independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 18th Nov 2017 11:43am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Let the People pick the President ! Get rid of the Electoral College
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 4 1234>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 11/09/17 6:40am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Let the People pick the President ! Get rid of the Electoral College

An excellent editorial from the NY Times about why the outdated and outmoded Electoral College needs to be eliminated.



https://www.nytimes.com/2...ctionfront



Interesting fact : in the 2004 election, Kerry was 60,000 votes away in Ohio from winning the Presidency by Electoral College rules, despite Bush having the plurality of the popular vote....

[Edited 11/9/17 7:48am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 11/09/17 6:47am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

actually, it did in 2000 and 2016 what it was meant to do... make sure that one or a few large states do not swamp the will of the other states. Some confuse the process with the election. We do not vote for a president we vote for electors (and only because our state ALLOWS us to).

You vote in your state should not impact my vote in mine.

here is the fixed link



https://www.nytimes.com/2...ctionfront

[Edited 11/9/17 6:48am]

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 11/09/17 7:17am

Dasein

^

Says nothing about the main thrust of thread, which is getting rid of the Electoral College by incor-
porating a popular vote. Doing so would then make a direct vote for electing the president what
would eradicate any concern that "one or a few larges states do not swamp the will of the other
states."

I doubt this would ever happen because US citizens seem to think its constitution was written by
Jeezus and Gawd and is inerrant and perfect and therefore should not counter anything included
by the Original Slavefathers, er, Forefathers.




[Edited 11/9/17 8:05am]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 11/09/17 7:17am

RodeoSchro

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

actually, it did in 2000 and 2016 what it was meant to do... make sure that one or a few large states do not swamp the will of the other states. Some confuse the process with the election. We do not vote for a president we vote for electors (and only because our state ALLOWS us to).

You vote in your state should not impact my vote in mine.

here is the fixed link



https://www.nytimes.com/2...ctionfront

[Edited 11/9/17 6:48am]



I don't think the the will of the state should triumph over the will of the people, but maybe that's just me.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 11/09/17 7:55am

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

actually, it did in 2000 and 2016 what it was meant to do... make sure that one or a few large states do not swamp the will of the other states. Some confuse the process with the election. We do not vote for a president we vote for electors (and only because our state ALLOWS us to).

You vote in your state should not impact my vote in mine.

here is the fixed link



https://www.nytimes.com/2...ctionfront

[Edited 11/9/17 6:48am]

Then what happens is that the will of SMALL states is overrepresented . And as pointed out, candidates only campaign in certain areas and don't try to appeal in others. Times have changed, and institutions should change to fit current realities. Did you actually READ the article ? And please explain why you think "one person, one vote, majority wins", used in every other election in America, is a bad idea for the Presidency ? (And we heard the "It;s in the Constitution...blah, blah, blah..." already)

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 11/09/17 7:58am

jjhunsecker

avatar

Dasein said:

^

Says nothing about the main thrust of thread, which is getting rid of the Electoral College by incor-
porating a popular vote. Doing so would then make a direct vote for electing the president what
would eradicate any concern that "one or a few larges states do not swamp the will of the other
states."

I doubt this would ever happen because US citizens seem to think its constitution was written by
Jeezus and Gawd and is inerrant and perfect and therefore, and should not counter anything included
by the Original Slavefathers, er, Forefathers.

I totally agree. As I said above, times change, and therefore institutions should also sometimes be changed to suit and reflect current realities.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 11/09/17 8:06am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

actually, it did in 2000 and 2016 what it was meant to do... make sure that one or a few large states do not swamp the will of the other states. Some confuse the process with the election. We do not vote for a president we vote for electors (and only because our state ALLOWS us to).

You vote in your state should not impact my vote in mine.

here is the fixed link



https://www.nytimes.com/2...ctionfront

[Edited 11/9/17 6:48am]



I don't think the the will of the state should triumph over the will of the people, but maybe that's just me.

what do you mean?

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 11/09/17 8:11am

RodeoSchro

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RodeoSchro said:



I don't think the the will of the state should triumph over the will of the people, but maybe that's just me.

what do you mean?



You said the will of the state should be the determining factor. I think it should be the will of the people.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 11/09/17 8:16am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what do you mean?



You said the will of the state should be the determining factor. I think it should be the will of the people.

i did? where?

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 11/09/17 8:17am

NorthC

OnlyNDaUsa said:

actually, it did in 2000 and 2016 what it was meant to do... make sure that one or a few large states do not swamp the will of the other states. Some confuse the process with the election. We do not vote for a president we vote for electors (and only because our state ALLOWS us to).

You vote in your state should not impact my vote in mine.





here is the fixed link



https://www.nytimes.com/2...ctionfront

[Edited 11/9/17 6:48am]


Why not? You're all part of the same country, aren't ya?
Don't ever lose your dreams.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 11/09/17 8:20am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

NorthC said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

actually, it did in 2000 and 2016 what it was meant to do... make sure that one or a few large states do not swamp the will of the other states. Some confuse the process with the election. We do not vote for a president we vote for electors (and only because our state ALLOWS us to).

You vote in your state should not impact my vote in mine.

here is the fixed link



https://www.nytimes.com/2...ctionfront

[Edited 11/9/17 6:48am]

Why not? You're all part of the same country, aren't ya?

we do not always agree, what works for you may not work for me.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 11/09/17 8:31am

RodeoSchro

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

actually, it did in 2000 and 2016 what it was meant to do... make sure that one or a few large states do not swamp the will of the other states. Some confuse the process with the election. We do not vote for a president we vote for electors (and only because our state ALLOWS us to).

You vote in your state should not impact my vote in mine.

here is the fixed link



https://www.nytimes.com/2...ctionfront

[Edited 11/9/17 6:48am]



If that's not saying the will of the state should rule over the will of the people, then I guess I misunderstood.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 11/09/17 8:37am

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

NorthC said:

OnlyNDaUsa said: Why not? You're all part of the same country, aren't ya?

we do not always agree, what works for you may not work for me.

The why should the will of the MINORITY of American Presidential voters rule over the will of the rest of us ? (As happened in 2016...)

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 11/09/17 8:41am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

actually, it did in 2000 and 2016 what it was meant to do... make sure that one or a few large states do not swamp the will of the other states. Some confuse the process with the election. We do not vote for a president we vote for electors (and only because our state ALLOWS us to).

You vote in your state should not impact my vote in mine.

here is the fixed link



https://www.nytimes.com/2...ctionfront

[Edited 11/9/17 6:48am]



If that's not saying the will of the state should rule over the will of the people, then I guess I misunderstood.

oh yeah, that is the intent of the electoral system

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 11/09/17 8:42am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

we do not always agree, what works for you may not work for me.

The why should the will of the MINORITY of American Presidential voters rule over the will of the rest of us ? (As happened in 2016...)

but most of the states voted for trump

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 11/09/17 8:52am

RodeoSchro

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

we do not always agree, what works for you may not work for me.

The why should the will of the MINORITY of American Presidential voters rule over the will of the rest of us ? (As happened in 2016...)



And in 2000.

We elected two of the worst presidents in history because the electoral system is used instead of the popular vote.


We're kind of like the NCAA used to be. The NCAA had a playoff system for every single sport - except football, its biggest sport by far. It took years and years before the NCAA finally instituted a playoff for football.

The USA is the same way. Every single election for every single office in our country is won by the popular vote - except for the most important office in the land.

DO NOT FORGET - The Republicans had a plan they wanted to institute that would expand the electoral system to each STATE. They want the winner of the most counties in each state to get that state's electoral votes. Under this system, Mitt Romney would have won the presidency in 2012. I haven't heard anything on this system in the last few years, but be aware of it.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 11/09/17 8:52am

jjhunsecker

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

jjhunsecker said:

The why should the will of the MINORITY of American Presidential voters rule over the will of the rest of us ? (As happened in 2016...)

but most of the states voted for trump

Most American VOTERS did NOT vote for Trump !

Please explain why it's OK for majority of votes are used to pick elected officials from dog-catcher to City Council to School Board to Mayor to Congressmen to Senator...BUT in modern times the Presidency should be determined by an antiquated system ...

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 11/09/17 8:54am

RodeoSchro

avatar

jjhunsecker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

but most of the states voted for trump

Most American VOTERS did NOT vote for Trump !

Please explain why it's OK for majority of votes are used to pick elected officials from dog-catcher to City Council to School Board to Mayor to Congressmen to Senator...BUT in modern times the Presidency should be determined by an antiquated system ...



He's going to tell you that we have this system because it's constitutionally required. And that is correct.

In order to change it, we need a constitutional amendment.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 11/09/17 9:21am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

jjhunsecker said:

The why should the will of the MINORITY of American Presidential voters rule over the will of the rest of us ? (As happened in 2016...)



And in 2000.

We elected two of the worst presidents in history because the electoral system is used instead of the popular vote.


We're kind of like the NCAA used to be. The NCAA had a playoff system for every single sport - except football, its biggest sport by far. It took years and years before the NCAA finally instituted a playoff for football.

The USA is the same way. Every single election for every single office in our country is won by the popular vote - except for the most important office in the land.

DO NOT FORGET - The Republicans had a plan they wanted to institute that would expand the electoral system to each STATE. They want the winner of the most counties in each state to get that state's electoral votes. Under this system, Mitt Romney would have won the presidency in 2012. I haven't heard anything on this system in the last few years, but be aware of it.

that would require an amendment

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 11/09/17 9:30am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

also at least in the 2000 election, it is not clear that Gore got more votes. It was close enough to fall into a recount situation. And given that companies and voting patterns would be different if there was such a thing as a nationwide popular vote further muddies the waters.


So what happens if it is close does that mean nationwide recounts? And then there would be many contested ballots that often go uncounted.

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 11/09/17 9:30am

RodeoSchro

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RodeoSchro said:



And in 2000.

We elected two of the worst presidents in history because the electoral system is used instead of the popular vote.


We're kind of like the NCAA used to be. The NCAA had a playoff system for every single sport - except football, its biggest sport by far. It took years and years before the NCAA finally instituted a playoff for football.

The USA is the same way. Every single election for every single office in our country is won by the popular vote - except for the most important office in the land.

DO NOT FORGET - The Republicans had a plan they wanted to institute that would expand the electoral system to each STATE. They want the winner of the most counties in each state to get that state's electoral votes. Under this system, Mitt Romney would have won the presidency in 2012. I haven't heard anything on this system in the last few years, but be aware of it.

that would require an amendment



I know. But it is a plan the GOP has on the table. They may have shelved it since the 2016 election, but the next time they lose an election I would expect to see them roll it out again.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 11/09/17 9:31am

RodeoSchro

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

also at least in the 2000 election, it is not clear that Gore got more votes. It was close enough to fall into a recount situation. And given that companies and voting patterns would be different if there was such a thing as a nationwide popular vote further muddies the waters.


So what happens if it is close does that mean nationwide recounts? And then there would be many contested ballots that often go uncounted.




There are automatic recounts in any state where the margin is within a small parameter. So nothing would change.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 11/09/17 9:32am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

also at least in the 2000 election, it is not clear that Gore got more votes. It was close enough to fall into a recount situation. And given that companies and voting patterns would be different if there was such a thing as a nationwide popular vote further muddies the waters.


So what happens if it is close does that mean nationwide recounts? And then there would be many contested ballots that often go uncounted.




There are automatic recounts in any state where the margin is within a small parameter. So nothing would change.

but it could be nationwide every state... each precinct would have to recount... not just a few that were close... each and every one,

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 11/09/17 9:58am

RodeoSchro

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RodeoSchro said:




There are automatic recounts in any state where the margin is within a small parameter. So nothing would change.

but it could be nationwide every state... each precinct would have to recount... not just a few that were close... each and every one,



A. Why?
B. If so, so what?

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 11/09/17 11:44am

kohler

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RodeoSchro said:




There are automatic recounts in any state where the margin is within a small parameter. So nothing would change.

but it could be nationwide every state... each precinct would have to recount... not just a few that were close... each and every one,

No statewide recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 58 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 11/09/17 11:44am

kohler

RodeoSchro said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

also at least in the 2000 election, it is not clear that Gore got more votes. It was close enough to fall into a recount situation. And given that companies and voting patterns would be different if there was such a thing as a nationwide popular vote further muddies the waters.


So what happens if it is close does that mean nationwide recounts? And then there would be many contested ballots that often go uncounted.




There are automatic recounts in any state where the margin is within a small parameter. So nothing would change.

There are not automatic recounts in all states.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 11/09/17 11:47am

kohler

OnlyNDaUsa said:

also at least in the 2000 election, it is not clear that Gore got more votes. It was close enough to fall into a recount situation. And given that companies and voting patterns would be different if there was such a thing as a nationwide popular vote further muddies the waters.


So what happens if it is close does that mean nationwide recounts? And then there would be many contested ballots that often go uncounted.

It IS clear that Gore won the national popular vote.

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger).

Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 58 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 11/09/17 11:48am

kohler

RodeoSchro said:

jjhunsecker said:

Most American VOTERS did NOT vote for Trump !

Please explain why it's OK for majority of votes are used to pick elected officials from dog-catcher to City Council to School Board to Mayor to Congressmen to Senator...BUT in modern times the Presidency should be determined by an antiquated system ...



He's going to tell you that we have this system because it's constitutionally required. And that is correct.

In order to change it, we need a constitutional amendment.

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 11/09/17 11:49am

kohler

OnlyNDaUsa said:

jjhunsecker said:

The why should the will of the MINORITY of American Presidential voters rule over the will of the rest of us ? (As happened in 2016...)

but most of the states voted for trump

Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 11/09/17 11:52am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Yup! They could flip a coin or play lawn darts... I think the state's legislators should decide.

But the point is no state has to have an election to determine electors. Which now that I think about it is why some do not get what I say when I say there just is no such thing as a nationwide popular vote?

"I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President..." Juanita Broaddrick
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 4 1234>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Let the People pick the President ! Get rid of the Electoral College