Is the electoral college finally going away? Maybe soon, but definitely too late...but better late t

The war to over throw the Electoral College is over half way won...there is a new plan to remove it that's underway that doesn't require a constitutional amendment, and it is being decided now...states have been choosing either to go with the plan or not...so far so good, it won't matter this election year but in 2014 our vote may finally count, well sort of, at least more so than now at least.

CBS link for source information:
CBS Electoral College changes

My apologies for not being able to embed as this is not on youtube or google video; and also to those that cannot view videos as I have no transcript.

I'm glad you posted this! I was just going to google the electoral college, b/c I didn't really understand how it works, and decided to look here first. This video explains it in simple language, so thank you for posting. A quick question - do the electors have to account to anyone that they voted how they were 'supposed' to? It seems not only unfair, and as the video said, bound to cause problems, but also absurdly easy to corrupt. Do you think it is common knowledge among voters that this is how it works?

America is not a democracy.

the electoral college is there to protect the small states with fewer voters from the larger states.

it works just fine.

who cares how the rest of the world elects their tyrant.

reply to post by bjax9er


No it doesn't. It has swung the other way so that now those states determine elections.

The candidates never come to my state, even though we gave land to make DC, why? Because we vote democrat and don't have enough seats to be a swing state.


Why should Ohio and Florida be courted constantly because they determine the outcome?

reply to post by curiouscanadian777


They get people who are very, very strong supporters of a party, but no, they are put there to vote in the candidate that they think is best, 99% of the time along party lines.Some states require by law that they vote for who they pledge their allegience too. But not every state.


So yes, it is actually 538 people that will determine the president this election. We will never know their names, or who they are.

In order to win, the candidate must get 270 electoral votes.



The system needs to be abolished.

The serious issue with this system is in the case where a president wins the electoral votes, because of the number of seats provide, but loses the popular vote, which is what happened with Bush, the second term. Al Gore actually received 500,000 more votes then Bush.

It was a system developed by the founding fathers to protect the interests of the small, sparsely populated southern states. So they don't get steamrolled by the majority. But it is no longer needed and is now a hinderance.

Originally posted by curiouscanadian777
Do you think it is common knowledge among voters that this is how it works?

The political education (or basic civics) for Americans is so anemic that these calls to remove the last of the Republic's safeguards gains inches every year.

First for those that think this is a "great" idea, my guess is you think you have done your civic duty by showing up on November 6th and voting. If so, you are way behind the game and it is time to educate yourself on how the process works in your particular state. Here is a hint: On November 6th you are selecting the party's electors; not the President of the United States (in most states that is, I believe Maine and Nebraska distribute their electoral votes proportionally).

Meanwhile I will continue to piece this together in my off time but I will say, there are some aspects of how the process has morphed that I do not agree with. Such as:

> The infusion of party politics and their exclusionary methods of selecting party electors -- this method has moved the political power away from the People of a State and into the hands of party bigwigs.

> The 'all or none' that party politics creates -- this of course is a State-to-State issue but can be changed via State Legislature by its people.

More to come....

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.



Popular vote quickly turns into this. The system we have no slowly turns into this. No perfect system exists unfortunately. I can't think of a perfect system for elections. There really is none.

reply to post by curiouscanadian777


To answer your question: Only if there's a state law...and then usually the penalty is a small fine 1000 or less; New Mexico is the only state where it is a felony not to vote as the district did. In 24 states they vote with ZERO penalty...so have you wondered what all the fundraising is for? You got it buying votes.

Legal Requirements or Pledges
Electors in these States are bound by State Law or by pledges to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ALABAMA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 17-19-2
ALASKA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 15.30.040; 15.30.070
CALIFORNIA – State Law – § 6906
COLORADO – State Law – § 1-4-304
CONNECTICUT – State Law – § 9-175
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – DC Pledge / DC Law – § 1-1312(g)
FLORIDA – Party Pledge / State Law – § 103.021(1)
HAWAII – State Law – §§ 14-26 to 14-28
MAINE – State Law – § 805
MARYLAND – State Law – § 20-4
MASSACHUSETTS – Party Pledge / State Law – Ch. 53, § 8, Supp.
MICHIGAN – State Law – §168.47 (Violation cancels vote and Elector is replaced.)
MISSISSIPPI – Party Pledge / State Law – §23-15-785(3)
MONTANA – State Law – § 13-25-104
NEBRASKA – State Law – § 32-714
NEVADA – State Law – § 298.050
NEW MEXICO – State Law – § 1-15-5 to 1-15-9 (Violation is a fourth degree felony.)
NORTH CAROLINA – State Law – § 163-212 (Violation cancels vote; elector is replaced and is subject to $500 fine.)
OHIO – State Law – § 3505.40
OKLAHOMA – State Pledge / State Law – 26, §§ 10-102; 10-109 (Violation of oath is a misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $1000.)
OREGON – State Pledge / State Law – § 248.355
SOUTH CAROLINA – State Pledge / State Law – § 7-19-80 (Replacement and criminal sanctions for violation.)
VERMONT – State Law – title 17, § 2732
* VIRGINIA – State Law – § 24.1-162 (Virginia statute may be advisory – “Shall be expected” to vote for nominees.)
WASHINGTON – Party Pledge / State Law – §§ 29.71.020, 29.71.040, Supp. ($1000 fine.)
WISCONSIN – State Law – § 7.75
WYOMING – State Law – §§ 22-19-106; 22-19-108

No Legal Requirement
Electors in these States are NOT BOUND by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
DELAWARE
GEORGIA
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH DAKOTA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
WEST VIRGINIA

Straight from the horses mouth(although buried pretty good) Source: www.archives.gov...

reply to post by jimmiec


We are actually a Corporatocracy. Are you a person or human anymore? Nope you are a Consumer.

Corporatocracy: Is a term used to suggest an economic and political system is controlled by corporations or corporate interests.

en.wikipedia.org...

The problem I see is that once whoever is elected, they are the focal point of everybody’s attention.

Our focus should be on those who populate Congress. You know?, that group of people who really aren't getting much done and are at historically low levels of confidence.

The people that are supposedly working for us at the local level.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Congress is filled and brimming over with career politicians, and it's members lobbied to the most; they also can insider trade all they want penalty free...thank you for bringing another cancer in the system up...hopefully the proposed ban on Congressional insider trading doesn't die.

I was thrilled to see that the Electoral farce might finally be dismantled; really soon and of course had to share.

Vote locally and oust the career politicians, the biggest lie Obama told was Change...it will never come from the top of the political food chain, change comes from the bottom voting locally and working those people up to positions that can make the changes we all want. Right now the major corporations control the top, because the career politico's can be bought out. If they get in trouble all they have to do is resign or step down to avoid prosecution...or claim to have no recall of the events in question if there is a hearing.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by bjax9er

 

No it doesn't. It has swung the other way so that now those states determine elections.

Absolutely it does protect the smaller states and Ohio isn't deciding the whole of the election. They play a big part because they generally are a moderate state that has the perception of putting actual thought into their selection. Whereas states such as California just vote party-line and command nearly 1/5th of the whole process with their gigantic 55 electoral votes. Why would Remney fight a losing battle? The same for Obama going to a state like Idaho, just isn't going to make a difference.

That said, that is part of the problem with the voters and party-politics and not the electoral system.

The candidates never come to my state, even though we gave land to make DC, why? Because we vote democrat and don't have enough seats to be a swing state.

"Swing" states in my opinion have nothing to do with how many electoral votes they hold. It matters on how that State historically approaches an election. If the people of a particular state actually engaged in the process, helped ensure they have electors who are committed to selecting a quality president (regardless of party politics), then that state will be a swing-state.

If the candidates don't show up to your state it is because they are in the bag and vote via party-politics and don't use half a brain to bother changing the game. Just follow the crowd. By the way, this applies to the heavily "red" states as well.

Why should Ohio and Florida be courted constantly because they determine the outcome?

Like I said, they actually put some thought into who should be the Chief Executive, at least that is my guess.

I understand there's not supposed to be one-liner posts, but I just wanted to say thanks for answering my questions everyone. This just seems to be yet another mechanism to disenfranchise the voters no matter what the original intention was.

reply to post by curiouscanadian777


Well it has always been there. The founding fathers created it. It just has become outdated.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Sorry, I didnt word that correctly.

You have states like California and Florida that are populated so their number of votes makes them heavy hitters. That they have more votes then four or five other states combined.Which means politicians smooze them.

My point is, because of this system, everything happens in batttleground states like Florida and Ohio. Everyone else is left alone.

My other issue with it is, that no state is ever all red, or all blue. Every single state is purple. But if blue slightly edges over red, then ALL votes go blue. That is where it screws people out of voters.

It doesn't matter that my county goes red, if the state goes blue, it all goes blue. so even if I wanted to vote for a republican contender this year, it absolutely doesn't matter.

That is where voters get disenfranchised.

Now if the EC votes according to districts in a state, then you have an arguement for the EC.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
My other issue with it is, that no state is ever all red, or all blue. Every single state is purple. But if blue slightly edges over red, then ALL votes go blue. That is where it screws people out of voters.

And here we absolutely agree. In my first post I mentioned that I had issues with how party-politics had morphed the electoral colleges of states by making it an exclusive game of schmoozers and political insiders rather than people elected to fulfill the duty of the State to select their President. With the minor exception of Maine and Nebraska, the way you described above is how it goes.

It is also why I push local politics. Break the strangle hold of the insider electorate from the parties and have each congressional district offer up their electorate, with the exception of the two gained from senators (this can remain a party choice), might just bring some sense back into the game.

Otherwise, as long as party-politics continues its path it will continue to destroy the American process; eerily just as the Founders correctly identified in their writings.

"(Political parties) agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another." - George Washington

"if I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society." -- John Adams

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." -- George Washington

My favorite (Madison is one of my historical heroes)...

"In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger..." -- James Madison, Federalist Papers 51.

Sadly, we fell into party politics and we are reaping it now....

There is no reason in the world for the Electoral College...unless you like to romanticise conventional outdated concepts; by seeing the beauty of it's original intent, fine and dandy archive it for posterity and move to an updated format...I assume you do not have a rotary telephone plugged into a suction cup modem, typing your posts out on a monochrome Tandy desk top.

The whole idea behind setting up the Electoral College, was so that every single voter could be represented in the Presidential elections. In those days it was difficult to get messages around, you had to go by horse back to deliver messages or try and get a news paper to know what was happening in the world. In that world of no technology, it made sense, to have the Electoral College because everyone's vote couldn't be counted in those days.

Today, everyone in the world is wired together and can communicate in real time all over the globe. With today's technology every single vote can be counted. So the Electoral College, is no longer needed, it is now a farce of buying votes and corruption, and needs to be removed.

It's as simple as that...we are an MP3 player system, electing a President with an Edison wax cylinder phonograph...time to change.

It's coming and I laud the people pushing it to change

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
There is no reason in the world for the Electoral College...unless you like to romanticise conventional outdated concepts; by seeing the beauty of it's original intent, fine and dandy archive it for posterity and move to an updated format...I assume you do not have a rotary telephone plugged into a suction cup modem, typing your posts out on a monochrome Tandy desk top.

What would this updated form be?

The whole idea behind setting up the Electoral College, was so that every single voter could be represented in the Presidential elections.

Is this what they are teaching for the reason behind the process regarding the selection of a president? I suggest you read Federalist Paper #68. The reason behind the electoral process was not to provide wholesale representation to the populace.

The creation of the electoral process was two fold: satisfy smaller states concern regarding their place in the selection of a president and to create a buffer between the People and the selection of a president. The indirect selection rises from the very correct fear of what a direct democracy could do. It is the very reason that they disseminated and diluted democratic principles to the lowest levels; where they are actually more effective; and strong republican principles at the higher levels.

In those days it was difficult to get messages around, you had to go by horse back to deliver messages or try and get a news paper to know what was happening in the world. In that world of no technology, it made sense, to have the Electoral College because everyone's vote couldn't be counted in those days.

You are wholly ignorant to American civics

Today, everyone in the world is wired together and can communicate in real time all over the globe. With today's technology every single vote can be counted. So the Electoral College, is no longer needed, it is now a farce of buying votes and corruption, and needs to be removed.

And you think in a direct democracy money will just suddenly lose all appeal and corruption will disappear? Because people themselves are not capable of a bribe right? I have seen people take money to do some stupid stunts.

...time to change.

I agree, but not to your idea. There are some serious issues that have been hijacked in regards to the electoral college that States surely need to address, that much is true.

It's coming and I laud the people pushing it to change

I'm just going to call this thread dead; it picked up a troll early on, if anyone else cares to feed it be my guest. I just don't have the wherewithitall to bother debating the electoral college with it; when the threads intent was to report that change is underway that is removing the EC and is about halfway there.

I will toss one last fish over the bridge; since I was personally attacked and called ignorant of civics. The snippet quote you used to support your argument; was talking about communication technology of the day...not civics.

If you want to know how the communication, affected the elections look it up; sometimes it took months after an election to finally know who won.

By using an Ad hominem attack; just shows that you cannot refute my claim, so you have to resort to an attack on my character.

Meaning it is getting emotional and personal; to you and not going to go anywhere but in circles...if I continue to argue and feed the troll...so I'd rather step away and save you the embarrassment.

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
I'm just going to call this thread dead; it picked up a troll early on, if anyone else cares to feed it be my guest. I just don't have the wherewithitall to bother debating the electoral college with it; when the threads intent was to report that change is underway that is removing the EC and is about halfway there.

My guess is your passiveness is directed towards me and that is fine. I defended parts of the electoral college and asked you what would be the other plan; apparently being in a discussion for you is trolling, but where I come from that is how people advance ideas and make the world just a little bit better.

I will toss one last fish over the bridge; since I was personally attacked and called ignorant of civics. The snippet quote you used to support your argument; was talking about communication technology of the day...not civics.

Calling out your ignorance, which it is given your understanding of how you described the electoral college, the process and the reasons for it, is not a personal attack. For good reason I knew you were going to take it personal. The quoted piece was in regards to how you described the process, in which was wholly ignorant.

If you want to know how the communication, affected the elections look it up; sometimes it took months after an election to finally know who won.

I don't argue that it didn't take great lengths of time, but that is not what you are arguing now is it? You specifically tied the reason for the electoral process to communication technologies of the era. Again, read Federalist Papers #68 and it will give you a clear picture of the reason the process was created.

By using an Ad hominem attack; just shows that you cannot refute my claim, so you have to resort to an attack on my character.

Show me the ad hominem; calling out someone's ignorance is not an attack on character. But I have a great sense that you care not really to engage in a debate about the pros/cons of various methods of selecting a Chief Executive. I was ready to, I provided my support, in large with exception, to the electoral college process.

You.....just said it needs to change. In which I asked and will ask again -- to what?

Meaning it is getting emotional and personal; to you and not going to go anywhere but in circles...if I continue to argue and feed the troll...so I'd rather step away and save you the embarrassment.

In other words "I have no real argument so instead I will try to project it upon you" So step away, I am rarely emotional on this board and only personal when principles are overstepped. So come on back and let us discuss the merits of your idea for changing the current process. I will even help you out.

1: Given that the electoral "college" is the constitutionally mandated process for selection of the president, do you think Congress would have enough votes to amend it to a different system? If so, what type of system?

You threw your hat into the foray claiming hallelujah in regards to, yet another politician and another election year, to change the current system. That is great but then you pulled the hat back because someone is challenging your understanding of the system you claim to despise.