Why do Democrats want to dump the Electoral College?

originally posted by: carewemust
The Queen of the Democratic party, Hillary, is on CNN Anderson Cooper 360 tonight.

She says that the "Electoral College no longer works as intended, and should be abolished."

I haven't read every post in this thread. WHO/WHAT can get rid of the electoral college?

It works just as intended. Hillary would have made a horrible Founding Mother.

Trump agreed with Hillary it seems ... until he scraped out a narrow victory in the EC.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: carewemust
The Queen of the Democratic party, Hillary, is on CNN Anderson Cooper 360 tonight.

She says that the "Electoral College no longer works as intended, and should be abolished."

I haven't read every post in this thread. WHO/WHAT can get rid of the electoral college?

It works just as intended. Hillary would have made a horrible Founding Mother.

After forcing myself to listen to her Anderson Cooper interview tonight, I agree with you more than ever. God was definitely looking out for America when he touched the hearts of people in the right geographic locations to give the election to Donald Trump.

a reply to: pavil

Near as I can tell, these are the Gentlemen who came up with the EC at the Con Con in 1787. Founders?

Abraham Baldwin (GA)
David Brearly (NJ)
Pierce Butler (SC)
Daniel Carrol (MD)
John Dickinson (DE)
Nicholas Gilman (NH)
Rufus King (MA)
James Madison (VA)
Gouvernour Morris (PA)
Roger Sherman (CT)
Hugh Williamson (NC)

originally posted by: zipruna
Considering the distribution of society. There are many poor and few rich. Not surprisingly, the party that offers welfare always wins majority of votes. But that does not mean it is the right path for society as a whole. So popular vote should not determine who wins.

Only those who directly pay property tax and/or federal income tax should be allowed to vote. Set a 15% federal fair tax that everyone pays with no deductions and big government R's and D's are done forever.

a reply to: Gryphon66

He's actually right.

It is a disaster for "Democracy" as a mob-rule system.

The Republic however is the issue.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pavil

Near as I can tell, these are the Gentlemen who came up with the EC at the Con Con in 1787. Founders?

Abraham Baldwin (GA)
David Brearly (NJ)
Pierce Butler (SC)
Daniel Carrol (MD)
John Dickinson (DE)
Nicholas Gilman (NH)
Rufus King (MA)
James Madison (VA)
Gouvernour Morris (PA)
Roger Sherman (CT)
Hugh Williamson (NC)

Is the EC not in the Constitution? Where are you going with this? James Madison, not a Founding Father? Roger Sherman not one either?

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

If you replace the election with popular vote, than 48 states don't even need to vote because a majority of votes comes from 2 states, and guess what -- they are both democrat. NY and California produce nearly 50% of the entire vote population. If democrats changed it to the popular vote, they'd never lose an election for the rest of time and 48 states would have to live with the will of just two states, like.....

People really don't understand what the electoral college is to this day, because if they did, they would know that a vote isn't just a popularity contest. Each state has to have a say, this is why there are voting districts. I mean Jesus.

a reply to: SRPrime

More people in Texas and Florida voted in the election than in New York. Texas is 2nd in population and Texas votes Republican.

a reply to: Regnor

And yet, they chose Trump.

I too would like to see the Electoral College eliminated. I don't think it properly puts the President into the role he filling. As an individual being elected to be the executive representative of the collective of states, I believe it would best reflect his position to be elected by popular vote per state. Have one vote case per state reflective of the popular majority of each state.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yeah, but Washington doesn't have much say in the matter.

On February 4, 2016, the Arizona House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill, with two-thirds of the members voting in favor of the legislation. The vote was 40 Yes, 16 No, and 4 absences or abstentions. The Arizona House is the third Republican-controlled state legislative chamber to pass the bill (the Oklahoma Senate and New York Senate being the other two).

www.nationalpopularvote.com...

1) No state may enter into other agreements with another state without approval of Congress. The NPV is unconstitutional at its core. But that never stopped a leftist agenda.
2) If this *does* pass, all it will take is a GOP victory to change the 55 EC votes of California (they are about to approve NPV) and the liberal outrage will be massive and dismantle the entire process.

a reply to: carewemust

Flushing the toilet.

Use an outhouse?

These people=Ummm, the people who want to change the electoral college and do away with the Constitution.

The short answer to the question, "Why do Democrats want to dump the Electoral College?" is simple: because they lost.

If they won, the EC would be the greatest thing ever.

There are alternatives to the EC and the 1 person 1 vote. Who's to say the EC is perfect? Who's to say the 1 person 1 vote is perfect? Nothing is perfect. But the system we have so far is the best we can come up with so far.

Whomever loses the election generally wants to get rid of the electoral collage. Every election it comes up, democrats or republicans.

I see a benefit both ways, but if we had true powerful third parties, would it matter if we had it or not?

a reply to: Metallicus

Use some critical thinking, and educate yourself. The Electoral College is not only absurdly terrible, but also absurdly idiotic. There are exactly ZERO other countries on earth who use a system like the Electoral College. It SHOULD go by the popular vote. That's... that's kind of the entire point of a democratic system, right? Majority rules? Can you seriously argue that it's not insanely stupid that a person can win the popular vote and still lose the election? Because, that's really stupid. Insanely so. EC gives outsized influence to states in middle America with small populations. Anybody who is unbiased and, you know... not stupid, should be able to see very clearly that the Electoral College is an awful system.

a reply to: Maroboduus

Most other countries aren't divided into states the way the US is either. Our states have considerable autonomy and the EC ensures that each state has a voice. Without that, elections would be entirely decided by the top 10 or so cities in the country. How are cities ever going to represent the needs of a state like Nebraska?

Seems to me the winner take all policy is the real problem (in 48 states). A proportional system just seems logical for all voters to support, but I imagine politicians would hate it since it would make things far less predictable, and completely shake up the way campaigns are run.