Electoral College - Why, and Why All-Or-Nothing?

[herbu]

Why do we still use the Electoral College?
And if we're gonna use it, why is it All-Or-Nothing instead of providing votes proportional to the popular vote?

I'm really not asking for a history lesson about why/how it was established. I think I've got the gist of that. But is it really necessary or helpful today?

 

[its phillip]

The electoral college should be abolished.

 

[Swerd]

You know the reason why – it's in the Constitution.

Until the Constitution is amended, the Electoral College will stay as is. I can't imagine Congress, in the present political climate, agreeing on anything as substantive as that.

Yes, I think most people in the USA would favor a direct popular vote.

 

[rnatalli]

I'm another in favor of abolishing it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[crossedover]

You know the reason why – it's in the Constitution.

Until the Constitution is amended, the Electoral College will stay as is. I can't imagine Congress, in the present political climate, agreeing on anything as substantive as that.

Yes, I think most people in the USA would favor a direct popular vote.

Correct Sir, and since non citizens are counted in the census their districts/states benefit even though they cant vote.... Think that will certainly deter a change lol The never ending battle for re districting

 

[Chu Gai]

Why do we still use the Electoral College?
And if we're gonna use it, why is it All-Or-Nothing instead of providing votes proportional to the popular vote?

I'm really not asking for a history lesson about why/how it was established. I think I've got the gist of that. But is it really necessary or helpful today?

Whether you do or don't have the gist of why or how it was established, is important in understanding what the founders and framers of our country had in mind. There was serious concern back then that a direct election based on individual votes could lead to serious and perhaps irreversible changes to our government during trying times by some faction or segment of the population. Today, with TV, the press, and the Internet, we see public opinion being readily manipulated by what passes for journalism. Tell them this, but don't tell them that. Listen to this quote but let's not give you the context.

Now, this ever so much easier today than it was centuries ago. Yes, it's not democratic but the founders didn't set up a democracy. They set up a representative form of government. A republic. Of course with so many schools looking to eliminate civics and really digging into the history of this country, people are ill informed about why things were done.

I would argue that never before has there been a time when the electoral college is more important.

 

[Swerd]

Whether you do or don't have the gist of why or how it was established, is important in understanding what the founders and framers of our country had in mind. There was serious concern back then that a direct election based on individual votes could lead to serious and perhaps irreversible changes to our government during trying times by some faction or segment of the population. Today, with TV, the press, and the Internet, we see public opinion being readily manipulated by what passes for journalism. Tell them this, but don't tell them that. Listen to this quote but let's not give you the context.

Now, this ever so much easier today than it was centuries ago. Yes, it's not democratic but the founders didn't set up a democracy. They set up a representative form of government. A republic. Of course with so many schools looking to eliminate civics and really digging into the history of this country, people are ill informed about why things were done.

I would argue that never before has there been a time when the electoral college is more important.

A major reason why the Electoral College was created wasn't just to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". It was meant to inflate the political power of the southern states, and was demanded by those states before they agreed to form a union.

It didn't stop there, when census counts were made, slaves counted as 60% of one white man. Because census counts determined the distribution of Congressional Districts, and because a state's electoral college votes was the sum of the number of Senators and Congressmen, it had a profound effect on the balance of political power in the US. It still does.

 

[Chu Gai]

A major reason why the Electoral College was created wasn't just to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". It was meant to inflate the political power of the southern states, and was demanded by those states before they agreed to form a union.

It bears noting that Senate at that time was not elected by the popular vote but by individual State legislatures. In that way the interests of the States would be represented at a Federal level. That was changed (gutted) by the populist movement which resulted in the 17th amendment.

But there was no problem with the Electoral College, just the way it was implemented. The South wanted its slavery, the North not so much. The South wanted to count everyone including the slaves which would have increased its power in the House of Representatives. The 3/5 rule was meant as a compromise and also allowed for the end to the importation of slaves in 20 years time which is what happened. It also allowed for the return of slaves who had escaped to other states. Compromise, it is a bitch.

It didn't stop there, when census counts were made, slaves counted as 60% of one white man. Because census counts determined the distribution of Congressional Districts, and because a state's electoral college votes was the sum of the number of Senators and Congressmen, it had a profound effect on the balance of political power in the US. It still does.

You weren't going to achieve consensus if slaves counted as 0 or 100%. Senators are still 2 per State. What's really changed IMO is that States have less of a say at the Federal level. I'm of the opinion that eliminating the electoral college would do more harm than good.

 

[herbu]

I would argue that never before has there been a time when the electoral college is more important... I'm of the opinion that eliminating the electoral college would do more harm than good.

But why is it All-Or-Nothing? If the popular vote in a state is 60/40, why wouldn't the electoral votes also be 60/40?

 

[Chu Gai]

But why is it All-Or-Nothing? If the popular vote in a state is 60/40, why wouldn't the electoral votes also be 60/40?

A synopsis of sorts for the pros and cons can be found at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf from page 12 on. Maybe there's a website that looks at past election results and then analyzes them from the POV you're considering.

 

[herbu]

A synopsis of sorts for the pros and cons can be found at http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf from page 12 on. Maybe there's a website that looks at past election results and then analyzes them from the POV you're considering.

Very informative! Thanks!!!

 

[Chu Gai]

Something else to consider, herbu, is that if the electoral college votes were apportioned by actual votes, it would greatly diminish the importance of smaller states. Maybe even eliminate them from consideration. Who wants to expend time when the net gain to a candidate would be one or two votes? I read where in the last election had it been done this way, Obama would not have been elected.

Now there is a movement for an NPV (national popular vote). If that were to take place again I feel that that the power of the states would be greatly eroded. Just focus on the biggies. We're a country with diverse needs and a President needs to tend to that. I don't want see a national police force. To me, that's scary.

 

[herbu]

if the electoral college votes were apportioned by actual votes, it would greatly diminish the importance of smaller states.

Yeh, I read about that, and understand it. But I wonder... should one person's vote count more than another because of where they live? It's a two-edged sword. At the same time the less populace states count more, the minority in every state don't count at all.

I don't know the answer. But in a complicated issue, I try to simplify and lean toward a simple answer. Yes, there can be lots of arguments. But they often tend to move away from the simple crux of the issue such that in accommodating the more subtle points we lose sight of the crux.

So when I think about a presidential election, I think the crux is that every citizen is equal and every vote counts the same as mine. I'm not convinced that any "system" accomplishes that better than a simple popular vote count.

 

[Chu Gai]

I think it comes down to that we have a reprentative form of government and the framers looked for ways to balance state rights with federal.

 

[Chu Gai]

Yeh, I read about that, and understand it. But I wonder... should one person's vote count more than another because of where they live? It's a two-edged sword. At the same time the less populace states count more, the minority in every state don't count at all.

I'm unclear under what format of election you're talking about here.

So when I think about a presidential election, I think the crux is that every citizen is equal and every vote counts the same as mine. I'm not convinced that any "system" accomplishes that better than a simple popular vote count.

By a simple popular vote, what do you mean exactly? Lay it out for me.

 

[herbu]

I'm unclear under what format of election you're talking about here.

A state with an All-Or-Nothing electoral college. Say the popular vote in a state is 60/40. The 60% gets ALL the electoral college votes from that state. The 40% gets no representative votes from the college.

By a simple popular vote, what do you mean exactly? Lay it out for me.

I mean every person's vote is counted in a national tally, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

 

[Chu Gai]

The latter would, I think, require a constitutional amendment. Candidates would then focus (pander) only to population rich areas. Screw Montana and a host of others.

 

[herbu]

The latter would, I think, require a constitutional amendment. Candidates would then focus (pander) only to population rich areas. Screw Montana and a host of others.

True... until they realized there are more voters in middle America than LA and NY. I don't know the answer. But it seems eerily similar to the way we accommodate minorities and special cases, and ignore the majority.

If everybody is equal, why do some need special treatment or additional consideration? (I'm specifically talking about voting here.)

 

[Chu Gai]

Middle America is geographically large and diverse. Urban areas are population dense and there's much more in common with Boston, NY, LA, Chicago, etc. Won't be any state primaries.

Here's a hypothetical for you. Let's say Trump and Bernie say screw it, we're running as independents, albeit different political spectrums. Hillary and Cruz become their party's nominees. With a 23/23/27/27 split, how does it shake out under your idea and currently?

 

[herbu]

In both cases we would have a runoff. And I think I saw recently that there is a provision for some body of government, (maybe Congress?), to pick the president if no candidate can win the runoffs. What you describe would indeed be a nightmare.