What good is the Electoral College?

[BabyBoomer50s]

The Electoral College reflects what the United States of America was at its founding and, constitutionally, still is. It is a federation of almost-but-not-quite sovereign states, each of which has its own executive, legislative and judicial structures and acts and speaks as its own entity. Because of this, the Constitution does not ask who "the American people" say should be president. It asks, through the Electoral College, what the states say. It certainly does not ask (pay attention Maine and Nebraska) what congressional districts say.

This is why the Senate grants equal representation to the states. Senators were originally conceived as ambassadors to the federal (general) government, appointed by the states and representing their interests. There never would have been a United States of America if the 13 colonies believed their affairs would be dominated by the populations of Virginia and Massachusetts.

An instructive modern example of this national principle, if you are still with me, is the United Nations generally and its security council in particular. The United Kingdom, whose population is 1/20th that of China, gets the same vote as China, as does France, Russia and the United States. A Brit's opinion is thereby 20 times more powerful than a Chinese — highly undemocratic. But who among us would agree to live in the shadow of an international organization whose votes and resolutions were decided by population, which is to say by China and India? There never would have been a United Nations if voting had been population based.

That is the objection the Electoral College, and the Senate, addresses.

Of course, if you reject the idea that the 50 states are their own entities, and are, or ought to be, administrative arms of the federal government; or that the United States is a unitary state and not a federation, then, yes, the Electoral College seems absurd.

But if you understand what the United States is, and was conceived to be, then it is indispensable.

Excellent summary. Here’s a good explainer on how Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes.

https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/

 

[duomomilano]

Hmmm changing it would require an Ammedment? So.. the little states will hold firm to the inequalities built into it
But!
Make it proportional to each voter !! They won’t all that either

Power begets power and never relinquishes it. The end justifies the means

We are fucked

So? Change the filibuster THAT is not Constitutional

The Democrats, currently the most passionate opponents of the filibuster, will become its fiercest defenders should the Republicans take the Senate in two weeks. It's all political cynicism. Just like we have to vote for Kamala Harris because it's time for a woman president. The Democrats would most certainly not be singing that song if the woman in the race were a Republican.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Yeah? That comment was on the Electoral College and that has to change. Period

The filibuster ? True ! I’d rather the Dems removed it first to get a whole lot straightened out

Woman president ?? You had your chance
Give us Nicky !!

 

[YDB95]

The Electoral College reflects what the United States of America was at its founding and, constitutionally, still is. It is a federation of almost-but-not-quite sovereign states, each of which has its own executive, legislative and judicial structures and acts and speaks as its own entity. Because of this, the Constitution does not ask who "the American people" say should be president. It asks, through the Electoral College, what the states say. It certainly does not ask (pay attention Maine and Nebraska) what congressional districts say.

"Pay attention Maine and Nebraska?" The Constitution doesn't tell the states how to allocate their electoral votes. Any state could choose to do what they do.

An instructive modern example of this national principle, if you are still with me, is the United Nations generally and its security council in particular. The United Kingdom, whose population is 1/20th that of China, gets the same vote as China, as does France, Russia and the United States. A Brit's opinion is thereby 20 times more powerful than a Chinese — highly undemocratic.

The same goes for the Electoral College, where California has about 60 times the population of Wyoming but only 18 times the electoral votes (54 vs 3). So a vote for president in Wyoming carries three times as much clout as one in California. As you said, highly undemocratic.

That is the objection the Electoral College, and the Senate, addresses.

Not really. The prevailing issue at hand was slavery.

The Democrats, currently the most passionate opponents of the filibuster, will become its fiercest defenders should the Republicans take the Senate in two weeks. It's all political cynicism. Just like we have to vote for Kamala Harris because it's time for a woman president.

It is way, way, way past time for a woman president. But I don't know anyone who's voting for Harris for that reason (at least not only that reason). No, the #1 reason by far is that the only plausible alternative is Trump.

The Democrats would most certainly not be singing that song if the woman in the race were a Republican.

If she were anything like Trump (or Sarah Palin or Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc.), they certainly would be.

But hey, I'll give you credit for at least trying to answer the question instead of only hurling insults at the Democrats, although you did do that as well.

 

[YDB95]

There is a group of human filth, also referred to as democrats, that have come up with THIS IDEA.

People who support having the president elected by a majority of the American people are "human filth"...and they whine when we call them deplorables!

 

[ChloeTzang]

Citing the political difficulty of scrapping the EC does not constitute any argument for its value.

So? I didn't argue for or against it's values. I simply said, if you want to change it, here's what you need to do. Go for it.

We all know Democrats want mob rule. That's why we have the political system we do. It's designed to prevent just that.

 

[YDB95]

It is genuinely amazing how you can count on supporters of the Electoral College to get every single thing they claim about it wrong.

 

[Bn2f]

So? I didn't argue for or against it's values. I simply said, if you want to change it, here's what you need to do. Go for it.

We all know Democrats want mob rule. That's why we have the political system we do. It's designed to prevent just that.

Back from your vacay?
Just in time to spread election misinformation I see. WB!

 

[ChloeTzang]

Back from your vacay?
Just in time to spread election misinformation I see. WB!

LOL, I wish. Severe case of overwork and overtime, but nothing new there.

Election misinformation? rotflmao.

 

[Bn2f]

LOL, I wish. Severe case of overwork and overtime, but nothing new there.

Election misinformation? rotflmao.

Glad I could make you lol.
Of course, I think you should work some more and make all the $$ you can! Don’t come back until January 1st, ok? Then you and I can celebrate the new year with Harris’s presidency and the knowledge that your OT hours won’t be taxed and the thriving US economy is in the hands of a democrat who will continue to put Wall Street at ease with no plans on starting an insane tariff war.

 

[Politruk]

The Democrats, currently the most passionate opponents of the filibuster, will become its fiercest defenders should the Republicans take the Senate in two weeks.

I have always, consistently, wanted the filibuster abolished -- regardless of which party controlled the Senate at the moment.

 

[Politruk]

We all know Democrats want mob rule.

You really are an idiot, aren't you?!

Look, your pure, direct democracy, like ancient Athens had, or a New England town meeting -- that is not mob rule. And neither is the direct election of the president by popular vote -- that is simply the method used by every other republic in the world, unitary or federal, that has a presidential system.

 

[SevMax2]

The Framers had a reasonable fear of too much democracy, especially after events during the Articles of Confederation. That being said, there can be more democratic aspects to our republic than they created, and there are, as in the direct election of Senators, for instance. I would favor the abolition of the Electoral College in the abstract, and indeed, it would have aided our country twice in my lifetime, as Al Gore, whatever his flaws, would have made a far better President (even with his Hatch and Pendleton Act violations) than W, and Hillary arguably than Trump (assuming that she didn't cause World War 3 in Syria). That being said, I can grasp the fear of a small, rural state at being excluded from any voice in the halls of power, and so I think that a more pragmatic and feasible solution would be proportional representation in the Electoral College. Just a thought, of course. That wouldn't require an amendment, either. Just have state legislatures abolish winner-take-all.

 

[bws1]

The EC is more relevant today than it ever has been! If it wasn't for the whole electoral college process, heavily populate states, like Washington, Oregon, California and New York would basically decide the presidential elections. Since Texas appears to be slowly leaning left, that would become the final nail in the coffin of any political political parties not controlling that bloc of states. Lesser populated states, aka the fly over states, are already getting the shaft and theirs and the fates of the country are being decided by the representatives from a small number of states.

 

[Politruk]

The EC is more relevant today than it ever has been! If it wasn't for the whole electoral college process, heavily populate states, like Washington, Oregon, California and New York would basically decide the presidential elections.

No, they wouldn't, because states as units would not decide it, voters would. Casting a Republican vote in New York -- at present a waste of effort -- would matter as much as casting a Republican vote in Texas -- at present a waste of effort.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Blah blah blah. There's a process to amend the Constitution. You want to change it, get going. It's been done before. How many states would approve doing away with the Senate or the EC you think? It's a built in part of those checks and balances that the Democrats are always so eager to do away with. So go ahead. Try.

1. The amending resolution must be passed by a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House and the Senate.
2. If approved by Congress, the proposed amendment is sent to the governors of all states for their approval, by one of two ways:
   The governor submits the amendment to the state legislature for its consideration; or
   The governor convenes a state ratifying convention.
   If the amendment is ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or ratifying conventions, it becomes part of the Constitution.
   
   
3. Alternatively, the second method of amending the Constitution prescribed by Article V, if two-thirds f the state legislatures vote to demand it, Congress is required to convene a full constitutional convention.

How ironic you eagerly, passionately would support a tyrant who would do away with the Constitution AND the Bill of rights.

Blah blah blah, you seldom have anything to say of import other than hypocrisy, bigotry and filth. You are nonetheless correct in your assessment of how to amend the Constitution- I give you that. But why, then, do you support a leader who clearly has no intentions of abiding by it?

 

[Chernosoth]

Can anyone here imagine the clusterfuck of trying to get an accurate count of 155,000,000 votes? And now there is mail in voting with shifting deadlines to receive ballots.

 

[Politruk]

Can anyone here imagine the clusterfuck of trying to get an accurate count of 155,000,000 votes? And now there is mail in voting with shifting deadlines to receive ballots.

A presidential election without the EC would use the same elections offices we have now. It would make nothing more difficult or complicated, nothing at all.