Electoral college

[Stylteralmaldo]

they wouldn’t be complaining if they hadn’t lost in the electoral college.
they weren’t complaining in 2008 or 2012.

They’re complaining because they won the popular vote 6 of the last 7 elections, but only won 4 of the last 7 due to the electoral college.

 

[7_Sorrows]

They’re complaining because they won the popular vote 6 of the last 7 elections, but only won 4 of the last 7 due to the electoral college.

so now they want to circumvent the electoral college.

 

[ProVobis]

The electoral college is not arbitrary or antiquated. It’s there to balance power from heavily populated areas. It’s also appears to be somewhat of a check against voter fraud.

The electoral college does not balance power from heavily populated areas. Each state has its own capital and major cities, does it not?

The best explanation I found on this subject is that in major cities such as Chicago, New York, San Francisco, etc. the Republicans are less likely to fund their infrastructure (police, fire, public transportation, libraries, museums, etc.) so they are more likely to vote Democratic. They are also more likely to draw immigrants.The population of North Dakota may have its concentration in Bismark but there is no subway system or anything much else to speak of.

 

[ProVobis]

so now they want to circumvent the electoral college.

The electoral college seems to provide a lot of leeway in this. It’s just that we’ve been conditioned to think the winner-takes-all system is best when in fact it’s only most convenient.

 

[ProVobis]

They’re complaining because they won the popular vote 6 of the last 7 elections, but only won 4 of the last 7 due to the electoral college.

The rules won’t be changed because the people who won the election have to love those rules which got them into power in the first place.

 

[ProVobis]

It seems like the constitutionality could be challenged if such a law went into effect. It seems that it would interfere with the intent of the US electoral system. It would mean people would still be “pledged” to support a particular candidate but expected to support the popular vote winner of the country. What about their pledge?

So enter the U.S. Supreme Court and circumvent the 10th amendment again.

 

[Sy_Noe]

How are they bring penalized? They get 55 Electoral Votes! Again if you look at a map of the U.S. it is glaringly obvious,that outside of Ca,NY this country is Red.Do these folks not deserve equal consideration,how elitist!

I don’t know what map you are looking at but actually outside of CA and NY, there are many blue states on the 2016 Presidential map I am looking at: Midwestern states MN, IL, mid Atlantic states MD, VA, DE, CT, NJ, western states outside of CA: WA, OR, NV, CO, NM, northeastern states RI, MA, VT, and most of ME. And not a state but DC. And on top of that, some of the red ones that were crucial in the EC this time around, FL, PA, MI, WI were each decided by a mere 1% or so. 2016 was a very close election which could have just as easily gone the other way in the EC with some slight variances, and instead to the candidate more Americans voted for.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The rules won’t be changed because the people who won the election have to love those rules which got them into power in the first place.

I wouldn’t underestimate the money and the power the liberals have to change the rules.

 

[7_Sorrows]

They are not whining.
And it’s not just the Democrats who think the Electoral College is a bad thing, and not just because their party did not win this election.
The winner this time, Republican Trump, also said recently that: “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

It’s a non-partisan belief that many “winners” and “losers” of both parties agree with.

Speaking out and doing what you believe in and trying to change a structure for the better is not…whining.

It’s called trying to make progress.

.

When and where did Trump say that?

 

[_Abyssinia]

When and where did Trump say that?

Trump said it on twitter in 2012 though he said this year in tweets as cited here:

The electoral college is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones into play. Campaigning is much different.

If the election were based on a total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily

 

[7_Sorrows]

Trump said it on twitter in 2012 though he said this year in tweets as cited here:

Thanks!

 

[7_Sorrows]

Thanks!

 

[JonNC]

What happens if an elector votes on the basis of statewide results?

He/she is a patriot

 

[JonNC]

They are not whining.
And it’s not just the Democrats who think the Electoral College is a bad thing, and not just because their party did not win this election.
The winner this time, Republican Trump, also said recently that: “The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

It’s a non-partisan belief that many “winners” and “losers” of both parties agree with.

Speaking out and doing what you believe in and trying to change a structure for the better is not…whining.

It’s called trying to make progress.

.

That’s the whole idea of our constitution, to be a disaster for democracy. The founders, in their brilliance, feared and abhorred democracy for the danger to freedom and individual rights that it is.
They also intended to provide the states, who created and ratified the constitution and therefore the federal government, a significant level of control over it. So, we have the electoral college whereby the states choose the presidents. The problem with the proposal being discussed is that it not only undermines the states, it also has the capacity of disenfranchising a majority of voters within a state.

 

[JonNC]

If California was split into two states, they would get 57 Electoral Votes. And those states would still be fairly big in population.

I’m sure down state Illinois would love to be counted separately from Chicago, upstate New York from the city, central and western Pa from Philly.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

That’s the whole idea of our constitution, to be a disaster for democracy. The founders, in their brilliance, feared and abhorred democracy for the danger to freedom and individual rights that it is.
They also intended to provide the states, who created and ratified the constitution and therefore the federal government, a significant level of control over it. So, we have the electoral college whereby the states choose the presidents. The problem with the proposal being discussed is that it not only undermines the states, it also has the capacity of disenfranchising a majority of voters within a state.

Well said, and let me add:

The system of federal - state balance that the founders came up with is exceptional and unequaled today or in history. That’s what the term “American exceptionalism” means, the term doesn’t refer to “we’re # 1, we’re # 1” as some people think it does.

The problem that is now obvious is that there is a growing element in the Democratic Party, I would say it’s the entire Party save a few people who don’t pay attention to what they are doing, is now a Party that practices Fabian Socialism, whose leadership has been saying for almost a decade that they want to fundamentally change the US.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

Across the nation, Trump won over 2600 counties and Hillary won less than 500.

If you subtract out just 6 counties, Trump wins the popular vote by almost 70,000 votes.
-------------------------------------------- Clinton ---------- Trump
LA county-----------------------------1,893,770 ------- 620,285
Manhattan-------------------------------515,481 --------- 58,935
Queens---------------------------------- 473,389 --------138,550
Westchester -------------------------- 245,670 --------121,643
Bronx ------------------------------------ 318,403 --------- 34,424
Brooklyn -------------------------------- 595,086 ------- 133,653
Total ----------------------------------- 4,041,799 ----- 1,107,490

Nationwide ------------------------ 65,844,610 — 62,979,636

Nationwide w/o 6 counties — 61,802,811 — 61,872,146

So if you want NY city and LA controlling who is is president, then change to a popular vote system. The electoral college was set up in the constitution so that states with small populations would have at least some say in the presidential election.

Source: NY Times data by county
nytimes.com/elections/results/president

 

[JonNC]

Across the nation, Trump won over 2600 counties and Hillary won less than 500.

If you subtract out just 6 counties, Trump wins the popular vote by almost 70,000 votes.
-------------------------------------------- Clinton ---------- Trump
LA county-----------------------------1,893,770 ------- 620,285
Manhattan-------------------------------515,481 --------- 58,935
Queens---------------------------------- 473,389 --------138,550
Westchester -------------------------- 245,670 --------121,643
Bronx ------------------------------------ 318,403 --------- 34,424
Brooklyn -------------------------------- 595,086 ------- 133,653
Total ----------------------------------- 4,041,799 ----- 1,107,490

Nationwide ------------------------ 65,844,610 — 62,979,636

Nationwide w/o 6 counties — 61,802,811 — 61,872,146

So if you want NY city and LA controlling who is is president, then change to a popular vote system. The electoral college was set up in the constitution so that states with small populations would have at least some say in the presidential election.

Source: NY Times data by county
nytimes.com/elections/results/president

I want New York and LA to control the election of the president in a way commensurate to their proportion of their respective states. I have no problem with Clinton receiving California’s and New York’s electoral votes. What I’m not willing to agree to is a plan that awards my state’s votes to any candidate who doesn’t win the majority of votes in my state, regardless of the results of an imaginary national plebiscite

 

[JonNC]

Well said, and let me add:

The system of federal - state balance that the founders came up with is exceptional and unequaled today or in history. That’s what the term “American exceptionalism” means, the term doesn’t refer to “we’re # 1, we’re # 1” as some people think it does.

The problem that is now obvious is that there is a growing element in the Democratic Party, I would say it’s the entire Party save a few people who don’t pay attention to what they are doing, is now a Party that practices Fabian Socialism, whose leadership has been saying for almost a decade that they want to fundamentally change the US.

And that fundamental change requires an ignoring of the constitution, the limits it places on the central government, and the individual rights it protects. And that requires a tyranny of the majority that comes from democracy.
“Democracy is the right of the people to choose their own tyrant .” - James Madison

 

[mary_bobo]

That’s the whole idea of our constitution, to be a disaster for democracy. The founders, in their brilliance, feared and abhorred democracy for the danger to freedom and individual rights that it is.
They also intended to provide the states, who created and ratified the constitution and therefore the federal government, a significant level of control over it. So, we have the electoral college whereby the states choose the presidents. The problem with the proposal being discussed is that it not only undermines the states, it also has the capacity of disenfranchising a majority of voters within a state.