Hear this Conservatives: I have changed my mind about the EC

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (23 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    https://time.com/5658293/electoral-coll … urt-rules/

    No way am I going to allow for any sort of Electoral College where members can explicitely cast votes irregardless of the popular vote tally within their states.

    Why do I want a handful of fat bloated oligarchs deciding the outcome of elections not being required to regard the will of the people as reflected in the popular vote?

    So, I guess, that I was once reluctantly for it, but under the new understanding, I am definitely against it.

    1. GA Anderson profile image89
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Take a breath Cred. There is another side to that coin.

      How do you feel about a state compact that equally agrees to ignore the will of the state's popular vote? As in ignoring their voters entirely, and casting their state's EC votes for the national popular vote winner - regardless of that state's citizen's votes.

      Here you would have a bunch of legislators deciding who your state voted for - instead of the citizens.

      National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

      "The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia . . ."

      Meaning, your votes count for the national popular vote winner - regardless of whether that was your choice.

      I think that is a bit worse than worrying about a 'faithless elector' or two. What do you think?

      The effect of a few faithless Electors can't be as distasteful to you as losing all your EC votes. Can it?

      It shouldn't take an EC dissertation to ask if you now also disagree with the Framer's fear of pure democracy? Or if you think the many ways our Constitution was written to guard against mob rule are now old out-dated ideas suitable only for those early primitive nation times?

      If you had read about the National Compact first would you have felt the same angst?

      I would have thought your criticism of the EC would be more about it's apparent, (from anti-Trumper's perspectives), failure to serve it's second primary purpose than worrying about a couple of faithless electors.

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        GA, you were the one that emphasized the importance of "states" electing the President and not just have it based on the majority of electorate solely. All the explanations for the Electoral  College and its existence made sense until...

        The Electoral College MUST represent the popular vote of their respective states, winner take all or whatever.

        Did you hear the ruling? These people are not held to representing the outcome of the popular vote. I understand and expect the EC electors to reflect the will of the population of the state, that is not to be changed even to reflect the national preference.

        There can be NO unfaithful electors period, if it is permitted now it will be taken advantage of sooner rather than later in larger numbers and scale.

        I WILL never accept a handful of men who, let's face it, are likely bourgeoisie, to overrule the popular vote of the people. Why should I hand that kind of power to anyone?

        The College is only acceptalbe when electors are required to represent the popular vote of their respective states and not just vote as they choose contrary to popular vote. Otherwise, I am all for scrapping it.

        This is in stark contrast with the principle of democracy.

        1. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Cred, I think the National Popular Vote Compact is much more dangerous with respect to your complaint than faithless electors could ever be.

          How do you feel about the states that have the winner-take-all EC rule? Does that fit your idea of representing the state's popular vote? By that rule, 51% of voters get their voice heard and 49% might as well have not voted.

          How would you feel about proportional Elector's votes? Divide the EC votes based on the citizen's votes? Then, every, (relatively speaking), voter's vote would be worth something.

          Originally the EC Electors were intended to be proportionally selected by different segments of a state's citizens, (this was before political parties changed things). This means a state's EC votes were expected to be representative of their electing segment. So you could have a state's electors voting for different candidates.

          Now we have a majority of state's with winner-take-all rules and laws and you are worried about a couple, (a few at most), faithless voters?

          If you are against the EC for this faithless elector idea, you should be much more concerned with the Compact. You are raging against crumbs when there are real hands reaching to take your whole cake.

          I would like to take control away from the political parties and change the EC to have proportionally representative EC votes. Winner-take-all does not properly represent a state's citizen's vote.

          My situation in Maryland is a good example. As a Blue state, and the way the political system works now, until there are a majority of Red votes - they may as well stay home, they are voiceless.

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            " I think the National Popular Vote Compact is much more dangerous with respect to your complaint than faithless electors could ever be."

            They are both dangerous in their own way

            If I had my choice, and wanted perfect representation I would rely solely on the popular vote.

            Winner takes all is used 48 of the 50 states so the GOP takes Texas while the Dems do California. I am not keen on the Electoral College concept, but to avoid a Constitutional crisis....


            I have no problem with an apportioned representation for electors to more accurately reflect the will of the electorate within their state.

            In this political cauldron and with GOP based demographics in decline, conservatives are the first to take advantage of the openings here.

            While winner takes all may not be the best system, but it is better than allowing these plutocrats to vote for whomever they want. Now, that is scary, the entire presidential contest ultimately determined by the will of a handful of pathetic old men.

            The situation you face in Maryland is the situation that I would face in Utah or Wyoming.

            What is to keep 2 unfaithful electors from becoming 10 or twenty?

    2. profile image0
      Onusonusposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Because we're a Constitutional Republic.
      https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2019/03/electoral-1.jpg?resize=709,492

      1. GA Anderson profile image89
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        You really missed the boat with this one Onusonus. Georgia alone has a larger population than your "Red dot" of LA County.

        GA

        1. profile image0
          Onusonusposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          That's not a cumulative number. Georgia has had roughly the same population numbers as LA over the last decade.

          1. GA Anderson profile image89
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            My mistake. I missed the "same" part.

            GA

      2. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I have no problem with Electoral College serving the traditional role, but i won't abide this entity consistently supplanting the will of the majority of the electorate. Or, allowing it electors the option to do so with impunity.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I wouldn't get overly worried about it, the chances of another billionaire running for office who is able to rile up enough 'deplorable masses' to vote for him isn't going to happen again in our lifetimes.

          Which means we will be going back to Establishment candidate A vs Establishment candidate B... either will continue the country on course as the establishment (those in the halls of the Pentagon, International Corporations, Banks etc.) expects it to be run.

          I know many people think big changes happened from Bush to Clinton to Bush Jr. to Obama... but when you look at the major issues, trade, wars, immigration, etc. the direction never really changed from one to the next.

          Things like the Glass Steagall repeal, and China's free reign happened over the course of multiple Presidencies. Despite swings of Party control in Congress, these issues, and many others were never addressed until the damage done had reached the point of great economic hardship or disaster.

  2. Live to Learn profile image76
    Live to Learnposted 2 years ago

    I was the same way. At first it seemed a reasonable idea but careful consideration changed my mind.

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Good to know that even you are on board over this issue, I wonder who could possibly support this EC now?

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Cue....GA.  big_smile

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I am waiting to see what Wilderness or GA have to say about this.......

        2. GA Anderson profile image89
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I heard that!

          GA

    2. Live to Learn profile image76
      Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Lol. I didn't read your article, I misunderstood your statement. I think we are in disagreement. I don't want to see the electoral college ignored.

      If we dismantle the electoral college we might as well dismantle the United States.

      Damn. How could I have misunderstood your statement? I guess probably because I like to find agreement with you whenever possible.

      1. GA Anderson profile image89
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Not "dismantle the United States," just do away with the idea of States and State sovereignty. (on second thought, maybe that is the same as your "dismantling . . .") Why not be one big nation of citizens with one big central government to rule our lives? San Francisco and Tupelo - one set of living rules for all.

        *I suppose I should note that last bit was sarcasm

        GA

        1. Live to Learn profile image76
          Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I don't think people in big cities and largely populated states understand that smaller states and not so densely populated states have no reason to be in the union if they have no reasonable expectation to play a part in national elections.

  3. GA Anderson profile image89
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    Come on bud, your "plutocrats" and "pathetic old men" condemnations are getting old, and are practically misplaced here.

    While it is true that the political parties, (controlled by plutocrats and pathetic old men?), select their slates of EC electors in each state, the actual electors are typically just average folks--politically active average folks--but still just average folks.

    So if an elector did go 'faithless' it would be contrary to those plutocrats and pathetic old men that you claim controls them. A sort of rebellion of an average Joe, so to speak.

    There were 7 successful faithless electors in 2016 - barely more than one-hundredth of a percent of total electors. Even if that number tripled it would be less than four one-hundredths of a percent. Combine that with your mention that 48 states have winner-take-all rules and laws and I think you have a better chance of Captain Kirk landing in your backyard than of faithless electors changing an election.

    Here is an interesting article on who the 2016 faithless electors were, and, who they went "faithless" for: How Many Faithless Electors Were There in 2016?

    I think that the National Popular Vote Compact is much more dangerous to the criticisms you have than faithless electors could ever be.

    However, I have to wonder if that the Compact is a Democrat initiative is a reason it doesn't concern you as a few faithless electors do.

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "Come on bud, your "plutocrats" and "pathetic old men" condemnations are getting old, and are practically misplaced here."

      GA, Just a polite way for me to describe a phenomenon without getting explicit or unpleasant. I will continue to use them as I think that they are appropriate. Those pathetic old men and plutocrats are part of the status quo that you wish to retain and that I want to change..... you are still quite the red one

      https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/1 … ite-voters

      I don't like the very idea that electors can virtually select the president, choosing as they wish. I am not interested in what they won't do, but in what they can't do. I like can't better than won't, I like the legal restriction in place.

      What if they all went faithless,since there no law to prevent the Electors to vote for a GOP candidate in California even though the state is overwhelmingly casting its votes for Democrats?

      "Combine that with your mention that 48 states have winner-take-all rules and laws and I think you have a better chance of Captain Kirk landing in your backyard than of faithless electors changing an election."

      I am happy only with NO chance.

      I never gave you the impression that I poo-pooed the concern over the National Popular Vote Compact, it changes the principles of Electoral College. I am opposed to that idea, it is just that I see a problem in an area that you can't help but to be blind to.

      I am surprised that you can't see any danger when electors CAN select our next president regardless of what the popular vote indicate. If they CAN then eventually they WILL.

      I don't rave about the Electoral College but support it reluctantly only when the handful of people are not able consistently to supplant the votes of millions.

      My political affiliation has nothing to do with this stance, the more people involved in a decision/selection, whatever, the more comfortable I am with the process.

      1. GA Anderson profile image89
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Your Vox article was an interesting read, but I think it emphasizes the point that you are worrying about Lottery-type odds of something happening.

        Even if all electors did go faithless it is extremely unlikely they could change the popular vote outcome of a state's EC vote application to the popular vote candidate.

        Consider how the EC electors are chosen and their votes applied. In all but two states, their votes are awarded to the winner of the popular vote - even if they vote faithless:

        "The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's electoral votes.

        If a Democrat candidate won the state's popular, (or plurality), vote, it wouldn't matter if all of the Democrat slate of electors went faithless - the state's EC votes would still go to the Democrat candidate.

        Maybe I am misunderstanding those 48 state's winner-take-all laws. Maybe you have a different understanding which causes you so much worry about faithless electors.

        If my understanding, as described, is correct how do you think any plutocrat or pathetic old man can change the outcome by influencing an Elector?

        How in the current political and legal scenario can any amount of faithless electors change a state's voters candidate preference?

        Am I missing something in the rules and laws that mandate a state's EC vote assignment?

        ps. I don't think my support of the EC makes me blind to the reason for your worry. I don't think faithless electors are a problem for the reasons mentioned, and further, if the EC votes aren't going to be apportioned by popular vote percentages I think we should just abolish the Electors and award the EC votes as is currently done by law/rule in those 48 states.

        GA

  4. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    It's important to learn as much as possible about the Electoral College.

    "Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. "

    "Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote."

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-regist … about.html

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)