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.
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, 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.
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.
" 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?
You really missed the boat with this one Onusonus. Georgia alone has a larger population than your "Red dot" of LA County.
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.
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.
I was the same way. At first it seemed a reasonable idea but careful consideration changed my mind.
Good to know that even you are on board over this issue, I wonder who could possibly support this EC now?
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
by ga anderson 2 years ago
Let me channel Jake for a moment...BIG BREAKING NEWS! Bombshell announcement! A CONSTITUTIONAL crisis!Deleware has voted to join eleven other states in awarding their 3 electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner!The votes of state voters in these 12 states no longer matter! YOUR...
by tngolfplayer 10 years ago
Should the USA go to popular vote instead of the electoral college?
by Credence2 8 years ago
excerpt from a recent article"After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering...
by Mike Russo 4 years ago
People are protesting President Elect Trump? Because Hillary won the popular vote by .3% Trump = 47.4%, Hillary = 47.7%, but she lost the electoral college. That means more people voted for Hillary's platform than for Trump's. The electoral college must go. It is outdated and was for a younger...
by Faith Reaper 4 years ago
I may be a bit naive on this topic, but I believe that my vote should count. I understand the history and all, but I still think one's vote should count, and the candidate who receives the most votes should win. What are your thoughts. Please help me to understand why the...
by Dan Harmon 4 years ago
It seems that at least two electors from Texas have decided to cast their electoral college vote not for the man they promised to, but someone else.Christopher Suprun is one of those faithless electors:"That was also the last time I remember the nation united," Suprun wrote. "I watch...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|