The Electoral College

[betchatoo]

There have been a couple of posts lately where people have stated themselves as proponents of the electoral college. I have asked why and so far not gotten an answer. I have done some additional reading about it and find myself thinking that the college was based strictly on the needs of the time and would not have been instituted if fast communication and information were not so unavailable at the time. For those who think the Founding Fathers words are unassailable please understand that the electoral college has been changed by the 12th amendment (1804) and several times by the ways individual states used them

As to the reasons the Founding Fathers began the electoral college, I copied this from "A brief history of the electoral college" at http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be
decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.


So my question is this:
For those of you who still believe in the Electoral College, why?
What is wrong with having one man, one vote instituted on a National basis?

[JustMissed]

If you would study states rights vs. federal rights and put that frame around the electoral college issue-you would conclude that the EC is more appropriate for our government that a popular election.

You may recall from our Florida voting mess last go round, at one point our state house of representatives were to elect the Florida electorates and in effect, elect the President. I only point that out to show that for all practical purposes the representative of the citizens of each state pick the president-not the citizens themselves.

The federal government only exist because the individual states have delegated certain of their rights to the federal government.

Our president is not president of the united "people", but is President of the United "States". May seem trivial to some but it is a huge difference.

JM

[OTM Al]

And in fact, states have the right to allot their EC votes in accordance with the popular vote within the state itself. I believe there are 4 states that split up their EC votes by popular vote percentages, though I don't remember which ones of the top of my head, I seem to remember that they are small in terms of votes they hold. The one bad part of the EC system is clearly that in most states, all popular votes past the one that puts one candidate over the top don't really count. This does give a bit of bad feeling to some voters, especially in states that almost always go one way or another. It also causes the candidates to pretty much ignore some states in favor of the so called "swing states". I think most people feel more a member of the country as a whole these days, rather than a citizen of a particular state first. This shift in feeling is highlited by a language shift that occured after the Civil War when people went from saying "The United States are...." to "The United States is...". Pretty much says it all.

Personally, I would be more in favor of a one person, one vote type system, or at the least, states partioning their EC votes, but this would take many bi-partisan works in a very partisan government, so I don't see it ever happening

[boxcar]

Anthing devised by man is never perfect. One can always find flaws in anything man dreams up or invents. Having said this, however, the argument presented by the physicist Alan Natapoff in favor of the Electoral College is compelling. It's a long read, but well worth it, especially for those more math-inclined than others.

Boxcar

http://www.discover.com/web-exclusives/math-against-tyranny/

[Secretariat]

The electoral college subverts the concept of a true democracy which is one person one vote.

We see this today where people in California and Texas are disenfranchised. Their votes mean little as neither are "battleground" states. Candidates don't visit them, and do not work towards policy affecting those states, preferring votes in battleground states. It actually now is in a state's interest to keep a close popular vote to insure candidates pay attention, and hence that leads to pandering.

Additionally, imagine if Iraq was set up to equate a certain number of votes similar to our as states to the Sunni areas, Kurd areas and Shiite areas so that the larger population of the Shiite area was overshadowed by the Sunnis or Kurds even though they are a minority. You'd hear bloody murder by the Shiites and the US and rightly so. Can you imagine Sunni's getting more power with less of the vote? This is what the electoral College does so that a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California or Texas.

It creates "batleground states" disenfrancishieses voters, creates inconsistencies from state to state on allocation, and in most cases doesn't even bind the electoral voters for following the state's wishes.

It is something that the founders put in the Constiution, like slavery, whose time has past. And I say that regardless of who wins. I beleive in election reform, as the Green Party has suggested which creates a majority president, and allows more participation by third party candidates.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfink.htm

[boxcar]

Secretariat writes:

The electoral college subverts the concept of a true democracy which is one person one vote.

First off, this nation was not founded as a "true democracy" -- or pure democracy, if you will. We are a democratic republic -- not a pure democracy. Ours is a unique system of indirect election as opposed to direct. And every person within this system only gets one vote, so your objection rather silly.


We see this today where people in California and Texas are disenfranchised. Their votes mean little as neither are "battleground" states. Candidates don't visit them, and do not work towards policy affecting those states, preferring votes in battleground states. It actually now is in a state's interest to keep a close popular vote to insure candidates pay attention, and hence that leads to pandering.

And the reverse would be true if we didn't have an electoral college system in place! The candidates would essentially focus all their attention on the states with the largest population centers to the detriment of less populated states. Presidential candidates wouldn't have to waste their time in trying to cultivate a broad appeal across all the states' lines, but would only have to zero in an issue or two that would play strongly to the populace (especially in the inner cities) in heavily populated states, e.g. CA, NY, NJ, IL, etc., etc.

And pray tell, just what policies are the candidates now working towards in the "battleground" states?

Also, no state is disenfrachised under the current system. Californians will vote for Kerry and Texans for Bush. So what else is new?

and in most cases doesn't even bind the electoral voters for following the state's wishes.

This is a patently false statement! The custom has been for a long time now that the winner of the popular vote in a state takes all. Colorado currently wants to change that and ignore the popular vote, if it so chooses, which is very undemocratic!

Boxcar

[kenwoodallpromos]

I think the ads are based on media martket, not state lines. Not many national ads anymore.
No Ca media markets are Republican majority.
So going by popular vote would not change campaigns much.
Demos would do best with instant registration and voting at the same time, with I.D.

[chickenhead]

I believe it is Maine and Nebraska that do not currently have a winner take all electoral process. I think it would be great if more states worked this way.

As it is, in a state like California right now, there is really no point in voting at all in the national election. Despite how close the popular vote is likely to be....my vote does not have any impact at all, since the state is already decided.

Maybe the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.....but I'm not a big fan.

[betchatoo]

Thanks to all who responded for logical, well thought out arguments without resorting to partisanship or name calling. Boxcar I read your article and found it fascinating even if I didn't necessarily agree with its' conclusion. I also read the one from Secretariat.

My biggest disagreement with the system is the one Chickenhead brought up. With the current system there are too many people who feel disenfranchised during a national election. In Illinois where I live there will be millions of Republicans who will not be counted because this state is going Democratic this year. How many of these people won't vote, people who would have in a very close national election?

Kenwoodallpromos suggests that a national election wouldn't change campaigns much. I would have to differ. This will probably make me the envy of those of you in closely contested states, but I have not seen one presidential ad this year. If this election were held on a national vote, you can bet both sides would be here trying to sway a few more votes, because they would matter. Right now both sides feel Illinois is a dead issue in this campaign. I don't like the way that feels

[chickenhead]

the article boxcar posted was interesting.....but I read the whole thing waiting to see the actual analysis using the data that exists....i.e. rather than telling me what the "cross-over" point of usefullness is for a 135 person country evenly districted......tell me what the actual cross over point is using the country as it exists right now....and perhaps a histogram of how that has changed over time.

That would be some interesting info to chew on....too bad he left it out.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
We see this today where people in California and Texas are disenfranchised. Their votes mean little as neither are "battleground" states. Candidates don't visit them, and do not work towards policy affecting those states, preferring votes in battleground states. It actually now is in a state's interest to keep a close popular vote to insure candidates pay attention, and hence that leads to pandering.

Boxcar responds:

And the reverse would be true if we didn't have an electoral college system in place! The candidates would essentially focus all their attention on the states with the largest population centers to the detriment of less populated states. Presidential candidates wouldn't have to waste their time in trying to cultivate a broad appeal across all the states' lines, but would only have to zero in an issue or two that would play strongly to the populace (especially in the inner cities) in heavily populated states, e.g. CA, NY, NJ, IL, etc., etc.


I think Boxcar made a really great point here. How do those who wish to abolish the electoral college respond to such a statement?

[chickenhead]

All Boxcar is saying is that the candidates would focus on getting the most people to vote for them.

I think we all agree more or less that that would be the effect....rather than targeting specific geographic areas that happen to be inhabited by people.......they would be targeting people who happen to inhabit specific geographic areas....

I think we disagree on whether that is necessarily a bad thing...

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I think Boxcar made a really great point here. How do those who wish to abolish the electoral college respond to such a statement?

Simple. A true democracy is based on the votes of "people", NOT on states. Boxcar did not respond to my Iraqi example regarding Sunnis and Shiites.

We are attempting to promote democracy all over the earth, but as Boxcar lists, we are a republic, and not really a pure democracy. Why should a person in Laramie have more weight of vote than someone in Chicago? Their vote should be equal. When you say well, politicians would give greater preference to larger population markets -- well, of course, that's where the majority of people are, and in a democracy the majority should rule, not the minority. Here we have a minority rule. A president who did not even win the popular vote as determined by the Federal Election Commission count.

The process of elections listed in the Constitution has already been changed often from the 13th amendment, to the right of African Americans and Native Americans and Women to receive equal right to vote. The electoral college is outdated, and Boxcar is wrong. Electors have voted against their state determinations. It's rare yes, but nothing in the federal constitution requires them to vote what the state voted.

[Pace Cap'n]

[i]So my question is this:
For those of you who still believe in the Electoral College, why?
What is wrong with having one man, one vote instituted on a National basis? [/B]


Consider this scenario:

Subject: Do the Math


Hillary Clinton decided to run for the U.S. Senate in New York because she
loves the people of that state and wanted to represent them in Washington
D.C. In one of her first public statements after winning the election (with
nearly 60% of the vote), she promised to work for the abolition of the
Electoral College.

Now let's look at a political possibility:

In an election year in the 'not too distant future', when Hillary is
nominated as the Democrats' Presidential Candidate, she begins her campaign
by reminding the voters of New York that she kept her promise and personally
takes responsibility for the newly ratified constitution amendment abolishing
the Electoral College. She then does the vast majority of her campaigning in
New York; rarely venturing out to any other states.

The November General Election is held, and Senator Clinton LOSES 49 STATES by
an average of 60,000 votes per state...
BUT she WINS JUST ONE STATE... New York, with 73% of the 6,300,000 votes
cast there.
The Republican candidate receives 24% and all others
3%.

The result? She has received the majority of popular votes by a margin of
less than 200,000 votes nationwide... after LOSING ALL BUT ONE STATE.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the new President of The United States of America.

Want to get rid of the Electoral College?

[chickenhead]

I think that just illustrates it all the better....."Hillary" absolutely dominates in one very populous state.....and runs very close to 50/50 in all the other states (including the ones with hardly anyone in them)....and you think she shouldn't win in that scenario, despite getting the majority of all votes cast?

I did the math, and yes, the EC blows.

[JustMissed]

I never realized that so many of you had been slapped so hard by your mamas so many times.

Can't say I don't blame them but look what it has done to your thought processes.

So let me get this straight. You think it is ok for the folks in New York and the folks in California to get together and agree that they want John Kerry to be president without any regard if that would be a good thing for the folks down in Louisianna or up in Iowa or over in Ohio and West Virginia.

Then those folks up in New York and out in California might just decide that the subway cushions aren't quite thick enough or the freeways need more lanes so to pay for those things, hey, let's just get our boy John Kerry to put a tariff on red beans and rice, corn, car parts and coal. Yeah, that would be the right thing to do wouldn't it?

JM

[betchatoo]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JustMissed
[B]I never realized that so many of you had been slapped so hard by your mamas so many times.

Can't say I don't blame them but look what it has done to your thought processes.

So let me get this straight. You think it is ok for the folks in New York and the folks in California to get together and agree that they want John Kerry to be president without any regard if that would be a good thing for the folks down in Louisianna or up in Iowa or over in Ohio and West Virginia.

Then those folks up in New York and out in California might just decide that the subway cushions aren't quite thick enough or the freeways need more lanes so to pay for those things, hey, let's just get our boy John Kerry to put a tariff on red beans and rice, corn, car parts and coal. Yeah, that would be the right thing to do wouldn't it



JM:
That might be a consideration if the folks of California and the folks of New York all agreed that they were going to vote the same way, but that ain't gonna happen. Look at the diversity we have in folks from NY on this board.

Why do you think it is not okay for the minority opinion, in states that lean heavily one way or the other, not to be heard?

[JustMissed]

Hey Bet, You missed the point.

It is a given that New York and California are going for John Kerry.

What do you think would happen if re-election comes around in 2008-hello-New York and California get any damn thing they want from John Kerry.

Our founding fathers were so smart and our ancestors were so smart it sometimes freaks me out. What a wonderful form of government they gave us. Hey, maybe James Madison was an alien from another planet.


Anyway, I hope we don't get so divided that we quit caring about each other.

It would be a sad day if another 3,000 people die in New York City and a poor farmer in West Virginia says "Not my problem, let John Kerry take care of it".

JM

[chickenhead]

A little secret I'll let you in on JM....politicians ALREADY promise everything to everyone....when Bush/Kerry are in Iowa, they promise them whatever their focus group has told them to promise....when they are in Wisconsin they do the same. They promise everyone everything to win votes, and no one beleives them...

So, how exactly would things change? They would promise EVEN MORE to everyone? Is that even possible?

[JustRalph]

Get rid of the electoral college and in one election cycle you will have states talking secession. The electoral college is also about representation of the different values in each state. States rights would be infringed and the States wouldn't put up with it. Soon you have 40 States leaving the Union. New York and California would be the largest population centers but they would be cut off at will by the other states. No man is an island..........and if you really want to tear this country apart, get rid of the electoral college.

[JustMissed]

Originally posted by chickenhead

So, how exactly would things change? They would promise EVEN MORE to everyone? Is that even possible?

Big difference between promise and DELIVERY don't you think.

Great thing about the system is that they have to promise the same thing to everyone.

If you ever have some extra time do a little research on the Civil War.

Donald Trump is walking around on streets paved by the blood and sweat of negroes of 19th century Alabama.

Hey, maybe Louisiana has the right idea. Be in the USA but don't be a part of the USA. Hey, I love the Fair Grounds.

JM

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Hey Bet, You missed the point.

It is a given that New York and California are going for John Kerry.

What do you think would happen if re-election comes around in 2008-hello-New York and California get any damn thing they want from John Kerry.

Our founding fathers were so smart and our ancestors were so smart it sometimes freaks me out. What a wonderful form of government they gave us. Hey, maybe James Madison was an alien from another planet.

JM

Well, it is also a given that Texas and Alabama is going for Bush. But when it comes to actual "people" there are as few more in NY and CA. So according to you their vote count as less than voters in Texas or AL. It flies in the face of the democracy you propose for countries such as Iraq. Yet you tolerate it here for partisan reasons.

The bottom line this goes down to the concept of electers from states deciding who runs our country as opposed to the actual "people" throughout the land. You choose states. I choose the number of people in the country. that's democracy.


And I agree our founding fathers were terrific, but they didn't get everything right...such as slavery, and partial votes for indians and no votes for women, and according to John Ashcroft the 4th amendment shouldn't have been added as well.

[JustMissed]

POSTED BY JUSTRALPH
"Get rid of the electoral college and in one election cycle you will have states talking secession. The electoral college is also about representation of the different values in each state. States rights would be infringed and the States wouldn't put up with it. Soon you have 40 States leaving the Union. New York and California would be the largest population centers but they would be cut off at will by the other states. No man is an island..........and if you really want to tear this country apart, get rid of the electoral college."


Originally posted by Secretariat
Well, it is also a given that Texas and Alabama is going for Bush. But when it comes to actual "people" there are as few more in NY and CA. So according to you their vote count as less than voters in Texas or AL. It flies in the face of the democracy you propose for countries such as Iraq. Yet you tolerate it here for partisan reasons.

The bottom line this goes down to the concept of electers from states deciding who runs our country as opposed to the actual "people" throughout the land. You choose states. I choose the number of people in the country. that's democracy.


And I agree our founding fathers were terrific, but they didn't get everything right...such as slavery, and partial votes for indians and no votes for women, and according to John Ashcroft the 4th amendment shouldn't have been added as well.

Hey, Secretary,

I think Ralph has it pretty much right. If NY & Cal are calling the shots there will be forty plus states secede.


JM

[Tom]

Does the president represent the people or does he represent the states?
The congress represents the states, and the supreme court represents the constitution. Who shoudl the president represent?
I have more of a problem with the senate - Rhode Island is represented equally with New York....duh?
Maybe the Senate represents the states and the house represents the people? That might be closer to it.

[betchatoo]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Get rid of the electoral college and in one election cycle you will have states talking secession. The electoral college is also about representation of the different values in each state. States rights would be infringed and the States wouldn't put up with it. Soon you have 40 States leaving the Union. New York and California would be the largest population centers but they would be cut off at will by the other states. No man is an island..........and if you really want to tear this country apart, get rid of the electoral college.

JT, I respect your opinion, it's why I started this thread. I really wanted to hear reasons that people supported the EC. But
since 38 states would have to agree to this before it could become an amendment, I can't imagine we'd lose 40 states in an election cycle. And since the popular vote is supported by a large majority of the public, I doubt it's something that over which people would give their officials the right to secede

[JustRalph]

The first time an election cycle played out like the scenario above, states would start talking about secession. I would be leading the call too!

[PaceAdvantage]

Do you guys really think enough people support abolishing the EC that a Constitutional Amendment could be accomplished?

The smaller states would never go for it, so the point is somewhat moot, is it not?

[betchatoo]

PA

I'm not sure. There have been a couple of times in history where it was believed the support to pass it was close, the last time being in the 70's. If we have another election where the person who wins popular vote does not win the presidency the call to make the change may start anew.

[Secretariat]

I think if Bush won the popular vote, but lost via the Electoral College, there'd be a cry from the right for the abolishment of the EC. And frankly, I'd be crossing ranks to join them.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustMissed

Then those folks up in New York and out in California might just decide that the subway cushions aren't quite thick enough or the freeways need more lanes so to pay for those things,

JM

Man, I can tell you've never ridden in a subway.

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Big difference between promise and DELIVERY don't you think.

Yes, delivery for the most part is controlled by the Congress. The nationwide promises are left to the President.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by chickenhead
Yes, delivery for the most part is controlled by the Congress. The nationwide promises are left to the President.

and thank god.............it promotes gridlock.........which may be better for the nation

[chickenhead]

I agree JR...but that's why I don't understand all the fear of CA and NY dominating things if the EC was changed.

Those two states control exactly 4% of the Senate.....those 40 states you are worried about seceeding control 80% of the Senate. Considering that no bills get passed that don't get by the Senate, I'm not clear on exactly why you guys think things would change so much?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by chickenhead
I agree JR...but that's why I don't understand all the fear of CA and NY dominating things if the EC was changed.

Those two states control exactly 4% of the Senate.....those 40 states you are worried about seceeding control 80% of the Senate. Considering that no bills get passed that don't get by the Senate, I'm not clear on exactly why you guys think things would change so much?

It would change. Because without the electoral college you would never see another President that would emerge from the Heartland. The national defense is mostly controlled by the President. Executive orders are not subject to Congressional control. The President names his own cabinet and then the cabinet enforces policy on the rest of the country. Take the scenario above. Hillary puts in an EPA head that shuts down businesses all over the heartland, just invoking new regulation or more likely, overzealous enforcement of what is already there. She then instructs the Department of Interior to start setting aside more parkland. The logging industry goes down the tubes. Lumber rates skyrocket........etc.....etc..........now apply the same principles to the department of defense. How about the FDA? More regulation and rules always result in higher prices. Your grocery bills double in the first year. By year four that bill doubles again..........then a new build house (a large part of our economy) goes up 50% because you can't build it without 50% more permits and lumber prices are already up. You could carry this scenario out into every division of the Presidents Cabinet. I am sure some other members here can come up with similar situations that would get around Congressional approval.

[azibuck]

I thought I'd never post in off-topic again (it's been years), being a Democrat and all, but I'd like to ask any other Dems on this thread -- are there any prominent Dems backing the abolition of the EC? How about Reps?

Honestly, I don't know the answer.

Any educated person, or person that has given this issue 30 minutes of research and thought, will be against abolition of the EC.

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Hillary puts in an EPA head that shuts down businesses all over the heartland, just invoking new regulation or more likely, overzealous enforcement of what is already there. She then instructs the Department of Interior to start setting aside more parkland. The logging industry goes down the tubes. Lumber rates skyrocket........etc.....etc..........now apply the same principles to the department of defense. How about the FDA? More regulation and rules always result in higher prices. Your grocery bills double in the first year. By year four that bill doubles again..........then a new build house (a large part of our economy) goes up 50% because you can't build it without 50% more permits and lumber prices are already up.

I am really attempting to not be insulted by this (but I am)....your post and Azibucks as well.....but I will attempt to respond to both your posts with this:

JR, you truly give a frightening scenario....but your whole argument is based on the fact that Californians and New Yorkers would beleive that the above scenario is good for them.....what is the special benefit that WE and WE ALONE are achieving due to the above scenario?

The answer, none!

Do you think I as a Californian would vote for someone who would shut down the Timber industry? Perhaps you need to do some research, you'll find some of the largest lumber mills in the world are in California....Do you think I would vote for someone that would double my grocery bills? More research is neccessary...obviously you don't realize that California produces massive amounts of produce.....how's about manufacturing...BINGO...by jove California produces massive amounts of everything....any and all regulations effect us as much as the next guy...either directly or indirectly. You think we don't KNOW that?

But the real problem with your argument...and the reason I find it offensive is you think that the average voter in State A doesn't give a shit about anyone living in State B.

A little clue....everyone in CA moved here from somewhere else...most people here have family in the midwest...or the south....or the east....I don't know where you get the idea that everyone in a big state doesn't give a shit, and beleives their fate is totally disconnected from all other states....but the fact of the matter is that is not true.

I don't care whether anyone agrees with me or not about the EC...but you are so out of touch with reality as to how different people are in a big state versus a small state it is not even funny...I've been all over and the one undeniable fact is...people just really aren't that different no matter where you go....ALL STATES in the US are filled with basically good people, and regardless of what you might think...THAT is what makes this country work....this country works because we all want it to work, the overwhelming majority of us, in all states....the "heartland" hasn't cornered the market on "being American"...and it's infuriating when I hear people take that point of view.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by chickenhead
I've been all over and the one undeniable fact is...people just really aren't that different no matter where you go....ALL STATES in the US are filled with basically good people, and regardless of what you might think...THAT is what makes this country work....this country works because we all want it to work, the overwhelming majority of us, in all states....the "heartland" hasn't cornered the market on "being American"...and it's infuriating when I hear people take that point of view.


I agree. And I also think the EC is one of the things that "make this country work"

Why try and fix something that isn't broken?

[boxcar]

Secretariat writes:

The electoral college subverts the concept of a true democracy which is one person one vote.

To the contrary, sir. The EC helps preserve the integrity of this democratic republic. The Framers of the Constitution were not nearly as concerned with creating a self-governing system of "eminent fairness" whereby one person's vote was "equal" to everyone else's, as they were with devising a virtually bullet-proof scheme designed to protect this Republic from falling prey to electioneering abuses, excesses and all manner of fraudulent practices that would inevitably ensue in an environment of a pure democracy, and ultimately cause the fall of it.

Since a large number of the Framers had a more or less Christian worldview, they knew all too well that human nature was at its very best exceedingly frail, and at at its very worst "totally depraved" (to borrow a Reformed Christian theological phrase) and, therefore, capable of all manner of mischief and assortments of nefarious deeds. This is precisely why they adopted a representative kind of government to begin with. "We the people" do not govern ourselves directly, but indirectly. This is also why the Fathers were careful to draft a constitution wherein checks and balances were incorporated that would put strict limits to unchecked power -- which would also include the arbitrary will of the people! For this very reason, the Constitution divides power among the three branches of national government, and again carefully divides power between the national government and the states. Ironically, therefore, this United States has remained united by a constitution that was designed to divide power in all the aforementioned areas. (Don't confuse this profound paradox for a contradiction.)

Because our entire method of governing our Republic is paradoxical, it should not come as surprise that the EC itself is also a paradox. On one hand, as the physicist Alan Natapoff, correctly (I believe) pointed out, the people's votes in various states are not weighted equally, since more weight is given to votes in smaller states. On the other hand, however, the more populous states wield far more power in terms of the raw number of electors than do small states. (CA, for example, brings to 54 electors to bear upon the outcome of national elections, whereas WY brings only 3 to the table -- the former representing more than 10% of the EC, while the latter representing a mere .0055 of the EC). The correct perspective from which to view the EC system is that it should be looked at pretty much the way we would the Handicap system in handicap races. Even the Scale of Weights is ultimately designed to "bring them all together" -- at least theoretically.

The Founding Fathers could have easily endorsed and implemented a very simplistic system of voting that reflected the consent of the majority, but instead chose a more complex, yet infinitely wiser system designed as an important safeguard for maintaining a free republic by imposing strict limits on power. The question, therefore, that should be asked is: Would an alternative system of true democracy invite abuses and excesses of power? Phyllis Schlafly very nicely addressed this question right after the last election in 2000; therefore here is the link to her article:

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2000/nov00/00-11-29.shtml

Sec continues with this irrelevant question:

Additionally, imagine if Iraq was set up to equate a certain number of votes similar to our as states to the Sunni areas, Kurd areas and Shiite areas so that the larger population of the Shiite area was overshadowed by the Sunnis or Kurds even though they are a minority. You'd hear bloody murder by the Shiites and the US and rightly so. Can you imagine Sunni's getting more power with less of the vote? This is what the electoral College does so that a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California or Texas.

The reason I didn't respond the first time around is because you're trying to compare apples with oranges. Our situation 200 years ago (and currently, too) is entirely different from the Iraqi situation. Our system was designed to keep what was essentially a peaceful, fledgling nation united, whereas with the Iraqi situation those factions have been at each others throats for hundreds of years -- if not longer. The wounds that these various Iraqi factions have inflicted on one another over the centuries may never heal. For that matter, democracy may not work over there because the people may not be ready to execute all the responsibilities that attend to that form of government.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Boxcar,

What a load of hogwash! Phyllis Schafly, you've got to be kidding me! Old Phylllis couldn't even have voted at the time the EC was set up if she had been alive. Gimme a break.

And we've gone over this religious aspect of the Founders before. No sense rehashing the Deist argument, and the first amendment of freedom of religion and the court's interpretation of church and state.

But you are right about one thing. We live in a republic, not a true democracy as I said, but we want to institute a true popular vote democracy in another country when in fact we don't have it in our own. If our government says it is good enough for our soliders to fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq for democracy via a popular vote, why isn't it good enough for our own country. A bit hypocritcal don't you think?

[boxcar]

Secretariat writes:

What a load of hogwash! Phyllis Schafly, you've got to be kidding me! Old Phylllis couldn't even have voted at the time the EC was set up if she had been alive. Gimme a break.

So er...what's your point, bonehead? "Old Phyllllis"[sic] isn't entitled to her opinion now!? But The Angel of Darkness (Hillary), right after the 2000 election, was certainly entitled to hers on this subject, right?

And why is she full of "hogwash"? And no, I'm not "kidding" you because you know all too well that even as recent as the last presidential election, every dirty trick, every act of fraud she mentioned, the Liberals employed in trying to rig the outcome of the election. Well, if dishonest politicians, their cronies and party henchman will try to subvert the current system, just what do you suppose would take place in a "pure democracy"? I'll tell you what: All hell would break loose, and we could well find ourselves either embroiled in a civil war, or many states would simply want to secede from the union.

And we've gone over this religious aspect of the Founders before. No sense rehashing the Deist argument, and the first amendment of freedom of religion and the court's interpretation of church and state.

Actually, there were far more subscribers to theism than to deism, as I recall. (But the important distinctions between the two theological systems are most probably unimportant and irrelevant to you.) And just because some court renders its interpretation of the doctrine of the separation of church and state, that doesn't necessarily make it right or true or factual -- unless, or course, you blindly believe in the infallibility of jurists.

But you are right about one thing. We live in a republic, not a true democracy as I said, but we want to institute a true popular vote democracy in another country when in fact we don't have it in our own. If our government says it is good enough for our soliders to fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq for democracy via a popular vote, why isn't it good enough for our own country. A bit hypocritcal don't you think?

What a stupid question to ask me after I just got done telling you that our current system worked (and continues to work) for us in the context of our historical situation, but wouldn't necessarily work for other nations in the context of their's! Didn't I also tell you that I'm not even sure the Iraqis are ready for a democracy!?

But to answer your question that you presented in the present tense as to why a pure democracy ins't good enough for us now, the answer is simple: For all the same reasons (except many, many times over) that caused the Founding Fathers to adopt the EC system 200 years ago.
Human nature hasn't improved one iota over the last two centuries! In fact, if anything, wickedness today abounds and flourishes even more so!

Ciao,
Boxcar

[Tom]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Boxcar,

What a load of hogwash! Phyllis Schafly, you've got to be kidding me! Old Phylllis couldn't even have voted at the time the EC was set up if she had been alive. Gimme a break.

And we've gone over this religious aspect of the Founders before. No sense rehashing the Deist argument, and the first amendment of freedom of religion and the court's interpretation of church and state.

But you are right about one thing. We live in a republic, not a true democracy as I said, but we want to institute a true popular vote democracy in another country when in fact we don't have it in our own. If our government says it is good enough for our soliders to fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq for democracy via a popular vote, why isn't it good enough for our own country. A bit hypocritcal don't you think?


You are of base here. There is no way a governemtn as complex as ours could be set up in Iraq in time. Direct elections are the only viable method at this time. You are the one who is constantly whinnig about no exit strategy when in fact, Bush has a very clear-plan that is well under way. YOU would be the first one to stand up and cry if we waited past January to hold elections. Iraq has an interim governemtn - absolutley neccessary - and they have written their own constitution. Phase II is to hold this first important election - just as we did in Afghanistan last week. After Iraqs elect their own people, they will be calling their own shots and we will phase out.
I just don't understand your whinning.....what the heck would YOU do differnetly?

[boxcar]

LOL! Tom, he'd implement Lurch's "plan" - whatever the heck that is.

And talking about plans: Another "ingenious" plan of Kerry's recently bit the dust. Our mighty fine sociialist neighbors to the north emphatically and publicly stated that they would not take part in Kerry's "plan" that involved Canada shipping drugs wholesale across zee border to the poor, impoverished and needy of this nation.

I suppose the libs will now tell us that Kerry has a backup plan? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[GameTheory]

Hello?

American History 101? This country existed under an "interim government" for quite some time before our current Constitution was adopted.

Revolution: 1775 - 1783

Articles of Confederation (much different from the current constitution): Adopted 1777, but not ratified until 1781.

Constitution as we now know it: Completed 1787, enacted 1788. George Washington wasn't president until 1789, and was the first under the Constitution. However, we did have other presidents before that. John Hansen, who most people have never heard of, was actually the first president (of "the United States in Congress Assembled") in 1781.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by boxcar
Secretariat writes:

What a load of hogwash! Phyllis Schafly, you've got to be kidding me! Old Phylllis couldn't even have voted at the time the EC was set up if she had been alive. Gimme a break.

So er...what's your point, bonehead? "Old Phyllllis"[sic] isn't entitled to her opinion now!? But The Angel of Darkness (Hillary), right after the 2000 election, was certainly entitled to hers on this subject, right?

And why is she full of "hogwash"? And no, I'm not "kidding" you because you know all too well that even as recent as the last presidential election, every dirty trick, every act of fraud she mentioned, the Liberals employed in trying to rig the outcome of the election. Well, if dishonest politicians, their cronies and party henchman will try to subvert the current system, just what do you suppose would take place in a "pure democracy"? I'll tell you what: All hell would break loose, and we could well find ourselves either embroiled in a civil war, or many states would simply want to secede from the union.

And we've gone over this religious aspect of the Founders before. No sense rehashing the Deist argument, and the first amendment of freedom of religion and the court's interpretation of church and state.

Actually, there were far more subscribers to theism than to deism, as I recall. (But the important distinctions between the two theological systems are most probably unimportant and irrelevant to you.) And just because some court renders its interpretation of the doctrine of the separation of church and state, that doesn't necessarily make it right or true or factual -- unless, or course, you blindly believe in the infallibility of jurists.

But you are right about one thing. We live in a republic, not a true democracy as I said, but we want to institute a true popular vote democracy in another country when in fact we don't have it in our own. If our government says it is good enough for our soliders to fight and die in Afghanistan and Iraq for democracy via a popular vote, why isn't it good enough for our own country. A bit hypocritcal don't you think?

What a stupid question to ask me after I just got done telling you that our current system worked (and continues to work) for us in the context of our historical situation, but wouldn't necessarily work for other nations in the context of their's! Didn't I also tell you that I'm not even sure the Iraqis are ready for a democracy!?

But to answer your question that you presented in the present tense as to why a pure democracy ins't good enough for us now, the answer is simple: For all the same reasons (except many, many times over) that caused the Founding Fathers to adopt the EC system 200 years ago.
Human nature hasn't improved one iota over the last two centuries! In fact, if anything, wickedness today abounds and flourishes even more so!

Ciao,
Boxcar

First,

I didn’t say Phyliss was full of hogwash. I said your argument was. Of course she is entitlted to her opinion, I never said she wasn't...why do Repubs do that? However, our founders did make mistakes. Slavery, and not allowing Phyliss Schafly her vote in elections.

Second,

The liberals tried to rig the election? Uh…better recheck all those Jewish women who voted for Buchanan in West Palm in 2000 who said they didn't vote for him.

But again Boxcar, you have failed to answer my fundamental question.

"Why should US soldiers give their lives so another country can have a “pure democracy” based on a popular vote winner, when we don’t have it here, and instead a representational republic? Don’t you find that hypocritical?

And Tom? It would actually be easier and safer for them to set up a series of electors from each province of Iraq to vote. The truth is they know it would not be accepted unless there was a popular vote as in Afghanistan. To assert with all the threats of terror over in the MidEast that they couldn't handle our system of voting via an EC is ludicrous. It just wouldn't fly over there. We've asserted we're instilling democracy, and hence the popular vote. It is so ironic that a man who couldn't even win the popular vote here is pushing it.

[Secretariat]

JR,

Your Hillary scenario lets out one important component. The American people. You really think very little of them to assert that any politician who would bring financial ruin to its people via overzealous federal regulation would be re-elected. What sane country would ever re-elect a President who would create massive deficits upon its nation due to irresponsible fiscal polices?

Wait a minute....that happened under the EC watch hasn't it?

[azibuck]

I hope you were insulted! Otherwise, I'd need to work on my insulting technique.

[betchatoo]

Originally posted by azibuck
I thought I'd never post in off-topic again (it's been years), being a Democrat and all, but I'd like to ask any other Dems on this thread -- are there any prominent Dems backing the abolition of the EC? How about Reps?

Honestly, I don't know the answer.

Any educated person, or person that has given this issue 30 minutes of research and thought, will be against abolition of the EC.

Okay, AZ,

I am also a Democrat, educated and have recently done more than 30 minutes researching the EC. I still favor its' abolition. So instead of trying to be insuting (and not that good at it), why don't you explain to me why you think maintaining the electoral college is such a given?

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

I didn’t say Phyliss was full of hogwash. I said your argument was. Of course she is entitlted to her opinion, I never said she wasn't...why do Repubs do that

Tell me, Sec, were you born stupid, or are you a self-made dumbo? I have stated a few times on this forum that I'm not a republican. I'm a registered Independant.

However, our founders did make mistakes. Slavery, and not allowing Phyliss Schafly her vote in elections.

And the mistakes they made were corrected. But the EC has very nicely withstood the test of time by preserving and maintaining our free Republic.

The liberals tried to rig the election? Uh…better recheck all those Jewish women who voted for Buchanan in West Palm in 2000 who said they didn't vote for him.

"They said"!? Can these women verify their claims, or are they just blowin' smoke up your butt and everyone else who is gullible? If some "Jewish women" told you the sky is falling, you'd believe them, right?

But again Boxcar, you have failed to answer my fundamental question.

Then in that case, you need to get yourself some very thick glasses, because I've expalined twice why "one size doesn't fit all". I'm not going to answer a third time.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

betchatoo asks AZ:

I am also a Democrat, educated and have recently done more than 30 minutes researching the EC. I still favor its' abolition.

Hmmm....but AZ did say research "and thought"? Did you really give any thought to the issues?

Have you considered, for example, how very easy it would be for excesses and abuses to creep into the electioneering and election processes in a democracy?

Boxcar

[ljb]

Boxcar,
I usually don't read your posts. So I have a question. Are you unusually unglued this morning or is this normal behaviour for you?

[betchatoo]

Originally posted by boxcar
betchatoo asks AZ:

I am also a Democrat, educated and have recently done more than 30 minutes researching the EC. I still favor its' abolition.

Hmmm....but AZ did say research "and thought"? Did you really give any thought to the issues?

Have you considered, for example, how very easy it would be for excesses and abuses to creep into the electioneering and election processes in a democracy?

Boxcar

Please explain how you think they are more likely on a national than state wide basis. It seems to me that there would be more opportunity for those abuses in a smaller, more controlled area (say Florida)

[boxcar]

betchatoo writes:

Bet, you're a fraud. I ask you if you have given any serious thought to the issue and also asked you if you have ever considered how easy it would be for fraudulent practices, abuses and excesses to creep into a pure deomocratic process thereby corrupting it, and you want me to defend my position on the EC? For someone who is so "educated" (as you claimed earlier) and who has researched the issue (another of your claims), I find it very odd that you would be so reluctant to offer any intelligent and thoughtful input of your own into this discussion. Why look for my input, most especially after I've already written a few posts and provided links with additional information on this topic?

I strongly suspect, sir, that I could write until the cows come home, but like Bonehead Sec you'd still bring nothing of substance to this discussion and would still be asking me the same ol' tired questions ad nauseum.

Go find someone else to play with, sir, -- someone who is currently languishing in their second childhood, perhaps, would be fairer game for you.

Boxcar

[azibuck]

I don't need to list my reasons for supporting the EC. Look at all the reasons and links in this thread. I don't have anything new or clever to add. You haven't made a case against any of the reasons for it. You distort any examples or hypotheticals given.

If we did do away with the EC, I'd have a new idea for the slogan for NY (my state). Borrowing from The Clash (somewhat socialist punk band), "New York: The Only State That Matters."

If you want to come back with "here's why Montana would still matter..." or something like that, then you're looking at the trees, not the forest.

"All the power in the hands
of the people rich enough to buy it." --White Riot

[betchatoo]

Originally posted by boxcar
betchatoo writes:

Bet, you're a fraud. I ask you if you have given any serious thought to the issue and also asked you if you have ever considered how easy it would be for fraudulent practices, abuses and excesses to creep into a pure deomocratic process thereby corrupting it, and you want me to defend my position on the EC? For someone who is so "educated" (as you claimed earlier) and who has researched the issue (another of your claims), I find it very odd that you would be so reluctant to offer any intelligent and thoughtful input of your own into this discussion. Why look for my input, most especially after I've already written a few posts and provided links with additional information on this topic?

I strongly suspect, sir, that I could write until the cows come home, but like Bonehead Sec you'd still bring nothing of substance to this discussion and would still be asking me the same ol' tired questions ad nauseum.

Go find someone else to play with, sir, -- someone who is currently languishing in their second childhood, perhaps, would be fairer game for you.

Boxcar

Boxcar
You made a point a point and I asked what I considered a legitimate question. Why would fraud be more prevalent on a national level? My state has proved many times that it can be perpetrated quite well on a local level

I did in fact state my reasons for doing away with the EC earlier. I believe that every vote in this country should count. I believe that when you have a state that is heavily Republican or heavily Democratic you discourage people of the opposition from voting. This also means they get less involved with politics on a local level, and this is a lose-lose situation. In an election that's as close as this, if we had a vote on a national scale, the Republicans in my state, (Illinois) for example, would be doing everything they could to bring the vote out. Instead they're doing little or nothing on a state-wide level.

I started this thread because I really wanted to hear other points of view and see what I was missing in this argument. If you look back over the thread I think you will notice that I have not denigrated anyone's ideas. To be properly educated always means being willing to learn more

[Secretariat]

Bet,

Boxcar has not given one rational reason for the EC, except the founders came up with it, and they can do no wrong. That all the abuses they missed such as slavery, and women's right to vote have been corrected.

Then you have heard the converse that today's times require different solutions than an EC in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is good enough for our country.

I see exactly your point. We have "battleground states" rather than a national involvement in the election whereby a few close states disproportionately affect the election and dissuade voters in states such as CA and TX to not bother voting because it is an election of states rather than people. If you are from Alabama, who cares? If you're from Connecticut, who cares? Your issues are irrelevant because you did not keep the election close to facilitate polictical pandering.

The point about more corruption with a popular vote is absurd. Look at Florida. First, we have a winner take all scenario disenfranchising half of the population of Florida. We had such a close election that we aren't really sure who actually won in 2000 and it took the US Supreme Court to make a judgmental call in 2000. And we encourage Afghansitan and Iraq to employ a "pure democracy" vote?

I beleive the nation would be better served if all states were a part of the national election, and Presidential candidates would go all over the country rather than pandering to "battleground states" and a state where someone won by 1 vote or 500 votes would not capture all of that state's voters for one candidate.

If Bush wins the popular vote and Kerry wins the EC, I would assert the same thing and do so now.

The EC flies in the face of All men are created equal, at least in terms of voting. It needs amended.

[chickenhead]

I thought it was interesting that in the 2000 campaign only one of the candidates visited all 50 states......that was Nader, whose goal was obviously not to win the EC.

[Tom]

Originally posted by boxcar

I suppose the libs will now tell us that Kerry has a backup plan? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Boxie...that was his Vietnam plan....BACKUP outta here! Fast!;)

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by Tom
Boxie...that was his Vietnam plan....BACKUP outta here! Fast!;)

Whereas Bush's plan was not to go?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Whereas Bush's plan was not to go?

yeah.........tell me how many guys would have chosen the swift boats over a fighter jet? If Kerry could have made it into flight school, I am sure he would have.............

[DJofSD]

The electoral college subverts the concept of a true democracy which is one person one vote.

We are living in a representative democracy. We elect leaders at the local, state and federal levels.

If you're going to eliminate one level of the system, you have to eliminate them all.

Direct democracy means every one participates in all issues at all levels.

Do you really think that will ever happen?

DJofSD

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by JustRalph
yeah.........tell me how many guys would have chosen the swift boats over a fighter jet? If Kerry could have made it into flight school, I am sure he would have.............

Really...I'd like your proof on this rather than your partisan speculation of a man who willingly enlisted, and requested assignment to Vietnam, rather than hiding his rear-end passing out flyers in a Senate Campaign in Alabama.

[Tom]

Sec and the libs know better than anyone else - they don't like the first ammendment either. Of course Sec is so much smarter than the founding fathers....had he been around back then he would have been hollering ABBW!

[FantasticDan]

An interesting (and ancient) thread, timely again and worthy of a bump! :ThmbUp:

[EasyGoer89]

An interesting (and ancient) thread, timely again and worthy of a bump! :ThmbUp:

Why?

[Clocker]

Why?

Progressives cannot accept the reality that Hillary was such a terrible candidate she couldn't even beat a clown like Trump. So it must have been the case that the system was rigged.

Hint: Hillary lost 7 states that Obama won last time. You can't blame that on the Electoral College.

Also, the EC is currently being discussed in the thread about protesters.

[EasyGoer89]

Progressives cannot accept the reality that Hillary was such a terrible candidate she couldn't even beat a clown like Trump. So it must have been the case that the system was rigged.

Hint: Hillary lost 7 states that Obama won last time. You can't blame that on the Electoral College.

Also, the EC is currently being discussed in the thread about protesters.

However many 'popular votes' she has, I'm going to strip 10 million off that total due to election fraud, soros machines as well as the woman who rigged broward county and had secret meetings with the beast, I figure 10 mil off the 'announced total' ought to be fair. Her Votes are like attendance figures at tracks on 'stein giveaway' days. #spinners

[dartman51]

This might explain.

[Actor]

and in most cases doesn't even bind the electoral voters for following the state's wishes.

This is a patently false statement!

Boxcar
"Though 31 states have laws that purport to force electors to support the will of the voters, Reimer noted that these laws have never been tested in court, and in fact a Virginia judge ruled in July that a similar law binding national convention delegates was unconstitutionally restrictive."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/electoral-college-trump-clinton-229406

[Actor]

John Hansen, who most people have never heard of, was actually the first president (of "the United States in Congress Assembled") in 1781.I love trivia!! :lol:

Take that, Jay Leno! :lol:

[ReplayRandall]

I love trivia!! :lol:

Take that, Jay Leno! :lol:

You love living in 2004, don't you? Next up 2005, isn't that the Trump "grab by the p*ssy" video?.....You don't get out much, except to read the newspaper for free at the library, eh?..:rolleyes:

[mostpost]

I have seen a number of online petitions urging electors to ignore the results of the election and vote for Hillary Clinton when they meet in December. The rationale is that Clinton won the popular vote and deserves to be president because of that. And actually there is no law requiring an elector to vote for the person who received the most vote in a particular state.

As a Hillary Clinton Supporter who is quite unhappy that Donald Trump won, I have to say this is a terrible idea. The results of the election are what they are. The system is what it is. We elect a president based on electoral votes not the popular vote. Just because an elector can vote in opposition to the majority that sent him to Washington, does not mean he should.

If we wanted Hillary to be president, we should have voted more often. I mean more of us should have voted.

[EasyGoer89]

I have seen a number of online petitions urging electors to ignore the results of the election and vote for Hillary Clinton when they meet in December. The rationale is that Clinton won the popular vote and deserves to be president because of that. And actually there is no law requiring an elector to vote for the person who received the most vote in a particular state.

As a Hillary Clinton Supporter who is quite unhappy that Donald Trump won, I have to say this is a terrible idea. The results of the election are what they are. The system is what it is. We elect a president based on electoral votes not the popular vote. Just because an elector can vote in opposition to the majority that sent him to Washington, does not mean he should.

If we wanted Hillary to be president, we should have voted more often. I mean more of us should have voted.

Who said Clinton won the popular vote? Soros? CNN? Brenda Snipes?

[kingfin66]

Many news outlets are reporting that she is leading and likely to win the popular vote. Not all of the results are in, so it is not official. It is also very close. It is ironic that Trump actually denounced the electoral college shortly before the election and that may ultimately be what won him the election.

[EasyGoer89]

Many news outlets are reporting that she is leading and likely to win the popular vote. Not all of the results are in, so it is not official. It is also very close. It is ironic that Trump actually denounced the electoral college shortly before the election and that may ultimately be what won him the election.

Is anyone going to go over every vote with a fine tooth comb, since Trump won easy, its not likely that people are going to care who won the 'popular vote' but its pretty easy for Soros and his henchmen to 'add votes' at the end because they know it won't be looked into or matter to anyone much.

Lots of rigging going on, its not likely that Project Veritas and other watchdogs really caught every fraudulent vote, every rigged machine that flipped a vote off of Trump and all the massive fraud in Broward county, if i was Trump i would go over every vote to make sure that the vote was cast legitimately, and the person is actually alive and all the rules were followed in order to cast those ballots, its pretty likely she didn't win the popular vote without help.

[Tom]

If we wanted Hillary to be president, we should have voted more often. I mean more of us should have voted.

:ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

If we wanted Hillary to be president, we should have voted more often. I mean more of us should have voted.See, a sense of humor comes in handy during times like these...bravo! :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm sure, just like with the "NeverTrump" movement, this "Electors Don't Have To Vote Trump" thing will try and get off the ground in the coming days and weeks...I knew this was coming immediately after Trump was declared the winner.

[JustRalph]

You really want to see a landslide in the next election, invalidate the will of the people........yep....that would be interesting

Reality
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/10/hot-new-liberal-theory-trump-can-still-be-defeated-in-the-electoral-college-or-something/

[boxcar]

You really want to see a landslide in the next election, invalidate the will of the people........yep....that would be interesting

Reality
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/10/hot-new-liberal-theory-trump-can-still-be-defeated-in-the-electoral-college-or-something/

Plus they have to change a lot of minds in the EC. I hard the latest EC vote tally is up to 306, although someone else told me its only up to 290.

And you can forget about future landslides. If leftist whackos were to get the electorate to change its mind, I think there would be civil unrest in this nation like we have never seen since the Civil War!

[MikeH]

And you can forget about future landslides. If leftist whackos were to get the electorate to change its mind, I think there would be civil unrest in this nation like we have never seen since the Civil War!

The "problem" is this: it's only the "leftist whackos" that do the civil disobedience. They had the major freeway through downtown Los Angeles stopped for at least an hour (maybe more) and the Los Angeles PD was afraid to arrest any of them. And, BTW, a number of Mexican flags were visible; NO American flags!

The conservatives and moderates have more respect for other's rights; they wouldn't do these things.

[Tom]

In LA, it is past time for the dogs, fire hoses, horses, you name it.
Clear out the road by whatever it takes.

[MikeH]

In LA, it is past time for the dogs, fire hoses, horses, you name it. Clear out the road by whatever it takes.

But you might offend some prissy member of the entertainment industry! :-)

[BetHorses!]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

[Clocker]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Supporters have been pushing that thing for at least ten years. At last count, 10 states and the D.C. have signed on. All of those are heavily Democratic. The compact does not go into effect until enough states to add up to 270 electoral votes agree to it. It is not likely to ever happen, especially after the voter rejection of the Democratic Party this year.

[boxcar]

The "problem" is this: it's only the "leftist whackos" that do the civil disobedience. They had the major freeway through downtown Los Angeles stopped for at least an hour (maybe more) and the Los Angeles PD was afraid to arrest any of them. And, BTW, a number of Mexican flags were visible; NO American flags!

The conservatives and moderates have more respect for other's rights; they wouldn't do these things.

Even though conservatives, generally, know how to show restraint, nevertheless everyone has their limits.

[DSB]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
And the ability to do this is provided for in the Constitution... where?

[Tom]

Local COLLEGE morons today were chanting that Hillary won the popular votes and that should be all that matters - ignore the ELECTRICAL college! :lol::lol::lol:

[EasyGoer89]

Local COLLEGE morons today were chanting that Hillary won the popular votes and that should be all that matters - ignore the ELECTRICAL college! :lol::lol::lol:

She got blown out in the popular vote, I figure there's millions of votes that were from dead people, ineligible people and soros machines as well as secret meetings in broward county with election officials, nobody who knows what's going on thinks she had more actual legit Alive people who voted for her.

[Clocker]

And the ability to do this is provided for in the Constitution... where?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[Clocker]

Local COLLEGE morons today were chanting that Hillary won the popular votes and that should be all that matters - ignore the ELECTRICAL college! :lol::lol::lol:

Is our children learning?

Children should not play with electricity. :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

An interesting (and ancient) thread, timely again and worthy of a bump! :ThmbUp:

Thanks for bringing this thread back, Dan. It is a bit of a reminder that it's not easy to have an original thought around here.

[boxcar]

She got blown out in the popular vote, I figure there's millions of votes that were from dead people, ineligible people and soros machines as well as secret meetings in broward county with election officials, nobody who knows what's going on thinks she had more actual legit Alive people who voted for her.

Exactly! In another thread, I showed where Obama just before the election encourages illegal aliens to vote and not fear any legal repercussions!

[EasyGoer89]

Exactly! In another thread, I showed where Obama just before the election encourages illegal aliens to vote and not fear any legal repercussions!
I didn't even count the Virginia situation where the guy basically let 60k criminals out of jail to vote for her (or something like that)

[boxcar]

I didn't even count the Virginia situation where the guy basically let 60k criminals out of jail to vote for her (or something like that)

I have no doubt whatsoever that Trump won the popular vote, as well. Just the illegal aliens alone would have had every motive, every incentive to cast a vote for Hillary.

[DSB]

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2
Such a compact is not expressly authorized by the Constitution, it's an attempt to circumvent it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/hankadler/2014/05/03/breaking-the-constitution--national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-n1832757

Excerpt:

"First, Article 1 of the Constitution specifically prohibits agreements between States without the consent of Congress. While this clause has been judicially narrowed over time, it is unlikely that it has been narrowed sufficiently to allow the National Popular Vote compact without Congressional consent.

Second, this "poor man's constitutional amendment" is specifically designed to circumvent the Constitution. Without reservation, its sole purpose is to avoid the constitutionally necessary and likely unattainable requirement of ratification of this notion by three quarters of the states under Article 5. Would the Supreme Court allow such a result? I think not."

I think not, also. Any state that's a party to such a compact could conceivably disenfranchise a vast majority of voters in it.

Say that a state voted overwhelmingly for a republican, but a democrat won the popular vote, all of those voters would have their votes negated by such a compact.

If that would not violate the letter of the Constitution, it surely would violate the spirit of it. I doubt anyone (who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, that is) would interpret the founders' intent to mean that politicians should have the power to direct the state's electoral votes contrary to the will of the people.

At any rate, it will give birth to a plethora a legal challenges.

Have at it...

[BetHorses!]

Such a compact is not expressly authorized by the Constitution, it's an attempt to circumvent it.

http://townhall.com/columnists/hankadler/2014/05/03/breaking-the-constitution--national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-n1832757

Excerpt:

"First, Article 1 of the Constitution specifically prohibits agreements between States without the consent of Congress. While this clause has been judicially narrowed over time, it is unlikely that it has been narrowed sufficiently to allow the National Popular Vote compact without Congressional consent.

Second, this "poor man's constitutional amendment" is specifically designed to circumvent the Constitution. Without reservation, its sole purpose is to avoid the constitutionally necessary and likely unattainable requirement of ratification of this notion by three quarters of the states under Article 5. Would the Supreme Court allow such a result? I think not."

I think not, also. Any state that's a party to such a compact could conceivably disenfranchise a vast majority of voters in it.

Say that a state voted overwhelmingly for a republican, but a democrat won the popular vote, all of those voters would have their votes negated by such a compact.

If that would not violate the letter of the Constitution, it surely would violate the spirit of it. I doubt anyone (who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, that is) would interpret the founders' intent to mean that politicians should have the power to direct the state's electoral votes contrary to the will of the people.

At any rate, it will give birth to a plethora a legal challenges.

Have at it...

thanks..hope ur right...I've seen it kicked around on FB. Never heard of it before

[Tom]

Is our children learning?

Children should not play with electricity. :rolleyes:

The "electrical college!"