Electoral College should be abolished. And here's why...

[Poisonshady313]

I'd like to take this thread in a slightly different direction.

It has come to my attention that one of the most common objections to abolishing the Electoral College is that it would mean either a small handful of populous cities or a small handful of populous states would determine the outcome of every election. Specifically, for the cities we hear about NYC, LA, Chicago, and Miami. For the states we hear about CA, NY, IL (and sometimes for good measure, TX and FL).

Are there any among you who would like to say "That isn't a very good argument. It doesn't make a lot of sense. People who support the EC should be focusing on state's rights and indeed the very concept of statehood."?

Are there any among you who would like to attempt to support that argument and explain exactly how a handful of populous cities or a handful of populous states would determine every election?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm bringing this back. I'd like to know if anyone would like to attempt to address the specific issue of how a handful of populous states and/or cities might dominate every election if we abolished the electoral college.

I think it's a bogus argument, one that lacks merit any way you look at it. Largely because people just keep saying it without offering any sort of support.

Here's your chance. Bring on the support.

 

[shmogie]

I'm bringing this back. I'd like to know if anyone would like to attempt to address the specific issue of how a handful of populous states and/or cities might dominate every election if we abolished the electoral college.

I think it's a bogus argument, one that lacks merit any way you look at it. Largely because people just keep saying it without offering any sort of support.

Here's your chance. Bring on the support.

Take the populations of the six largest cities, they will reliably vote democrat 75%, 25%, maybe more.

The city of NY alone will take out the populations of some states, even if they vote 100% Republican.

Many cities 300,000 to 800,000 will reliably vote democrat.

So all those people concentrated in a few areas who do not care or know anything about rural areaś will dominate the election, many people will have votes that mean nothing, they will be electorially forgotten. Most of the people on most of the land will be excluded. Urban centers and a few states will always control the presidential election.

As the Framers designed our system, the states elect the President, and every voter in every state has influence in how their state will vote.

They foresaw what we are hearing right now. They also foresaw that population centers working in harmony could control the nation in a popular vote election.

They wanted the ENTIRE nation to have a say in who is elected.

They were very wise, and the odds of the electoral college ever being changed are slim, and none.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Take the populations of the six largest cities

I'm going to stop you right there and ask you a very serious question.

You do know that the entire population doesn't vote, right?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Take the populations of the six largest cities, they will reliably vote democrat 75%, 25%, maybe more.

The city of NY alone will take out the populations of some states, even if they vote 100% Republican.

Many cities 300,000 to 800,000 will reliably vote democrat.

So all those people concentrated in a few areas who do not care or know anything about rural areaś will dominate the election, many people will have votes that mean nothing, they will be electorially forgotten. Most of the people on most of the land will be excluded. Urban centers and a few states will always control the presidential election.

As the Framers designed our system, the states elect the President, and every voter in every state has influence in how their state will vote.

They foresaw what we are hearing right now. They also foresaw that population centers working in harmony could control the nation in a popular vote election.

They wanted the ENTIRE nation to have a say in who is elected.

They were very wise, and the odds of the electoral college ever being changed are slim, and none.

Clinton votes in 2016 from California, New York, Illinois, Florida, and Texas (which are home to 11 of the 15 most populous cities in the country.) were responsible for 18.1% of the total national popular vote.

California, New York, and Illinois are 19.3% of the electoral vote.

Looks like less popular areas would get more of a say, not less, if we abolished the EC. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Balance is already being achieved though. At least for the last 24 years and the trend continues with Trumps election in 2016.

Democrat Bill Clinton - 2 terms.

Both terms won by popular vote and EC.


Republican George W. Bush - 2 terms

1st won by EC lost popular vote by 500,000ish votes.

2nd won by EC and popular vote.

Democrat Barack Obama - 2 terms

Both terms won by popular vote and EC.


Republican Donald Trump - 1 term so far 2nd term is likely.

Won by EC lost on popular vote.

See a trend here? By abolishing the EC, it gives an advantage to the Democrats to seize power and never have to relinquish it.

If you truly wanted balance then you would be pro-EC.

It's precisely the reason why the founding fathers implemented the Electoral College.

It's a beautiful illustration you gave as to the reasons why it's so important with the acknowledgement that it's also a two-way street , and if you have one side with distinct advantages over the other over a long period of time , this country is probably going to end up in another Civil War.

 

[MikeDwight]

You guys want to live in Alabama? See that thing over there We Defend Our Rights means we shoot you. That Cross means Jesus loves us for shooting you. The Constitution definitely means they get to vote when they do. We're the meeting state for Civil War states that like to do that. I don't think anybody appreciates how Alabama alone has to remember that there Wasn't a popular vote, the Electoral College put humble Washington into the office. There wasn't a Popular vote until the 1800's I think, of any sort. Its placed on us to remember States held the Sovereign Character and political authority to form a Union and These United States did attempt to break that Union which was their Political Choice at formation, just like they attempted the Articles of Confederation in 1789. Its up to us to remember the Heritage Of the individual states, the Original Anthem of Hail Columbia, for these United States, and not only that, put up with your popular media saying exactly everything these United States of America ever were, or even are recently, isn't even in the political parties, you drowned it out with George Wallace, don't forget international Ecumenicism to Presbyterianism. Don't forget the God that Fathered this Nation that they called upon, an Almighty God for the Sovereign Character of the States and the God of our Fathers and the God of Oliver Cromwell's, a Reformed religion, of the Puritans of England aided by the Covenanters of Scotland, that has aided the States against Empires in its entire existence, helping the Dutch Reformed out of the Spanish Empire, and defended the vassal Hungary from Austrian interference.

 

[Revoltingest]

I now say the EC should be relegated to the dustbin of history.
It's too vulnerable to corruption.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I now say the EC should be relegated to the dustbin of history.
It's too vulnerable to corruption.

Getting it done with an Amendment would be almost impossible But if this was done first I could see an Amendment following it just to make sure:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stevicus]

Maybe they should abolish the Electoral College and replace it with an Electoral Junior High School.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I would agree that the Electoral College system of electing the President is, in today’s age, a failed system that ensures unequal vote representation among individual votes in different states, and has the practical affect of rendering the election outcome to a handful of states.

Regardless of the history of how it got to this point, the fact is in today’s world it is an inherently inequitable means of determining the will of the people of this nation.

FairVote is an organization that has been advocating for electoral reforms in voting laws for a long time and has some viable suggestions as to how this may be achieved.

FairVote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It’s important to understand the role of the three branches of federal government as they currently stand.

The Judicial Branch is (should) be a non partisan arbitrator of laws and preventing violations of the Constitution.

The Legislative Branch is a partisan body that is responsible for managing the government, overseeing finances, and making or amending laws to govern the nation.

The Executive Branch is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws, commanding the armed forces, and representing the nation in affairs of state with foreign countries.

The Electoral College was established as a means of electing the President and Vice President….it’s sole purpose.

As per:

United States Electoral College - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

“The framers of the Constitution did not anticipate political parties.Indeed George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796 included an urgent appeal to avert such parties. Neither did the framers anticipate candidates "running" for president. Within just a few years of the ratification of the Constitution, however, both phenomena became permanent features of the political landscape of the United States.”

“initially, state legislatures chose the electors in most of the states. States progressively changed to selection by popular election.”
“Since 1864, electors in every state have been chosen based on a popular election held on Election Day. The popular election for electors means the president and vice president are in effect chosen through indirect election by the citizens.”

So the Executive Branch should represent the totality of the population of the country which would be best served by a popular vote of the entire population.

The Legislative Branch is divided into two bodies;
One (the Senate) which represents the interests of the individual states on an equal basis each getting 2 representatives.
The second (the Congress) represents the interests of the population of the states which varies, and thus the number of representatives are divided among states by the percentage of the total national population that lives in that state.
This is an effort to as closely as possible adhere to the concept of “one person, one vote”.

It is here that we run into problems.
Unfortunately the theory of “every voter in every state has influence in how their state will vote”, doesn’t hold true.
Nor does “most elected offices are elected through popular mandate.”

Unfortunately since gerrymandering came along and it has, in effect, set up a system where rather than the population picking their representatives, it has devolved into representatives and their parties picking their population and virtually predetermining the outcomes of elections.
The effect of which is granting an undeserved and unwarranted power to a party and incumbents that would not exist under a true “one person, one vote” system.
This translates to local, state, and federal governments being controlled by parties wielding more power than their support by percentage of the population as a whole warrants.

In order to have a more equitable electoral system that benefits and reflects the will of people of this country, I would recommend:
•Abolishing gerrymandering
•Eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote.
•Implementing ranked choice voting for political offices.
•Implementing term limits for political offices, and the Supreme Court.
•Limiting/regulating money in elections.
•Limiting/regulating organized lobbying.
For a start. Is that asking too much?