Why do Democrats want to dump the Electoral College?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Every State is Red and Blue.

There are Republicans in California, there are Democrats in Idaho.

I think some have begun to believe that just because a State gets colored in as "Red" that means there are no Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc.

The number of Electors is based on population. The more populous states have more Electors. According to the flaccid "mob rule" argument, this is anarchy.

In the end, the Presidency is won by who has the most Electors pledged to them, based on winner-take-all as dictated by the MAJORITY POPULAR VOTE in each State.

(There are two exceptions, based on State laws, Maine and Nebraska, who apportion their votes.)

Who do you folks think you're fooling with this?

Rather go by popular vote total ? That would be a mob rule. Precisely what the electoral college was set up to prevent.
Dont know much about US politics and history , do ya ?
Someone still a hutin after the last election ?
Methinks yes.

a reply to: Gothmog

Who enacted election laws ?

Yes. Election laws.

a reply to: Gothmog

The EC is mob rule then. The winner of the popular vote in each state wins that state's Electors the number of which is also based on population.

Next?

ETA: Really drop the stupid act. It is more than obvious from our posts that I understand the Constitution and American laws much better than you do.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Gothmog

The EC is mob rule then. The winner of the popular vote in each state wins that state's Electors the number of which is also based on population.

Next?

ETA: Really drop the stupid act. It is more than obvious from our posts that I understand the Constitution and American laws much better than you do.

What stupid act ?
Its a fact.
So , now you reveal your true stature......
With that ,
Game over ....
And you have no tokens

a reply to: Gothmog

Care to address the topic? Or keep up the babbling posts with zero content?

PS: In comparison to you, I own the f-ing arcade.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

Oh, my goodness. Those nasty, nasty Democrats.
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

I'm a big proponent of the Nebraska/Maine method as it combines the best of both worlds into a reasonable compromise. It is neither 'winner take all' nor is it popular vote.

It would really only work if all states did it, and we would never see Democrat strongholds like California give up the 55 EC lock.

.

What would have been the Presidential Election had looked like if it were on a district by
district vote? Would it have mirrored House results?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your numbers aren't entirely accurate. The population of Wyoming includes those too young to vote and, I assume, some who are considered residents of the state but aren't legally allowed to vote.

I don't think anyone is denying that there are liberals in conservative strongholds and vice versa, but the interests of any collective will always be best served by catering to their majority. On the state and local level this works somehwat. On a national level, it would only lead to the 5 or 6 most populous states not only ruling the elections, but setting policy for the rest of the country. I won't live in a nation that had policy dictated by urban hells. That's not a tenable situation and would ultimately lead to rural vs urban violence in the US.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

i said population not voters. Thanks for the meaningless quibble though in regard to what PEOPLE want and believe.

"The interests of any collective will be served by catering to the majority" ???

So you're for mob rule then?

Interesting.

The EC is based on the popular vote and "winner take all" is just code for that mob ru;e you keep talking about.
'

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Also how is consolidating the power of a given State for one candidate serving the rights of Individuals?

In Georgia for example ... 2.089 million voted for Trump and 1.877 million voted for Clinton. Now your complaint about the popular vote is that more people shouldn't mean more power YET you're arguing for a system that gave ALL of GAs 18 Electors to Trump MERELY because more people voted for him.

So when is this "mob rule" bad?

a reply to: Metallicus

its just a power play. The Dems and/or repubs will call out the electoral system when they lose and have the pop vote. They do this to put blame on something and to keep their supporters believing that they got robbed in the election and so they are more likely to stay loyal to the party.

Anyone with thinking that isn't superficial would realise that the electoral system is actually pretty fair. The system gives rural America a fair footing with metropolitan America.

Obviously the population in the metro areas out way the rural areas substantially. People vote in general for what is in their best interest but not everyone knows what actually is for their best interest. Metro people will vote for themselves and neglect anything rural. Meaning they would vote for trams, new parks in their city etc but won't vote for anything to do with farming, mining etc. Why? because they don't care and it goes both ways. Rural people won't vote for city slicker stuff why? because they don't care. They should though because for America to prosper and so therefore they prosper, they need both metro and rural to grow stronger and neither to be neglected.

With the electoral system in enables both to prosper but to discard the electoral system with the popular vote system would mean the metros will thrive at first, then the rural will fall a part, then the metros declines.

originally posted by: Metallicus
It is nice to see that a Democrat is calling out the extremists in his own party that want to circumvent the Constitution. I know that even Democrats will generally be against what is being proposed here, but there will also be others that will support this trashing of the Constitution simply to create a short term political gain at the cost of our countries soul.

The plan by Michael Moore and his cronies is to use an "Interstate Compact" to ignore the will of the voters in individual states and instead award all their delegates to the popular vote. This plan would have handed the election to Hillary by ignoring the will of the constituents of their state and instead forcing heir delegates to vote for the candidate that won the most votes nationally.

I am sure most of are saying there is no way anyone would go along with this scheme. It is completely wrong and disenfranchises voters from their own states, however, there are already 11 states that have agreed to this plan. This might actually happen.

We are now living in a twilight zone where one of the political parties is willing to use or Constitution like so much toilet paper for their own political gains.

I never thought we would see this day in America.

...Moore recently argued, Trump will probably win reelection if we keep the Electoral College (which he won 304-227 in 2016). If, however, the country were to replace it with a national popular vote, a Democrat would stand a much better chance of victory. Indeed, Hillary Clinton beat Trump by nearly three million total votes in 2016.

In normal times, dumping the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment. However, the far left is advocating for what it calls an “elegant” runaround – officially labeled the Interstate Compact – where states pool their electors for whichever candidate wins the national vote irrespective of their state’s vote. Let’s take an example.

Had the compact been in place in 2016, electors in states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania would have been forced to vote for Clinton even though Trump won their home states. Why? Clinton won more total national votes.

As of this writing, 11 states and their legislatures have signed on to the Interstate Compact. If the effort attracts a few more states that represent 105 Electoral College votes, the scheme goes into effect.

The author goes on...

It’s clear, though, that extremists in the Democratic Party aren’t keen on doing things right. Why? They know that passing constitutional reforms is tough. Indeed, amendments almost always fail.

For them, that means there’s only one solution: cheating. They’re willing to treat the constitution like a downed tree to be cleared in order to secure the White House in 2020.

But if that’s what it takes to win, this Democrat would rather lose.

Source

You do know this sacred document that you speak of had been amended 17 times since the bill of rights was ratified right?

The constitution has changed over time to keep up with the times. The United States used to be more of a rural country as a whole. Our population has shifted and we are primarily an urban country now.

Due to the electoral college the rural voters get more power. Even though the requests they make effect more people that aren't in their situation.

If you look at the map, the election w asnt divided by states. It was divided by urban centers vs. Rural center.

Hence why Trump won even though Hillary won the popular vote.

My fellow liberals and I who are for the dismantling ofbthe electoral college, want to do so becaise every citizen should have an equal vote.. an equal say.. no matter where they live on who the president should be.

The local governments that dictate local laws can be different, but the relresentitive of the entire country should be decided by a true democratoc process, to avoid situations like we have now. A president who still won even though he received less votes than his adversary.

If they did away with the electoral college,the Democrats would lose the Calif vote,and that is always a gimme to Dems,as usual it would hurt them,then they would want to change back

Why can't every citizen be his, her own elector? Are the citizens not competent enough to decide for themselves? Why do they need someone else to hold their hand and make sure they don't make the wrong choice? Are Americans too much of an unruly mob to be trusted to rule themselves?

Allowing the vote to split freely would be a big help for third party candidates.

a reply to: Cutepants

Excellent point. The "winner take all" method used in 48 of the States does reinforce the two-party system as does the Primary process.

a reply to: Metallicus

My guess is that they will eventually manage to eliminate the EC turning the US into a true Bannana Republic. In reality, they will have created a new US that will more resemble a Colony of California and New York.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Metallicus

My guess is that they will eventually manage to eliminate the EC turning the US into a true Bannana Republic. In reality, they will have created a new US that will more resemble a Colony of California and New York.

How's that? California and New York have Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Greens and Constitutionalists and all the rest.

Go beyond the hype.

This map makes the point about as well as it can be made. Notice that each pie chart shows the relative number of votes cast for each party, and the size of the pie chart shows the number of votes in the Electoral College.

It is quite easy to see the the idea that only "the coasts" have Democrats or that "fly-over country" is all Republicans is absurd.

Stop it.

(Source on the graphic is Wikipedia)

a reply to: Metallicus

Like others have cited, this is a rally cry quite often when the loser doesn't like being the loser in a close election.

Sadly, I researched the electoral college while in my collegiate U.S. History class, and wrote a paper on why I felt that it should be abolished, basing such opinion on how it can often override the will of the people, how it can be easily corrupted, how I didn't think that it was necessary, as the average voter is more intelligent on the candidates now, etc.

But as time has passed (it's been about 15 years, and I finally started paying real attention to politics and the government about a decade ago after voting for Obama and being sorely disappointed), I have realized the folly of my conclusion. While the average voter has easy access to be an informed voter, most remain tethered to a party and not intelligence. While the EC can be corrupted at the elector level (or, IMO, by state laws mandating voting a certain way or not), it beats the majority-rules approach with people who all-to-often are not informed voters, as well as it gives a better voice to the majority of the geographical locations across the U.S. who may not always vote the way of highly-populated urban centers.

It takes an understanding and a willingness to accept the reality that we are NOT a democracy--we are a Republic, and a republic is purposefully not a majority-rules design--in order to accept the existence of the electoral college. I certainly do not see it as a perfect system, but I DO see it as a necessary one. The majority-rules approach to our congressmen is fine, as they are meant to represent the individuals and the state (and even senatorial elections weren't always a majority-rules election by individual citizenry), but for the individual who represents the nation as a whole and has the burden of running our nation, the electoral college system makes better sense than majority-rules.

And as society shifts evermore toward a large, urban-dwelling group, giving the "other people" a voice becomes increasingly relevant.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
How's that? California and New York have Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Greens and Constitutionalists and all the rest.

Go beyond the hype.

Yes, and all of our toothbrushes have fecal-matter particles on them, but not enough to make a difference to the health of our bodies.

Every State's Electors, except for two, are assigned based on winner-take-all from the POPULAR VOTE in that State.

If that's not an example of mob rule ... there isn't one.