Electoral College

I believe it's a good thing, because a state where almost everybody thinks the same way can't help a candidate win at the national level by suppressing the votes of the minority that disagrees with the state's consensus view.

In other words, under the Electoral College system, if Alabama votes 70% to 30% for the Republican one year, it does them no good to suppress the votes of the 30% the next cycle to widen the margin by which the Republican will win. Alabama contributes the same number of electoral votes either way.

That said, I'm very frustrated that Clinton keeps adding to her lead in the popular vote, when it will do her no good.

Slavery has nothing to do with the creation of the Electoral College. Small states, meaning those small in population, were afraid of being overwhelmed by the states with large populations. This was felt more intensely at the beginning of the constitutional convention when the only plan brought forward was by Virginia, then the most populous state. The plan called for a legislature based on population and an executive committee rather than a single executive officer. It was a lot like keeping the Continental Congress, but substituting proportional representation for equal representation. Some representatives at the convention from small states even had instructions to withdraw if proportional representation was mooted.

This problem was solved by two compromises. One was the creation of the Senate. The House has proportional representation, but the Senate has equal representation by states. Only the Senate how the power to approve presidential appointments; only the Senate has the power to ratify treaties.

The other compromise was the Electoral College. Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to its congressional delegation. So, a state such as Montana, which only has one Representative, still has three electoral votes, because it has two Senators, just like every other state. Five American presidents have been elected in the Electoral College, even though they did not win the popular vote, Trump being the latest.

The Electoral College assures segments of society and sections of the country will not be lost in the population shuffle. Farmers and graziers most often live in states with smaller populations. In the center of the United States, only Illinois and Texas have large populations. The Electoral College assures that those parts of the population and of the country have a voice in each election. I'm appalled that that jackass is now the President Elect. Nevertheless, i firmly believe the Electoral College is a necessary institution.

Yes, long, long ago in a land far, far away. Visceral, I can understand that many are gutted by the results in this most recent display of democracy in action. Speaking of inaction I'd push for compulsory voting.

The bottom line may remain: that half of the people vote the wrong way all of the time according to the other half.

Show me your policies and I'll show you mine.

The people shouted, " lead Trump ".

Thank you for your explanation of the electoral college, however, it's suppose to be each American should have their VOTE count...equally...and I don't think it serves that right each American is entitled too.

eke.....Appreciate your humor always.....in your own quirky way....but 49% decided not to vote ..fyi. That is part of the problem. However, I do maintain...each American has the right to vote for their candidate good or bad, and it should be counted.

By whom is that supposed?

Each american, no matter race, creed or color has the right for their voice to be heard on who they want to govern. Each persons vote should be weighted equally. In the electoral college, it certainly doesn't. There is no political equality...as there is no majority vote considered.

that would be the case if the United States was a democracy but as so many point out, it is a republic

__


I prefer to live in a one person, one vote democracy. I've belatedly come to really appreciate a decision I made just under 20 years to not follow a job to the US.

A string of suppositions, for which you offer no justification.

There's an extensive discussion of the topic in able2know at the quoted thread.




Robert Gentel

REPLYREPORT Fri 21 Nov, 2008 05:21 pm
Flunking the Electoral College

Quote:
There is no reason to feel sentimental about the Electoral College. One of the main reasons the founders created it was slavery. The southern states liked the fact that their slaves, who would be excluded from a direct vote, would be counted " as three-fifths of a white person " when Electoral College votes were apportioned.

The founders also were concerned, in the day of the wooden printing press, that voters would not have enough information to choose among presidential candidates. It was believed that it would be easier for them to vote for local officials, whom they knew more about, to be electors. It is hard to imagine that significant numbers of voters thought they did not know enough about Barack Obama and John McCain by Election Day this year.

And, while these reasons for the Electoral College have lost all relevance, its disadvantages loom ever larger. To start, the system excludes many voters from a meaningful role in presidential elections. If you live in New York or Texas, for example, it is generally a foregone conclusion which party will win your state’s electoral votes, so your vote has less meaning " and it can feel especially meaningless if you vote on the losing side. On the other hand, if you live in Florida or Ohio, where the outcome is less clear, your vote has a greatly magnified importance.

Voters in small states are favored because Electoral College votes are based on the number of senators and representatives a state has. Wyoming’s roughly 500,000 people get three electoral votes. California, which has about 70 times Wyoming’s population, gets only 55 electoral votes.

The Electoral College also makes America seem more divided along blue-red lines than it actually is. If you look at an Electoral College map, California appears solidly blue and Alabama solidly red. But if you look at a map of the popular votes, you see a more nuanced picture. More than 4.5 million Californians voted for Mr. McCain (roughly as many votes as he got in Texas), while about 40 percent of voters in Alabama cast a ballot for Mr. Obama.

One of the biggest problems with the Electoral College, of course, is that three times since the Civil War " most recently, with George W. Bush in 2000 " it has awarded the presidency to the loser of the popular vote. The president should be the candidate who wins the votes of the most Americans.

Thank you eke, this is my point exactly...though I surmise, getting rid of it would be a difficult task.

This is such a weird phrase to me, as non-American. I mean, "republic" just means you're not governed by a monarch, whose position is determined by bloodline, but by a (preferably elected) president/PM/etc with a temporary mandate. France is a republic; so are Italy, Germany, Indonesia.. A republic can be democratic. Or not.