What good is the Electoral College?

[Politruk]

As for the EC's purpose, see Federalist 68:

Hamilton viewed the system as superior to direct popular election. First, he recognized the "sense of the people should operate in the choice" and believed it would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College. Second, the electors would be:

...men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice and to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize the risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college members would have only a "transient existence", and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".

Also, a successful candidate for the office of president would have to have the outstanding qualities to appeal to electors from many states, not just one or a few states:

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

In other words, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The Framers had the idea that the College of Electors would choose a president like the College of Cardinals chooses a pope: That is, they would assemble with no commitment at all to any candidate or party; look around at the most prominent statesmen of the time; and pick one they judged suitable. The general public would be involved in the process only in the election of the electors, who presumably would campaign not in terms of "Vote for John Smith -- he'll vote for Thomas Jefferson," but in terms of, "Vote for John Smith --
he has good, sound judgment."

No American WANTS presidential elections to work that way.

And no election since the second election of Washington ever HAS worked that way.

What is the point of keeping the EC?!

 

[Pad_Foot]

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

 

[ll74]

Duplicate thread

 

[Politruk]

I see none similar.

 

[LLCox]

I see none similar.

He just likes to say that. He has other similar moderator style quips.

 

[Politruk]

So? Change the filibuster THAT is not Constitutional

The Senate should be abolished, too.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Not going to support abolishing the Senate sorry

 

[Politruk]

Not going to support abolishing the Senate sorry

What good is it? There has never been a time since 1789 when the nation had any reason to be glad of the Senate's existence.

 

[Pad_Foot]

You want all the judges etc to go through the House?? Insanity

 

[Politruk]

You want all the judges etc to go through the House?? Insanity

Why not? They couldn't handle that any worse than the Senate does. A one-house legislature is better than a two-house legislature.

 

[Politruk]

Nobody has yet said a word in defense of the EC. Can nobody think of any?

 

[YDB95]

Nobody has yet said a word in defense of the EC. Can nobody think of any?

Sooner or later, Reichguide or Icanthelpmyself will be along to whine about the tyranny of the majority and how the EC protects rural voters.

 

[ChloeTzang]

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.

 

[Rebel5soul]

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.

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

There are some really interesting, and amusing, scenarios that can be triggered by that compact.

 

[lessOHmo]

As for the EC's purpose, see Federalist 68:



In other words, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The Framers had the idea that the College of Electors would choose a president like the College of Cardinals chooses a pope: That is, they would assemble with no commitment at all to any candidate or party; look around at the most prominent statesmen of the time; and pick one they judged suitable. The general public would be involved in the process only in the election of the electors, who presumably would campaign not in terms of "Vote for John Smith -- he'll vote for Thomas Jefferson," but in terms of, "Vote for John Smith --
he has good, sound judgment."

No American WANTS presidential elections to work that way.

And no election since the second election of Washington ever HAS worked that way.

What is the point of keeping the EC?!

Indeed, let's get rid of it

N

Get rid of allowing women n coloreds to vote

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

The Senate should be abolished, too.

You really are very very confused about our system of government. This people. A shining example of the public education system. Seventy years of Radicalization.

 

[Politruk]

You really are very very confused about our system of government.

I know ALL about our system, and what is wrong with it. That is why I want the Senate and the EC abolished.

 

[Politruk]

Blah blah blah. There's a process to amend the Constitution.

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

 

[Politruk]

The Senate never has been good for anything. Its existence has always been regrettable.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

I know ALL about our system, and what is wrong with it. That is why I want the Senate and the EC abolished.

You know all about it huh?

Tell us professor. What does the constitution say? I’ll be a dear And do your homework for you. Start there and work your way backwards. Those are facts. Your opinion is just that. Yours alone.

Tilt at those windmills my good Man of La Mancha.

 

[Politruk]

What does the constitution say?

That is irrelevant -- I'm talking about changing it. Nothing in the Constitution provides any reason for the EC. The Federalist does, but not any good reason.

 

[ChloeTzang]

That is irrelevant -- I'm talking about changing it. Nothing in the Constitution provides any reason for the EC. The Federalist does, but not any good reason.

It's worked for a couple of hundred years. You don't fuck around with what works. What happens when you do is usually a disaster. Seems a good enough reason to me.

 

[Politruk]

It's worked for a couple of hundred years.

No, it has failed several times.

 

[Rodlicker11]

Very well said. I state it simply that if we went with the popular vote then the large populated states would be the only deciding the votes for president. Do you really want to be ruled by California, New York, Texas and Florida?? The rest of the states wants and needs from government would not be considered. If you want to revise the electoral college so all states would get an equal voice then let's explore it. But the idea of going to a popular vote is foolish!!

 

[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/