B
Bookcat
Guest
We are the United STATES of America not the “United People of America”
Electoral College is important.
Electoral College is important.
- Status
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Exactly!
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
No need to be sorry, we’re all friends here.
But, donors will only provide so much and it will factor into what type of candidates they will be willing to support. I think that would drive towards more moderate candidates on both sides. If you have candidates so bad that 10% of the electorate vote ‘none of the above’ it would require your candidate to get 56.7% of the remaining voters. I can’t see extremists or unlikeable candidates having a lot of luck getting donors.
Just like the electoral college requires campaigns to plan a particular strategy, the option of the voters to reject both major party candidates would drive a shift in funding calculations and strategy.
In addition, the election season would only be slightly longer so I don’t think the costs would go up that much. Trump actually spent a lot less than the typical candidate, which has scared the ‘election industry’ quite a bit. He showed you may not need everything they’ve been selling.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
The Electoral College is an American innovation and well thought out.
Read the Federalist Papers.
We should also abolish the 17th Amendment and put the selection of U.S. Senators back with the State legislatures.
[Either that or make half of the U.S. Senators to be sitting governors of the states.]
Governance is not to confused with popularity …
Power must be widely diffused.
Read the Federalist Papers.
We should also abolish the 17th Amendment and put the selection of U.S. Senators back with the State legislatures.
[Either that or make half of the U.S. Senators to be sitting governors of the states.]
Governance is not to confused with popularity …
Power must be widely diffused.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Term limits.
G
GEddie
Guest
The bus has sailed.
P
pnewton
Guest
If it does, there is no way three fourths of the states will ratify it. Most states benefit from the EC.
D
didymus
Guest
It wasn’t well thought out, it was a bribe to the small states, like the Senate to bring them in or the 3/5 clause to placate the South. The Constitution is not some Divinely inspired document, a lot of its features are bugs.
If the purpose of the EC is to give the small states a bigger voice it has failed. It has led to candidates campaigning in swing states.
We’ll never get rid of the EC but as I said before the best way to remedy that is to enlarge the House of Representatives so the larger states get their fair share of congressman.
OR break up the big states so we have nothing but medium and small states.
P
pnewton
Guest
It was not so much a bribe as a compromise. Without some compromise, there would have been no united states of America. Ideally, if we were to eliminate the EC, justice would demand that states have a right once again to join, or not with the USA. That is why we will not see and end to the EC.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I guess they have to throw this out there every once in a while to score points with their base and to test the waters. 
In the current system, it does seem like the swing states carry more weight than others, but the alternative is much worse. Our president would be picked by California, New York, and Chicago. Every single time.
The electoral college ensures that candidates have to appeal to a broader section of the population, which I think is a good thing.
When these discussions come up, I always kind of chuckle because we are not a democracy in the strict sense of the word. The role of the States in this union of States seems to be frequently forgotten.
In the current system, it does seem like the swing states carry more weight than others, but the alternative is much worse. Our president would be picked by California, New York, and Chicago. Every single time.
The electoral college ensures that candidates have to appeal to a broader section of the population, which I think is a good thing.
When these discussions come up, I always kind of chuckle because we are not a democracy in the strict sense of the word. The role of the States in this union of States seems to be frequently forgotten.
M
mary_bobo
Guest
The role of the states as laid out in the constitution is forgotten in this age of executive orders and a judiciary that thinks it is their role to make laws.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
People who don’t like the Electoral College usually don’t understand how it works and why it’s necessary. The most vocal ones right now are the Hillary supporters because (depending on what news report you read) Hillary won the Popular Vote but lost the Electoral Vote so their must be something “wrong” with the EC system because they didn’t get their way.
I can’t help but wonder if Hillary had won the Electoral Vote and Trump had won the Popular Vote if they would still be crying that the EC system is “unfair.”
I can’t help but wonder if Hillary had won the Electoral Vote and Trump had won the Popular Vote if they would still be crying that the EC system is “unfair.”
D
DeniseNY
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
The percentage of eligible voters is smaller in the places you mentioned. So it wouldn’t be every time.I guess they have to throw this out there every once in a while to score points with their base and to test the waters.
In the current system, it does seem like the swing states carry more weight than others, but the alternative is much worse. Our president would be picked by California, New York, and Chicago. Every single time.
The electoral college ensures that candidates have to appeal to a broader section of the population, which I think is a good thing.
When these discussions come up, I always kind of chuckle because we are not a democracy in the strict sense of the word. The role of the States in this union of States seems to be frequently forgotten.
J
jtav
Guest
Please get rid of the thing. I am a Republican (conservative Democrat would be more accurate, but they don’t really make those anymore) in a deep red state; it is incredibly hard to stay engaged when you know that your vote is utterly meaningless. Candidates don’t campaign here; no one at the national level cares. At least with a true popular vote, my vote matters just as much as someone in Ohio.
The Constitution is not holy writ and should be amended when it leads to perverse incentives.
The Constitution is not holy writ and should be amended when it leads to perverse incentives.
P
ProVobis
Guest
The other side would be crying “rigged.” Oh, wait, they already have.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
I’m in the same situation, my vote really doesn’t matter and we’re governed by the insane, filled with loathing and contempt for the people they represent as well as the notion of the rule of law.
But absolutely the opposite conclusion-- keep the EC.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
To be honest, though, our individual vote for president is always inconsequential, regardless of where you live. Until that day when someone wins by one vote. And that seems very unlikely to ever happen.
We tend to spend the most time thinking about the election that our vote has the least impact upon.
It is unfortunate that some states get taken for granted as being “in the bag” for a particular party, but I don’t think switching to a popular vote is likely to change those locales from being overlooked. If the people in a red state or blue are generally voting one way, candidates still aren’t going to campaign there. They’ll go to the population centers or else to those places with voters that are more likely to switch allegiances.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
As opposed to spending their time now campaigning in swing states. Not only are the large states of CA and NY and TX ignored now but so are states like WV, KY, AL, MS, VT and RI and a whole bunch of others.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Even if were a bill in Congress it would not pass. Not when Republicans have won the popular vote of the American people exactly 1 whole time in the last quarter of a century.
- Status