Electoral College: Yes/No

[DJL 232]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

That's an argument for having politicians, not for having the EC.

Yeah, I guess I'm in the wrong forum.  I think we may have the ultimate test of the EC this election if there's any sort of ambiguity from mail in ballots, voter suppression or COVID issues interfering at the booth.

I do agree with the EC to a certain respect again as an idealization because I don't think that the more heavily populated coastal areas should overrule the needs of the country as a whole.  I also agree that the EC agent should cast their vote as the interpretation of the will of the people.   That has always meant according to the popular vote and if there's any reason they don't then it needs to be for a reason that stands up in the highest courts.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

2 minutes ago, DJL said:

I don't think that the more heavily populated coastal areas should overrule the needs of the country as a whole. 

Hi DJL,

I keep hearing stuff like this & IMO it is simply wrong.

By getting rid of the EC, every vote will count as equal to every other vote.  It would make absolutely no difference in where anyone lives.

We do not have that with the EC.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,380]

14 hours ago, airdvr said:

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a basic assumption of the country’s electoral system, reducing the possibility that a state’s Electoral College votes would be delivered to someone other than the winner of its presidential election.

Right.  They said that states could compel an elector to do what they want; a "faithless elector" no longer has the freedom to decide to vote a different way.  Thus if a state passes a law that says "electors must vote for the winner of the popular vote" then that is what they must do.  They will no longer have the freedom to say "naah, I liked the old way better."

This SC ruling paved the way for the end of the current EC system.  So far states with 196 electoral votes have either approved or are in the process of approving the national popular vote compact; once that reaches 270 presidential election will be by popular vote.

[DJL 232]

28 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi DJL,

I keep hearing stuff like this & IMO it is simply wrong.

By getting rid of the EC, every vote will count as equal to every other vote.  It would make absolutely no difference in where anyone lives.

We do not have that with the EC.

Jerry Baumchen

Would you mind explaining more.  Do you mean that the elector votes should be counted individually instead as a state block or that citizen's votes should be counted individually?

Edit: And yes I know you said to get rid of the EC but I want to make sure you mean entirely.

Edited July 9, 2020 by DJL

[kallend 1,620]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

 

I do agree with the EC to a certain respect again as an idealization because I don't think that the more heavily populated coastal areas should overrule the needs of the country as a whole.

What exactly are the needs of unpopulated mountains and deserts?

I seem to recall something about "of the people, by the people, for the people.".  

[ryoder 1,380]

8 minutes ago, kallend said:

What exactly are the needs of unpopulated mountains and deserts?

I seem to recall something about "of the people, by the people, for the people.".  

I keep tellin' ya: One acre, one vote! 

[gowlerk 1,902]

14 minutes ago, kallend said:

What exactly are the needs of unpopulated mountains and deserts?

I seem to recall something about "of the people, by the people, for the people.".  

Yes, this is true. The US does not provide for a national election. Only a series of Coordinated state elections. There can never be a “popular vote winner” except as an estimate. As long as individual states make their own rules for eligibility and counting systems you will never have a POTUS elected by all the people. The states choose the President.

 

edit, fwiw, I see this system as no better or worse than the Canadian system where almost none of us get a vote for the Prime Minister. Who is merely the leader of the party who has control of enough seats in the House of Commons.

Edited July 9, 2020 by gowlerk

[ryoder 1,380]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, this is true. The US does not provide for a national election. Only a series of Coordinated state elections. There can never be a “popular vote winner” except as an estimate. As long as individual states make their own rules for eligibility and counting systems you will never have a POTUS elected by all the people. The states choose the President.

"Coordinated state elections"? No. Not even that.

United States Constitution, Article Two, 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.

It says nothing about the state holding an election. The manner of choosing electors is entirely up to whatever the state legislature decides. If the legislature enacted a law stating that the legislators themselves would choose the electors, the Constitution would not prohibit it. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring citizens to have any input at all in choosing POTUS.

[BIGUN 1,049]

23 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Given that, how many of you

We did this last year - 

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

We did this last year - 

 

Hi Keith,

And I will probably do it again next year.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

3 hours ago, DJL said:

Would you mind explaining more.  Do you mean that the elector votes should be counted individually instead as a state block or that citizen's votes should be counted individually?

Edit: And yes I know you said to get rid of the EC but I want to make sure you mean entirely.

Hi DJL,

I mean that we, all of us voters, will elect the POTUS by popular vote.  Each vote would be counted as one vote & only one vote.  Forget anything about a 'state block' or similar.

Where one resides would have nothing to do with it.

This is how it is here in Oregon when I vote for my state's US Senator; I'm sure you understand that.  

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 1,902]

2 hours ago, ryoder said:

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring citizens to have any input at all in choosing POTUS.

Fabulous. And only a matter of time till it causes a crisis.

[BIGUN 1,049]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

And I will probably do it again next year.

Fair enough. And, next year I'll probably still be opposed to dismantling it. 

[headoverheels 291]

14 hours ago, DJL said:

I do agree with the EC to a certain respect again as an idealization because I don't think that the more heavily populated coastal areas should overrule the needs of the country as a whole.  

I think that the disproportional power that the less populous states have in Congress is enough compromise that their disproportional power in the election of the President is not necessary. 

[sfzombie13 307]

2 hours ago, headoverheels said:

I think that the disproportional power that the less populous states have in Congress is enough compromise that their disproportional power in the election of the President is not necessary. 

except everyone keeps saying that the people in some areas will control the country.  that is much better than the (however you choose electors in that state) having control.  at least the PEOPLE will be the ones choosing potus, not the (however you choose electors in that state).  hopefully, we will get a few more states to jump on the bandwagon and we can end this idiotic compromise once and for all.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

3 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

except everyone keeps saying that the people in some areas will control the country. 

Hi 13,

And that would be wrong.

Does it work that way in your state when you vote for your two US senators?

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 2,116]

As long as the power of the president is so outsize, I’m not as sure about purely popular election. The Senate is supposed to have equal balance for each state, and the House is partly popular, but the smaller states have more representatives per person. 
Make the President more of a servant to the people, but with that veto authorit maintained, and it gets more balanced again. 
Right now the system has been só gamed that it’s ridiculous, and a matter of “what can I grab for the right people“ instead of “I serve the people”
All voters matter  

Wendy P. 

[DJL 232]

19 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

This is how it is here in Oregon when I vote for my state's US Senator; I'm sure you understand that.  

 

8 hours ago, headoverheels said:

I think that the disproportional power that the less populous states have in Congress is enough compromise that their disproportional power in the election of the President is not necessary. 

I agree that on a state level a popular vote is very representative but it's because there's more of a mono-culture in the needs of the citizens. *  On the level of the Presidency I think that disparity is answered more with what headoverheels says so maybe it's not as important for the candidacy of the President to need the same sort of handicapped advantage.  My point is that there is a diversity of needs within the country and those needs are not always represented by the most populous states.  The Midwest may want a candidate that protects manufacturing, the West Coast may tend toward tech issues, the East Coast may tend toward finance.  A mix of those needs ** keeps the country healthy and just because there are fewer people in the Midwest doesn't mean that maintaining our manufacturing capabilities is less important.

*One real issue with even a statewide popular vote is that the less populous areas are at mercy of the more populous areas.  That can be seen the most in how many public services like education, healthcare and public transportation are handled.  In my state the more populous and wealthy suburban Northern Virginia dictate what kind of taxes are used and the result is that public schools in the rural and inner city areas are famously under-funded.  The result is that families who cannot afford to move are stuck sending their children to bad schools, have difficulty getting basic health needs.

**The counter argument is that there are some inherent needs that more populous areas also represent but are not answered because the ball swings the other direction when a population is hyper-focused, like in cities.  Those tend to be issues that affect low-income and consequently minority groups the most.  They have neither the representation in their state legislature nor the economic clout to bring about change and the relationship between poverty and race becomes very cyclical.

Taking your two points in mind I do lean towards getting rid of it because there are other legislative branches that create a check and balance against the Presidency.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

12 minutes ago, DJL said:

*One real issue with even a statewide popular vote is that the less populous areas are at mercy of the more populous areas.

**The counter argument is that there are some inherent needs that more populous areas also represent but are not answered because the ball swings the other direction when a population is hyper-focused, like in cities.  

Hi DJL,

It is what you say above is why, IMO, the EC does not represent the people of the US.

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,380]

CGPGrey added another video to his series on the EC: