“Why is this so important? The Electoral College has kept bigger states from bullying and pushing around the smaller states. Along with the Senate, in which each state gets two senators regardless of size (and Democrats want to get rid of that, too), the Electoral College gives small states a voice.

By the way, many of those small states are traditionalist, small-town oriented, conservative and Republican. Red States, in short. Getting rid of the Electoral College would give Blue States political domination over Red States. Democrats don't give a hoot about "democracy." What they care about is power. And eliminating the Electoral College or circumventing it altogether would give Democrats that.

Under their vision, the 50 states would wither away in terms of power and autonomy. They would merely be geographical descriptions, beholden entirely to the federal government. This kind of "democracy" means states like California and New York, with their huge, dysfunctional cities and large Democratic majorities, would become in effect geographical dictators to the rest of us.

It would also result in far more power residing in a corrupt centralized government. It move us inevitably toward the Sovietization of America.”

Get Rid Of The Electoral College? It Would Lead To The Break-Up Of America, Or Worse

How?

If all of flyover country decides to secede from the union what are you going to do? Think there is enough military willing to bomb/invade and hold vast parts of the US indefinitely? Think that Russia, China, and even the EU will stay out of the civil war?

edsitement.neh

The greatest danger Tocqueville saw was that public opinion would become an all-powerful force, and that the majority could tyrannize unpopular minorities and marginal individuals. In Volume 2, Part 2, Chapter 7, “ Of the Omnipotence of the Majority in the United States and Its Effects ,” he lays out his argument with a variety of well-chosen constitutional, historical, and sociological examples.

 Tell close to 50% of the voters their votes don't count; and will never again. See what happens.

Tell close to 50% of the voters their votes don't count; and will never again. See what happens.

trashing our country is every anarchist's dream come true.

they do not actually care how they do it.

“Why is this so important? The Electoral College has kept bigger states from bullying and pushing around the smaller states. Along with the Senate, in which each state gets two senators regardless of size (and Democrats want to get rid of that, too), the Electoral College gives small states a voice.

Well stated. It even EXPLAINS how the EC is beneficial to us all.

By the way, many of those small states are traditionalist, small-town oriented, conservative and Republican. Red States, in short. Getting rid of the Electoral College would give Blue States political domination over Red States. Democrats don't give a hoot about "democracy." What they care about is power. And eliminating the Electoral College or circumventing it altogether would give Democrats that.

Once again, some Democrats were for it before they were against it.

Under their vision, the 50 states would wither away in terms of power and autonomy. They would merely be geographical descriptions, beholden entirely to the federal government. This kind of "democracy" means states like California and New York, with their huge, dysfunctional cities and large Democratic majorities, would become in effect geographical dictators to the rest of us.
It would also result in far more power residing in a corrupt centralized government. It move us inevitably toward the Sovietization of America.”

Some Democrats won't rest until we are a shithole country.

If small states knew they no longer had any influence in the federal government, why wouldn't they secede? Why stay?

Why?  RI &  DE still gets 2 Senators do they not?  Same as Florida NY and California?

That's a pretty big equalizer.

Yes, and I would hope it stays that way. That gives those states influence over legislation and judges, but the Electoral College is what gives them a voice in electing the president.

but the Electoral College is what gives them an unfair voice in electing the president.

Fixed.

What is your definition of "fair?"

This is the system our founders created so that the individual states would have some level of equality in the creation of policy and the exercise of power. They saw value in states being able to retain some level of sovereignty even though they were coming together in a union. This is how you preserve that sovereignty.

One citizen, one vote.  The same exact vision of fairness that any group of people would demand under any other circumstances.

There have been 5 elections where the popular vote was ignored ( or did not match the EC result)

Each time, a Democrat has lost to a Republican.

Jackson lost to Adams and because he did not have enough EC votes; the House voted and picked Adams in 1825.

In 1876 Hayes won the EC by one vote.

In 1888 Harrison won by the EC vote.

2000  Gore vs Bush...

2017  Trump v Clinton.

5-0 tests the veracity of "fair".

It wasn't the popular vote was ignored , it was the fact that the popular vote didn't match the EC tabulations needed for victory, and the only thing the popular vote currently counts for is within state lines to determine who gets the EC delegates that vote for the office in question. it didn't matter how many popular votes are contained within a state , it matters how many electors to the EC a state is allowed.

Each person that ran , got exactly the amount of electors each state was allowed and according to their own states election rules.

people tend to forget it is NOT a single national race for an office , but 50+ separate state races, and yes it is the only office decided in this manner because that one office represents all 50+ states that make up a single nation.

One citizen, one vote.  The same exact vision of fairness that any group of people would demand under any other circumstances.

Under that system, we might still have segregation. Gay marriage would be outlawed. Abortion might still be illegal. The federal government could force states to do all sorts of things they don't want to do, like store nuclear waste.

These are checks on popular voting from the Supreme Court, of course, but that particular check is easier and more obvious to identify. Still, it is anti-democratic in its way. A recent Senate-specific example that leaps to mind is that House Republicans have voted several times to repeal Obamacare. Democrats in the Senate prevented it from going any further. 

Here is good little article on why the Senate is worth keeping:

In Defense of the Senate

Three main points on the topic:

First, the demand to dismantle the Senate is, practically speaking, a fantasy. Article V of the Constitution allows for amendments to the founding document, but only under certain conditions. One of them is “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” In other words, eliminating the Senate would be impossible unless the small states voted to disenfranchise themselves.

Second, the Founders in 1787 raised the question of whether we would have a national democracy, and they voted it down at the Constitutional Convention. . . . Our federal government began as a mixed system with limited authority, but has since acquired substantially more power. This imbalance between power and structure lends itself to gridlock, corruption, and inefficiency. . . . I think the better response is to devolve certain powers back to the states and communities.

Third, it is tempting to unfavorably compare the government as it is against some ideal that has never been — but this is a false contrast. Why should we assume that such an ideal government would be benevolent in practice? Philosophers since the ancients have appreciated the dangers of unbridled democracy. Perhaps democracy in our system has been so successful precisely because the compromises of 1787 do a reasonably good job of bridling it. Perhaps the Senate, despite being a product of political necessity, has been — on balance — a salutary check on the impetuosity of the House of Representatives.

Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 threatened to withdraw from the proceedings (and thus, from the new nation) is they did not have some form of equal representation among the states as states. If that were taken away today, I would expect the union to break up to some degree.

Remember also, that the large House of Representatives, with its membership based on population is a check on the power of Senate. Neither of the two bodies rules absolutely. They must work together to get anything done. For example, the task of impeachment is split between the two bodies.

That doesn't make it unfair. It just means the system is working as intended. The question is why is it better to elect the president on a direct vote of the people as opposed to the system we have.

And remember, you're suggesting that the unwashed, slack-jawed masses who watch the Kardashians and The Bachelor should be in charge. You're suggesting there should be no check at all on these people:

12 Million Americans Believe Lizard People Run Our Country

What's your fucking point?  

So the slack jawed masses shouldn't have a vote? 

Our representatives should be voted for by those who they will be representing.   You're saying it should be left up to electoral college and not the people?

Unfuckingreal

Have you heard of the Constitution? Try reading it. Then you won't get these wacky ideas like I invented the Electoral College or something.

Or maybe I just hit a nerve with a Kardashian fan. Maybe the mayor in your town is a lizard.

I never watch the Kartrashians or The Bachelor.

I imagine the ones who believe all those whacked out conspiracy theories are Rump voters

One citizen, one vote.

one citizen, one vote per state. and then the states will vote their majorities

this is not going to change

if it ever does? we all can kiss the federal government's ass goodbye.

one citizen, one vote per state. and then the states will vote their majorities

The states should have nothing to do with federal elections.  One vote per citizen, period.  You can make all the excuses and dire warnings in the world, but it’s pure bullshit.  The right defends the EC because it’s how they win, and it is inherently unfair and immoral.  In other words, it’s perfectly suited for them.

The states should have nothing to do with federal elections.  

your opinion...

the vast majority of the states that formed the federal government will not agree with you.

No, not opinion, FACT

your facts are never going to become reality.

but you keep on dreaming.

we will be putting the end of the EC right next to democratic socialism.

in the trashcan.

Right.  Sure you will!

One citizen, one vote.

When one loses.....that always sounds like a great idea to the Loser !

Too bad it wasn't set up that way from the beginning. (WTF Face)

You must be a "George Wallace" fan. (smiley face)

if you have real evidence that those elections were not fair, please produce it.

I believe that some Democrats want to change the EC NOW because they lost some elections. I don't recall ANY Democrats supporting the abolishment of the EC when Obama won and was President.

Never happen.  

At least not in accordance with the Constitutional rules required to amend the Constitution.

Thinking it could happen is just a big city weenie pipe dream

thoughtco

This article has a pretty good summary of why we have the electoral college, and what it would take to get rid of it.  The Constitution Convention of 1787 made it clear that these folks didn't think too highly of either the voters or the candidates.   

"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787

Simple proof that their has always been the butthurt few.   Even back then.

The electoral college has been working just fine for nearly 250 years, regardless of what a butthurt few say today.   That said, if the will of the people is great enough, it can always be amended out of the constitution.

Don't hold your breath on that one happening though ......

Electoral College is no longer needed.  Slavery has been abolished, thusly the slave states no longer need protection.

Besides, America will not ( break up ) because the candidate with the most votes wins.

This 'piece' appears to be straight out of Russian INTEL.

Best get going on your constitutional convention then.

Good luck with THAT!

LMAO!

Electoral College is no longer needed. 

It does exactly what it was created for - it gives rural minority populations parity with majority urban populations. Just because I align with the majority, for now, doesn't make marginalizing the minority the right thing to do.

Sorry.  The candidate with the most votes should not lose.  Just can't see the logic.  Who does that serve and why.

Don't know, but if The Supreme Court would have NOT stopped the vote count in 2000 would the US have suffered 911, the Middle East Wars, the Economic Meltdown and the phenom of $150 per barrel OIL?   Just wondering.

but if The Supreme Court would have NOT stopped the vote count in 2000 would the US have suffered 911

Because Gore is secretly Super Man and would have stopped the planes before they hit the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon.  He would have to be; because the US intelligence community couldn't even accurately track the terrorists who entered and left the country several times.  You know, the ones that first entered before the Clinton administration ended.

fairus

Hani Hasan Hanjour (26) — Saudi Arabian — pilot

• First came to U.S. in Oct. 1991 to study English in Tucson, Arizona.
• Had been in U.S. in April 1996, when he lived in Oakland, Cal. where he studied English, and later received flight training in Scottsdale, Arizona. He left in Nov. 1996 and returned again in Nov. 1997 while he obtained a FAA commercial pilot certificate. He left again in April 1999.
• Obtained student visa (F-1) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in Sept. 2000 after an initial refusal. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, Hanjour failed to reveal in his visa application that he had previously traveled to the United States.
• Returned Dec. 2000 to study English at Holy Names College (Oakland CA) but never showed up at the school. In illegal status because he did not enroll, and his entry permit had expired at the time of the attack.
• Lived in San Diego, Phoenix and Mesa, Ariz. (with Nawaf al-Hamzi), and later in Northern Virginia.
• Had a Virginia driver's license.

the Middle East Wars

Gore would have kowtowed to NATO even faster than Bush over Afghanistan. Oil still rules the world; and so long as our NATO allies need it we will be in ME conflicts. Or do you think that Libya wouldn't have happened if Gore had won? What about Syria? Yemen? Of course he would have bemoaned the environmental damage being done during all the conflicts. Maybe he would have signed the US onto a far more onerous environmental treaty that we could not exit from.

the Economic Meltdown

Because Bush caused the dot com scandal and allowed Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to cook their books long before he even took office.

phenom of $150 per barrel OIL?

Wow, next you will be telling the us that Bush was really a Russian plant. Bush wasn't the cause of $150 per barrel oil. The world market sets the price for oil. You can thank Bush for his expansion of US drilling which brought down oil prices by increasing the supply. Do you think Gore would have done the same? Would they have been even higher with Gore as president; or when he left office and Obama took over who thought we all had to pay more for gas to get us to buy fuel efficient cars; and use alternative forms of energy?

Or maybe a Gore victory would have prevented the Obama presidency; because he would have been an even bigger disaster than Bush.  

We can play what ifs all you want. Gore was no great leader

but if The Supreme Court would have NOT stopped the vote count in 2000

One more thing; the press did an exhaustive recount of the ballots. Only in a very few scenarios- none of which Gore asked for; does he win.

cnn

As it was the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had been allowed to continue, then Bush still would have won.

pbs

In the first full study of Florida’s ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled “undervotes” — ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through — to be counted. The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida’s 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories.

Sorry.  Do not believe a Gore Administration would have looked the other way when agents reported 'Middle Easterners learning to fly and not land' like the Cheney/Bush Administration apparently did.

I do not know that.  537 votes was the margin.  That is just what it was.

And, The Press does not count votes.  And, the SCOTUS did stop the recount.  That is just what it was.

Would Bush still have won?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  There were thousands upon thousands of votes that were never recounted.  Abd that is just what it was.

Do not believe a Gore Administration would have looked the other way when agents reported 'Middle Easterners learning to fly and not land

This made mw wonder so I went and looked it up , seems that the "pilots" all got their flight training in early 2000, during the Clinton /Gore admin, before the presidential election. those 6 stayed incountry and were followed by the rest of the non flying hijackers(the "muscle")after the inauguration during mid year(may-july) of 01, raising no red flags whatso ever.

False. 

bush didn't take office until jan 2001, the "pilots" had been in this country off and on as students I read since the mid 90s , and some of the flight training was documented before the election , as for the other identified individuals they came into the country during the spring and summer prior to the attacks , prior to the formation of DHS and the patriot acts and all that other super intelligent stuff the presidents can call on now.

 So uinless your saying bush was president during the Clinton / gore admin . how is it false? or do you just not like they slid by the previous admin as well as slid by for 9 months of bush?

The candidate with the most votes should not lose.  Just can't see the logic.  Who does that serve and why.

The tyranny of the majority is not an idea of what this republic was built on. There has only been 5 times in our history the EC has superseded the popular vote, so imo doing away with the EC looks more like a solution looking for a problem.

Don't know, but if The Supreme Court would have NOT stopped the vote count in 2000 would the US have suffered 911, the Middle East Wars, the Economic Meltdown and the phenom of $150 per barrel OIL? Just wondering.

Why do people continue to IGNORE the fact that the press itself concluded that Bush was the winner?

Q: When the votes were recounted in Florida, who won the 2000 presidential election?
A: Nobody can say for sure who might have won. A full, official recount of all votes statewide could have gone either way, but one was never conducted. FULL ANSWER
According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.
Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

Besides, America will not ( break up ) because the candidate with the most votes wins.

It already attempted to once , in 1860....

Huh?

Ending the EC is a non-starter. It would take a Constitutional Amendment and would never pass the ratification process. 

Constitutional Amendments ended slavery, gave women the right to vote and many other things is American history.  What is there to be afraid of?  Losing the status quo?

No one is afraid of it.   It just would NEVER pass.   Certainly not by the requirements set forth by the Constitution.   But anyone is welcome to try.

I've read that some would try to "legislate" the EC out of the Constitution.   A wholly and totally unconstitutional act if attempted.  

Any such an attempt will not end well for any folks who might try that.   Take it to the bank .....

"Take it to the bank."  ? ?  Doesn't make any sense.  You suggesting The Constitution is biblical?

You suggesting The Constitution is biblical?

Lol no, and how the heck did you make that stretch?

If still confused i suggest an American Government refresher course.   Pay specific attention to how to amend the constitution.  

It can be done and has been done.    27 times by last count.   Nothing biblical about that.

I've read that some would try to "legislate" the EC out

That would be the national popular vote compact mentioned somewhere in this discussion .

problem I see with that happening with the compact as I understand it. 

the states EC votes go to the winner of the national popular vote totals, even if the majority of the states voters vote for the other person, imagine all of a high EC delegate votes having to go to an opposing candidate that lost the popular vote in that state? any bets there would be some caterwalling and screaming? based on disenfranchiment of the vote or will of the people?

The compact is not in effect because it has not reached the needed number of EC votes to go into effect , 85 is what I think they need , so right now it is a non issue and non sueable in the courts because nothing has happened , but the second it changes the votes of the people from party A to party B against the actual vote of the people , it will go to court as disenfranchisement , and most likely be deemed unconstitutional .

Constitutional Amendments ended slavery, gave women the right to vote and many other things is American history.

that's true... but the chances of this amendment passing?  zero.

Then by your statement you should have known better than to contradict yourself.

Amendments right?  Got it, right?  Or not?

Please ..... don't bogart whatever you're smoking.  

Be a good neighbor and share it with the rest of us.   It's clearly some high powered stuff ......

and most likely be deemed unconstitutional .

There it is.   A popular vote does not meet the constitutionally established standards set to amend the constitution.   I know some are now pushing that it does but it clearly doesn't.   And if someone or something in government tries to reason/argue that is does and actually tries to do it, there will be chaos.

It's one of the main reason the EC was established in the first place.   To circumvent the possibility of just that.    A majority vote that disenfranchises major portions of the country.   A Tyranny of the Majority if you will.

It can be done and has been done.    27 times by last count. 

LOl and what a lot of people DONT know is that there have been about 11000 proposed amendments , yet only 27 have met and passed the ratification process.

My personal favorite was a proposal made in 1933 to limit personal wealth to 1 million dollars......

One of the more stupid ones was in 1937  proposing to amend the constitution to ban drunkenness, this was AFTER the repeal of prohibition , the guy who put it forth was not re elected to congress......

Wow, i knew it was a bunch but not over 11,000.    That's like an average of 50 a year over the life of this union.

Thats pretty amazing.

...but the second it changes the votes of the people from party A to party B against the actual vote of the people....

Talk about a constitutional crisis........ But then it will also place before the courts the ideal that states can make treaties between themselves outside of the constitution...... And use said treaties to extra-constitutionally change the constitution.

That would also be a usurpation of the constitutions expressly delineated methods of amending it....... Talk about the minority ruling over the majority!

It would also place the extent of individual state sovereignty directly before the court, because any such compact is based directly on it.

I think a lot more would go down the drain for their side than they would ever gain....

The only way for the constitution to be changed is by the citizens directly through the House of Representatives and their individual state legislatures. or by a legally called Constitutional Convention called by a majority of the individual states.....

There is one heck of a lot more to lose than to gain by said compact.....

Ending the EC is a non-starter.

Good to see you EG, and thanks for being a voice of reason!

Good to see you too NM. Logic and reason founded this republic, I'd like us (society as a whole) to use it more often. The partisan divide we see today is driven by passion and makes little sense to me.

I don't understand this everything or nothing mentality. 

We need the electoral college because it does, what it was supposed to do, but there are states that have proportional electoral college, and I think that is a more fair way of approaching this. It would still give smaller states a say while taking away the winner takes all aspect of the college. 

only Maine and Nebraska don't use the winner take all formula . if people want to talk about voter disenfranchisement , maybe they should start there, I don't think there would be ANY solid red or blue states if that was done away with .

I don't think there would be ANY solid red or blue states if that was done away with .

Hi Mark,

I agree, but that is the reality of it. Most states lean one way or another, but representation is the fairest way of treating this issue, and it is within the confines of the Constitution. Other than having to do some extra math, I think it's the fairest way. 

And thanks for commenting to me. I find myself lost in the middle of the road. 

I find myself lost in the middle of the road.

I know the feeling , being lost in the middle is as good as getting locked out nowadays Red.

What surprised me most was learning that the electors are not required to cast their votes according to the votes of the people in their states.  I had no idea about that until the last election.

I knew about it Katrix, but it isn't often done. Still, I feel that should be an obligation of the college since they are supposed to be representing the people. 

the electors are not required to cast their votes according to the votes of the people in their states.

That is not true. In most states the electors are required by law to cast their votes as per the election results and the candidate the have been pledged to. If they cast for anyone else they can and were fined up to. $1000.

I feel the same way ... lots of people were calling for them not to vote for Trump this year, and I think it would have set a terrible precedent and also caused more of an uproar than I can even imagine. People are quick to claim elections are stolen (look at Trump not wanting all the military absentee ballots to be counted in the midterm, because he had no idea how the system actually works - and wouldn't cared if he did; he just assumes if a Democrat wins, there was fraud).  This would bring those claims to a whole new level.

A $1000 fine isn't much of a deterrent.  Don't you remember the people calling for the electors to cast their votes for Hillary in states where Trump won?  From what I recall, it would have been possible for them to do that.

We vote for our electors, not for our President - which does seem rather odd.  But that's what makes us a Representative Democracy, I suppose.

Per the National Archives:

"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution . No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged."

Don't you remember the people calling for the electors to cast their votes for Hillary in states where Trump won

Yes I also remember that the only electors that were faithless and did not vote for their pledged candidate were Clinton electors. 

Clinton electors.

clinton shattered the glass ceiling for women... LOL

how to spot born losers

before the election = no way the gop makes it past that big beautiful blue wall.

after the election  = the electoral college has to go.

born losers only like the rules when they win.

born winners play by the rules even when they lose.

without any doubt, the left can be summed up as a bunch of sore losers. 

but the good news is,  this amendment is just another leftwing pipe dream

Other than rhetoric, how does what you say, apply to what I am saying?

I am not saying to do away with the college. I am a constitutionalist. What I am saying is let the college be proportional for each state. That is a huge difference, and for the record, I have always felt that way.

im not sure I replied to you in this thread.  but I will take a crack at it

What I am saying is let the college be proportional for each state.

it already is proportional to each state's population.

BTW nothing I said was rhetoric...

born losers always want to change the rules after they lose. a simple fact.

after they lose.... winners try harder next time. they do not try to change the rules.

did the right try to change the EC because obama?  no... we are not born losers.

cheers

It is not already proportional to each state's population

 the next census is in 2020

So?

So you're a winner?

Ok fine, so candidate A gets 45%, candidate B gets 30%, candidate C gets 20%, D gets 4%, and others get 1%, how do you split up the EC?

Now with this scenario you could get to the point that no one obtains the 270 required, if this should happen how do you resolve it, run the top two again, 3, 4?  New election you will get voter fatigue, what to do with absentee voters or do you just disenfranchise them, so many problems and endless lawsuits and recounts.  The way it is works the best it gives the people a voice and the states also have a voice since that is what the EC was for, the president is elected by the people and the states, because he is to represent both. 

how do you split up the EC?

As it stands , that's what the state has a say in. but it would also depend on the number of delegates a state actually has I would think.

let me see if I can do this using my home state , Wyoming , we have the min amount of delegates allowed, 3

instead of winner take all lets say the winner of the statewide popular vote gets 1 

since wyo only has 1 seat in the HoR , the state could dictate that that 1 vote goes to who ever wins the majority of the counties in the state , there are only 23 

Now it is feasible that the winner of the popular vote doesn't win the majority of the county votes due to population distribution within the state.

In my states case , that 3rd and last EC vote could belong to either the state legislature or the governor, both parties have controlled both over the years , so where it goes would be dictated by who controls the govenors mansion or the state legislature.

Basically what I am saying is majority popular vote , majority within congressional representative districts ( which could go either way) , and majority control of the executive and legislature of the state itself.

Perhaps it's time to again adjust the number of Representatives in the House. That was done in the past as populations changed, it might be needed again. But I don't like getting rid of the EC any more than I like the other idea floated to change how Senators are apportioned.

Perhaps it's time to again adjust the number of Representatives in the House.

I think some are also thinking that as well, House representation is based on population , and the grey area is and can be argued that only citizens have the right to vote in elections so representation on population should be based on the population of citizens , hense the fight against a citizenship question on the census, if representation is allotted by the population of valid and verified US citizens , some states could lose some representatives .

I have seen it mentioned that Ca could lose up to 9 house seats if the population representation is adjusted to citizens only, those seats of course would be reassigned to other states .

Perhaps it's time to again adjust the number of Representatives in the House.

the next census is 2020

I am not opposed.

Perhaps it's time to again adjust the number of Representatives in the House.

I wouldn't be opposed to that either, but one of the limiting factors is the size of the capital building, the last time they increased the total of representatives they had to double the size of the House chamber......

A serious consideration.....

But also more districts, probably red districts based upon population distribution....

The Founders believed in proportional voting at the electoral college, but unfortunately they left the implementation up to the states. The political forces in the states quickly reasoned out that it was in their best interests to go all or nothing.

I agree with you, one elector and they HAVE to vote the way their district voted......

Would settle all issues.

The democrats have a majority, then spread that majority out over more districts rather than concentrating them in a few....

But they don't want to do that, spreading their constituents out would get them out from under the hard core political policies/ideologies and probably open their eyes to what real America is all about.

I would WELCOME IT!

Good post girl!

If anyone wants to see how the various states have chosen to handle it, this has the info:

nass

I'm very familiar with it, many should learn it and find out why it is wrong.....

Good post......

We need the electoral college because it does, what it was supposed to do, but there are states that have proportional electoral college, and I think that is a more fair way of approaching this

Pretty sure it would no longer do what it was intended to do if that was done.   That is to provide less populous states more of a say in federal politics and avoid a potential Tyranny of the Majority.  

It's not equally fair to all voters from a pure democracy standpoint but i would argue it has worked very well for nearly 250 years.   I'm not sure the union would survive the loss of it.

Pretty sure it would no longer do what it was intended to do if that was done.   That is to provide less populous states more of a say in federal politics and avoid a potential Tyranny of the Majority. 

That is not true. It is the fairest way of doing it, and if the state is more one way than another, the results would come out that way. 

It's sheer math and it works both ways. For instance, I live in NY. We always go blue, despite the fact that half of Long Island votes red as well as upstate. In the last election, 51% went to Clinton while 36% went to Trump, so that would be the percentage each would get from the college, instead of winner takes all. It still does not make NY college any more powerful or less. It's just not winner takes all. The size of the college does not change. 

There have been many elections that the college provided really a poor representation of what their state voted. This would prevent the winner takes all. 

Here is an interesting article about the various different scenarios on voting. The one thing that comes across clearly, is that most of the time, it still comes out the same way. 

washingtonpost

Pretty sure it would no longer do what it was intended to do if that was done.

I think you misunderstood her Sparty, all she is saying is that the electors should be voting their district as the Founders originally envisioned it....

Remove the political party manipulations from the process.....

There have been many elections that the college provided really a poor representation of what their state voted.

Isn't that the TRUTH!

Here is an interesting article about the various different scenarios on voting. The one thing that comes across clearly, is that most of the time, it still comes out the same way. 

At the end of the last cycle, Mac and I went through the various options. I determined that the outcome would have been the same except T-rump would have had a greater margin of victory and more electoral votes than he was actually awarded under all-or-nothing. (without changing the popular vote at all)

No one really put up any argument, No one really could.... More districts went for T-rump than he was given credit for.

I would like to see the Maine and Nebraska model nationwide. Almost every state would be a battleground state with that system as a district in Maine and Nebraska have been battlegrounds.  

relax....

the electoral college is not going away because some batshit leftists do not like it.

the chance of this amendment passing is ZERO

Pro 1: It keeps smaller states relevant in U.S. politics. 

Imagine a U.S. presidential with no electoral college. If only the popular vote mattered, candidates might concentrate their energies on densely populated metro areas like   New York , Los Angeles and Chicago. Depending on your perspective, that might sound like a change for the worse. It would mean candidates would have little reason to consider, say, the state of farming in Iowa or the opiate crisis in New Hampshire.

One reason that some analysts support the electoral college is that it encourages candidates to pay attention to small states and not just get out the vote in big, populous states and cities. The electoral college gives small states more weight in the political process than their population would otherwise confer.

Related Article:   The Pros and Cons of Raising the Minimum Wage

Pro 2: It provides a clean, widely accepted ending to the election (most of the time). 

The electoral college, proponents say, makes U.S. presidential elections less contentious by providing a clear ending. There’s no need for a national recount when you have an electoral college. If one state has voting issues, you can just do a recount in that state rather than creating national upheaval. And to win, a candidate must garner the support of voters in a variety of regions. That means whoever wins the presidency must build a truly national coalition. This, in turn, helps promote national cohesion and the peaceful transfer of power between presidents and helps keep the nation’s political system stable.

Pro 3: It makes it easier for candidates to campaign. 

If you’re a Democrat running for president, you don’t have to spend too much time or money wooing voters in left-leaning California. The same goes for Republican candidates and right-leaning Texas. The fact that certain states and their electoral votes are safely in the column of one party or the other makes it easier (and cheaper) for candidates to campaign successfully. They can focus their energies on the battleground states. Some argue that getting rid of the electoral college could make American presidential elections even more expensive than they already are, exacerbating what some see as America’s   campaign finance problem .

Pro or Con: It keeps the two-party system strong.

This one is either a pro or a con, depending on your point of view. The electoral college helps keep the two-party system strong. It makes it very hard for a third party to break through at the national level and increases the risk that a third party could spoil a candidate’s chance of winning, which in turn discourages people from voting for third-party candidates.

Some analysts credit the two-party system with keeping American politics stable and driving candidates to the political center, while others would like to see a multi-party system takes hold in the U.S. So, depending on where you stand with regard to the two-party system, you’ll probably have corresponding feelings about the electoral college.

Con 1: It can make people feel like their votes don’t matter.

In the electoral college, it’s true that not every vote matters. A Democrat in California who gets stuck in traffic and doesn’t make it to the polls probably shouldn’t beat himself or herself up. The same can’t be said for a voter in Florida, Ohio or another swing state. U.S. voter participation rates are already quite low, and some argue that eliminating the electoral college would be an easy way to raise them and to boost Americans’ engagement in the political process.

Con 2: It gives too much power to swing states.

If you follow U.S. federal elections and you don’t live in a swing state, you might find yourself grumbling that some voters get all the attention. If you don’t live in a swing state like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc., you probably won’t see as many ads, have as many canvassers come to your door or get polled as frequently. The electoral college means that swing states – which aren’t necessarily the most representative of the country as a whole – get most of the attention.

And even within swing states, certain counties are more competitive than others and voters in those counties are courted particularly hard. If that offends your sense of fairness and you think that candidates should fight for the votes of all Americans, you may oppose the electoral college.

Con 3: It can clash with the popular vote.

Remember 2000? When Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral college and therefore the presidency? That was enough to turn some Americans off from the electoral college forever. If we eliminated the electoral college, that scenario would never be repeated. The potential for the electoral college to conflict with the result of the popular vote is one of the most commonly cited arguments against the electoral college.

Con 4: There’s the possibility of “rogue electors”

Many states have no law requiring electors to vote the way their state has voted. Electors in these states are “unbound.” It’s an honor system and a tradition that electors vote the way their state votes, but there’s always the possibility of “rogue” or “faithless” electors who could give a vote to the candidate who didn’t win the elector’s state. This worries some critics of the electoral college.

Bottom Line

Will the U.S. decide to eliminate the electoral college? It’s hard to say. There’s a movement to encourage states to split their electors in proportion to the percentage of the state vote that each candidate gets. While that wouldn’t eliminate the electoral college, it would change the winner-take-all nature of our system and the way candidates think about state campaigns. Time will tell whether that reform – and others – come to pass.

_____________________________________________________

I'd speculate that most, if not all of the same people who favor the Electoral College, would bitch like hell if their football team scored more points than an opponent … AND WERE DECLARED THE GAME LOSERS!

I'd speculate that most, if not all of the same people who favor the Electoral College, would bitch like hell if their football team scored more points than an opponent … AND WERE DECLARED THE GAME LOSERS!

Well this is the issue with this statement, where the game is played and how points are scored.... points are scored by winning districts the same districts where you are represented in congress. So yes your popular vote counts within your district.

But where the points are scored is what matters..... and those are scored in the electoral college. 1 point per district is what was intended, but modified by special interests in attempts to slant the rules....

You team scores more points and loses the game?

What your actually arguing is that your team didn't actually score more points but should have won anyway cause they have a larger cheering section....

So maybe would should just have the spectators declare the team they are rooting for at the start and the team with more cheerleaders gets the .....

Don't even have to play the game..... (and the cheerleaders need not be purty either) I guess they could phone it in.....

It's the fairest system there is......

Direct popular election is pure tyranny..... Tyranny of the majority.......

But where the points are scored is what matters..... and those are scored in the electoral college. 1 point per district is what was intended, but modified by special interests in attempts to slant the rules....

An inherent OXYMORON … the "team" that "scores the most points" in a given state gets the Electoral College "points," but in the POTUS SUPER BOWL, those "points" are essentially prorated so that ultimately, the "players" who scored (cast votes) in the "games" … can still lose the BIG ONE!

We disagree; it's a bad system that can essentially disenfranchise the majority.

Scoring a "touchdown," only to find the "6 points" that went up on the board initially, somehow became a "safety" … now that's tyranny!

Scoring a "touchdown," only to find the "6 points" that went up on the board initially, somehow became a "safety"

It might be because I realize that its is not one national race for president , but 50 individual races that give different points per state (EC delegates) for the touchdown , with the goal being a cumulative 270 points to win.

thing is a touch down in one state such as say California is worth 55 points, and all that matters inside the state of ca is where those points go, last time they went to the democrats , be it they won those points by 1 vote , or 1 million votes , all that was at stake was those 55 EC points , and that is where the popular vote ends , at the state line , any more votes garnered to win those 55 EC points means nothing in the scheme of how other states points are awarded .

National popular vote doesn't mean jack , it is the individual popular votes within the states themselves that dictate who gets the needed 270 EC points to secure the win.

I compare it to the recent bears / eagles game , bears might have put their all and worked harder for the points , but the eagles got the needed points to win in the end.

You are right about the 51 separate popular votes within the jurisdiction of each of those 50 states and a district. That Hillary won California by four million was no more important there than Trump winning Michigan by ten thousand there was.  There are no bonus points for piling it on in a given state. Pennsylvania, Michigan,and Wisconsin combined are comparable in EV’s to California.  Trump won those three by a combined 80,000 votes or so.  

popular vote is like yards gained in football and electoral votes are points scored 

Get Rid Of The Electoral College?

This question has been raised and debated in the past, but never as vituperatively as it's been since the 2016 presidential election which says a lot about the purpose this time around. Hillary lost and Trump won. Get over it.

the purpose this time around. Hillary lost and Trump won. Get over it.

We'll see who "gets over it" if/when the various "phenomena" the contributed to the 2016 POTUS Election, reveal something extra-electoral college.

if/when the various "phenomena" the contributed to the 2016 POTUS Election, reveal something extra-electoral college.

Such as collusion to change votes? that will only really matter IF the votes were changed AFTER they had been cast. As for whatever some outside entity spread as news , that might be considered a lie, well that makes a good case for people vetting their own information and being informed themselves , old saying let the buyer beware comes to mind . just like when it was found that ole harry reid outright lied about Romneys tax situation and was called on it , his reply was , "It worked didn't it?"

The only "phenomena" I saw come out of the 2016 cycle was that 2 of the shittiest candidates for office were running and everyone was trying to convince everyone else theirs stunk of shit less. and it is still happening 2 years later.