EC was created to have any influence over the purse.
And as Jamil pointed out we're still voting ourselves the treasury (or IOU's anyway)

 

[Jludo]

That's fine. I would respond: beware that pendulum you just put into motion...it will swing the other way and then what will you have to say?

(Sorry for the rhyme).

I don't follow? (can't get past the rhyme I suppose)

 

[Hohn]

We forget just how petrified our Founders were of the evils of a DIRECT DEMOCRACY. They knew what happens when you devolved things into a simple direct democracy.

That is why they set up a federal government that was created by the states. That's why the states set their own rules about EC elector allocation, even though almost all are winner-take-all.

It's also why the Electoral college was established. We don't vote for POTUS, we vote for the people who vote for POTUS.

This theme is repeated over and again.

This is why the Senate was originally expected to be chosen by state legislature, not direct popular vote. Again, voting to choose the voters (state legislature), a variation of the EC theme. Unfortunately, this was undone and the greatest protection against national welfare state mob rule was removed.


One need not look further than California to see just how messed up direct democracy is and why our Founders were right to dilute the influence of the individual voter upon the national government.

 

[gregr]

We forget just how petrified our Founders were of the evils of a DIRECT DEMOCRACY. They knew what happens when you devolved things into a simple direct democracy.

That is why they set up a federal government that was created by the states. That's why the states set their own rules about EC elector allocation, even though almost all are winner-take-all.

It's also why the Electoral college was established. We don't vote for POTUS, we vote for the people who vote for POTUS.

This theme is repeated over and again.

This is why the Senate was originally expected to be chosen by state legislature, not direct popular vote. Again, voting to choose the voters (state legislature), a variation of the EC theme. Unfortunately, this was undone and the greatest protection against national welfare state mob rule was removed.


One need not look further than California to see just how messed up direct democracy is and why our Founders were right to dilute the influence of the individual voter upon the national government.

 

[rhino]

What's all this talk about eliminating the electrical college? If we close it, how will new electricians learn their trade?

 

[Hohn]

4 years of apprenticeship?

 

[jamil]

I don't believe the EC was created to have any influence over the purse.
And as Jamil pointed out we're still voting ourselves the treasury (or IOU's anyway)

He's just saying that faithless electors can work against a future Democrat PEOTUS just as they want it to work against the current Republican PEOTUS.

 

[jamil]

We forget just how petrified our Founders were of the evils of a DIRECT DEMOCRACY. They knew what happens when you devolved things into a simple direct democracy.

That is why they set up a federal government that was created by the states. That's why the states set their own rules about EC elector allocation, even though almost all are winner-take-all.

It's also why the Electoral college was established. We don't vote for POTUS, we vote for the people who vote for POTUS.

This theme is repeated over and again.

This is why the Senate was originally expected to be chosen by state legislature, not direct popular vote. Again, voting to choose the voters (state legislature), a variation of the EC theme. Unfortunately, this was undone and the greatest protection against national welfare state mob rule was removed.


One need not look further than California to see just how messed up direct democracy is and why our Founders were right to dilute the influence of the individual voter upon the national government.

Except that, the EC and a lot of our constitutional rules for how we vote weren't set into place specifically to dilute the influence of the individual voter. My reading of history is that there were many concerns by the several interested conventioneers, many of which were period specific, and what they ended up with was a compromise that they weren't all necessarily happy with, but could all live with.

I don't want the influence of individual voters diluted. I do, however, want the influence of highly populated states diluted, at least a little.

 

[Hohn]

Except that, the EC and a lot of our constitutional rules for how we vote weren't set into place specifically to dilute the influence of the individual voter. My reading of history is that there were many concerns by the several interested conventioneers, many of which were period specific, and what they ended up with was a compromise that they weren't all necessarily happy with, but could all live with.

I don't want the influence of individual voters diluted. I do, however, want the influence of highly populated states diluted, at least a little.

Please revisit the Federalist papers on the subject of "faction". I would argue that the structure of our system was in fact designed to dilute the influence of an individual voter. That was a key philosophical point of the whole thing.


And If you want the votes of highly populated states diluted, then I would say that that is, in fact, diluting the vote of the individual voters in those states.

 

[printcraft]

Eliminate the electors, not the electoral college. 538 individuals don't get to override the STATES.

 

[Jludo]

He's just saying that faithless electors can work against a future Democrat PEOTUS just as they want it to work against the current Republican PEOTUS.

I don't think we were looking at the same post