- #1
KingNothing
- 882
- 4
I'm undecided and would like to hear your viewpoints.
How does that follow? Electors traveling by horse and carriage just as easily could also be carrying a piece of paper with the popular vote on it!turbo-1 said:I live in a small state, but I happen to think that the electoral college system is perverted. It was handy back when our electors had to travel by horse or coach to the capitol to cast our votes. It is entirely unnecessary, now. We can vote in real-time ...
And they were empowered to violate that vote in the case of contention. Catch a clue.russ_watters said:How does that follow? Electors traveling by horse and carriage just as easily could also be carrying a piece of paper with the popular vote on it!
KingNothing said:Well, which method silences more people?
Four times in election history a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election.
1824, Andrew Jackson had popular vote, but there was a bit of a dispute, house voted to put in Quincy Adams
1876, Samuel J. Tilden had the popular vote, but lost electoral vote to Rutherford B Hayes (185 - 184)
1888, Benjamin Harrison became president by winning 233 electoral votes, even though he received only 47.8% of the popular vote. His opponent, Grover Cleveland, garnered 48.6% of the popular vote, yet received only 168 electoral votes.
and the most recent one:
2000, Al Gore won 48.38% of the popular vote and 266 electoral votes. George W. Bush won only 47.87% of the popular vote but received 271 electoral votes, thus won the election.
In 1988 for example, a West Virginia elector did not vote for Michael Dukakis, who had carried that state. Instead the elector voted for Dukakis's running mate, Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen.
...so you agree that the traveling has nothing to do with it?turbo-1 said:And they were empowered to violate that vote in the case of contention. Catch a clue.
You could do that, and I think it would get rid of some of the disparity, but if you're going to take the time to tally everyone's vote in order to get district/state results, why not just tally everyone's vote and take that at it's value and put whoever wins that as president?skippy1729 said:What if everyone voted for three electors, one representing their district and two representing the entire state. It would still help the smaller states but your minority vote in California or Texas could still have an impact.
PS It would be interesting if someone calculated the result of Bush vs. Gore using this method.
Physics-Learner said:the main problem is not the electoral college, but rather the winner take all aspect.
Physics-Learner said:an electoral college does not require actual electoral humans to vote.
you can have a non-winner-take-all by simply portioning the electoral votes.
i am not necessarily against a popular vote, just saying that you can have an electoral vote. the main reason for this sort of electoral vote versus a popular vote is to give the smaller states a bit more say.
i think this was promised to the smaller states to get them to join the union. if this is true, i don't know that we can take it away now.
i would prefer a very small federal govt, so the issue would start to become moot.
The problem was that the votes had to be reconciled once electors from all the districts showed up. That allowed back-room dealing and "unfaithful" casting of electoral votes. And at the time that this system was set up, traveling time (by coach, horse) could be very time-consuming. This system did not allow electors to get feed-back from their constituents when they were faced with choices about whom to throw the votes to.russ_watters said:...so you agree that the traveling has nothing to do with it?
turbo-1 said:Today, a national popular vote would be a much fairer system with less opportunity for leveraging heavily populated states into "winner-take-all" situations in which people in less populated states are ignored.
We hear it all the time. If candidate X can carry NY, PA, OH, and CA, (s)he's in good shape with the electoral votes. That's no way to run a national election, and it perverts political discourse by allowing parties to swamp key states with money while ignoring the will of the general populace.
Physics-Learner said:but then each state, without any need for real electoral college people, automatically send their electoral votes based upon the popular vote of the state.
a few states already do this. if i recall, colorado is one of them.
Vanadium 50 said:"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."
The Electoral College was established as a compromise between electing the President by popular vote and allowing Congress to select the President. The purpose is to give smaller states a voice in the election and prevent larger, more populous states from dominating the process.
The Electoral College is made up of 538 electors, with each state having a certain number based on their representation in Congress. When voters cast their ballots for President, they are actually voting for a slate of electors pledged to a particular candidate. The candidate who wins the popular vote in each state receives all of that state's electoral votes. The candidate who receives a majority of the electoral votes (270 or more) wins the presidency.
This is a highly debated question. Some argue that it is fair because it gives smaller states a say in the election and prevents candidates from only focusing on highly populated areas. Others argue that it is unfair because it allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote.
Yes, there have been several instances where a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election due to the Electoral College. The most recent and notable example is the 2016 election, where Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but Donald Trump won the presidency due to his electoral votes.
Yes, the Electoral College can be changed or abolished, but it would require a constitutional amendment. This would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratification by three-fourths of the states. There have been multiple attempts to change or abolish the Electoral College, but none have been successful so far.