What would it take to get rid of the electoral college?
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
31 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
One person one vote! It pisses me off to no end that my vote for POTUS means absolutely nothing because I live in a red state. That ain't democracy, and there is not one fucking thing anyone can say that will change my mind on this one.
Sticks48
Level 9
Feb 28, 2018
8
well at least you're keeping an open mind, right?
@Sticks48, I totally agree. It's obviously the only fair and logical way to go. Why should the majority of the citizens be ignored because of where they live. I'm not saying this because of this last election, I've felt this way since I've started voting. The only way the system can represent the entire population is a straight popular vote, one person one vote. The electoral college system is a joke. People say "then the west coast and the north east will run the show", well what if you are a conservative and living in California? Does your vote count? No. Or in your case living in a red state? No. It's all a cop-out used by the minority to impose their beliefs on everyone else because they hate urban dwelling "liberals". My point is it can go either way. So the only fair thing is a straight popular vote.
@TheMiddleWay How did that work for you this time? She won by 3 million. If she had a frontal lobotomy she would still be smarter than POTUS.
The Electoral College was intended to be made up of unbiased, unimpassioned knowledgable people that could override voters if they made a really bad decission (like say electing Trump). But that is not what we have, now.
@TheMiddleWay That is why it needs change.
@jorj
I voted (write-in) for Bernie. There was absolutely nothing that could get me to vote for Glupyy Trump or Corrupt Hillary! Plus, I liked Bernie, he was most in line with my thinking and was apparently clean. Hillary was in no way a Democrat. When the Democratic Party backed her, I left the Democratic Party and became an Independent (which I always was anyway).
What we have is in no way a Democracy. It is a Plutocracy. Wealthy Elites, even those who are no Citizens and don't reside in the US, control our government to a large extent. Currently, we have been hearing about how Russia has tried to influence our election, but you hear nothing about how Israel has been bribing our politicians and effectively influencing our elections for some 30 years.
@Sticks48
Since Bernie was not going to win, I actually wanted Glupyy Trump over Corrupt Hillary. The reason is that Hillary's corruption seems to be mostly barely within the law ( in D&D terms: Lawful Evil) and is like a cancer, silently destroying our Democracy from within, until one day it is too late to be fixed. Trump, I knew, would be like a Three-Ring Circus of a stinking gangrenous sore. Something that could not possibly be ignored! In this, Trump has amazingly surpassed my expectations! I am hoping that the corruption that Trump / Republicans / Democrats have called attention to triggers a rebellion / revolution that will bring us to a Socially Just Democracy.
I have written my senators and congressional representatives about my support for the popular vote and getting rid of the electoral college. If everyone did this it might happen. I write them every time I vote.
Myah
Level 6
Feb 28, 2018
6
And do you actually think writing to Congress is the way? No, it isn't.
Why do you think Trump got the Knights of the Round Table to talk about guns control? BECAUSE THE PEOPLE -THE YOUNG PEOPLE- WENT TO THE WHUTE HOUSE AND EXPRESSED IN MASSES THE NEED FOR GUN CONTROL. An isolated letter means nothing.
Myah:
I find your response to be slightly condescending. I would appreciate it if you just suggested alternatives instead of bagging on me.
I do other things. I have run for office myself. I have attended marches. However I don’t see any popular vote marches. So yes when it comes to the electoral college specifically I will write to my representatives. And yes my letter alone won’t do anything but that is why I encourage other people to get involved as well.
There is more than one approach. The truth is that any one approach won’t do anything by itself. Many things need to happen.
That includes action by people who are not very political. Writing your Representatives is something everyone can easily do.
Myah:
I did not find the suggested alternatives to be the condescending part. But it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to spend time on it. I communicated my discomfort. She gave her response and we both moved on with our lives after communicating to each other how we felt. I am satisfied with that result.
I agree there are alternatives that might be more effective. I don’t agree that communicating to my representatives is useless so I will keep on doing it. shruggs this is just my approach. I will keep doing it. I’m not sorry if others don’t think it is enough. This is what I feel works in the scope of my life.
I would encourage others in this approach.
I would encourage others in a different approach too.
I literally once had a conversation with someone at a protest where she said I should be protesting. I said I wasn’t I was running for office. She proceeded to criticize my approach. But really everyone has to do what they are comfortable with. Not everyone can do everything. Speaking truth to power (her) is a different approach to seeking power (me). I would say they are both needed but it is hard to fit them in the same person. I needed to be more tactful. She needed to make sure the message got a it even at the cost of offending people.
A very powerful plague, most likely
DobbinPitch
Level 6
Feb 28, 2018
4
I was thinking dynamite.
@HippieChick58 ah, more of a gunpowder treason and plot type of girl, eh? Guy Fawkes might get the job done.
@HippieChick58 I like your thinking.
@DobbinPitch That's right, I want to get their attention!
@HippieChick58
Anarchist Bombings of 1919.
Ironically the process of ending the electoral college would require the electoral college itself to end it. But that's if we played by the rules.
A revolution might do it but since we don't have the strength to have one we would need the brains instead. We would have to be very smart about our revolution because we would be up against a beast of a military. Then again, so was the Continental Army.
The revolution would require foreign support and it would require folks within the government and military themselves to defect. It would also require the internet.
The American Revolutionaries didn't do it on their own and they won. The Confederates DID do it on their own and they lost. That should say enough. We would need foreign support.
Also, people should join the military and work themselves up in the ranks deliberately so when the time came when a revolt is absolutely necessary (like if Hitler was in power) these high ranking officials would then turn against the regime or mutiny, creating a weakness that could be exploited by the rebels.
The internet would be an important part in all of this, particularly the dark web. We would need the edge in the war of information and we would have to be smart about it.
In my view it's not treason at this point but patriotic. Those revolting are no different than those who revolted against the terrorists who hijacked the plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
But I digress. The electoral college needs to go.
MrControversy
Level 7
Feb 28, 2018
2
Ha Ha Ha. It will never happen!!
Probably not @Trajan61
Getting rid of the Electoral College would require amending the United States Constitution. To make such an amendment would first require a level of ignorance and confusion about why it exists on the part of an already woefully ignorant population that they would succeed in electing a majority of representatives like themselves to Congress.
There was a time when the constitution would have safeguarded us from even that eventuality but alas, ignorance about why Senators were chosen by their respective state legislatures prevailed in the land about a century ago and Amendment XVII moved us closer to an actual Democracy; a form of self-government that had failed all other states and empires trying it.
They fell to the avarice and ignorance of the mob and the way things are going, so will we. I think doing away with the electoral college has a bright future if we last long enough.
Silver1wun
Level 7
Feb 28, 2018
3
Action by those who got their job with it.
Sorry, shit answer. But a question worth googling, for sure.
TruckMonkey
Level 4
Feb 28, 2018
2
America is a Republic. We vote in people to make decisions for us. America has never been a democracy.
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands......."
We want to say that we are fighting to give others democracy but we have never had it ourselves. So many countries are also a Republic... we have the same constitutional form as both North and South Korea.
We keep saying Democracy rules that it never has.
dataprovesdata
Level 2
Mar 1, 2018
1
It is a double-edged sword. While we got screwed by it and got Trump, Nixion got the popular vote in 1960 but Kennedy was elected via electoral college. I hate to think of what might have happened during the Cuban Missle Crisis if Nixon had been president.
dahermit
Level 7
Feb 28, 2018
1
I think the focus on the electoral college is a red herring. The system was designed to work the way it does. I'm not sure getting rid of it would do much. Reducing money in the system would help. But really, we have to extend the concepts of democracy to the economy if we want any real progress.
JeffB
Level 6
Feb 28, 2018
1
It would be nice if it worked the same in every state. Some are winner takes all some are divided as to the vote. I'd like to see the divided vote in all states that would be more representative.
Myah:
The electoral college is weak though. It is vulnerable to gerrymandering and other manipulation. Popular vote does not have these vulnerabilities.
@Myah so here is my issue. Let's say we had the popular vote, the assumption is that Hillary would have won. But we do not actually know that, since both parties would have changed campaigns.
But let that go, we still would have had 2 horrible candidates. I'm not sure where you are on the issues, but I only see Trump as a more naked version of what the US has been doing. Hillary was better on environmental issues than Obama. But she looked more hawkish than both Obama and Trump.
So when you have those 2 as options, you have to look at what happened before the election.
It was designed this way. James Mason, the primary architect of the Constitution, said that the primary purpose of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. I think the issues are more deep-seated then the Electoral College. I think it gives liberals something to focus on that is not where real power lies.
Myah:
I don’t think it is a Hillary vs Trump thing.
I think the real question to ask is if you assume you are on the bottom aka the losing side. Can you live with the system. I support proportional representation and the electoral college does not give us that.
Also since you mentioned James Madison he wanted an Amendment that guaranteed that the House of Representatives would be increased in Representatives.
Below is more detail:
Vulnerabilities of Electoral College
Manipulation of Number of # of votes for each State (# of Senators & Representatives)
I consider the capping of the House of Representatives to be by far the most effective way to manipulate the Electoral College in the way that it caps the voice for the US population.
It used to be after each census the House reapportioned itself such that it increased or preserved representation of each state.
In 1920 the House Failed to reapportion itself due to changing demographics that politicians did not like.
In 1929 the Permanent Apportionment Action was passed and the number of Representatives was fixed at 435.
The House of Representatives are to provide equal representation for the population of each state. This becomes more difficult to do when you cap the number of representatives the House can have. You can’t have perfect representation because you can’t have a fraction of a representative.
Source: [history.house.gov]
George Washington wanted no more than 30,000 people per Representative.
James Madison wanted the first amendment to guarantee increase in the House But was not ratified with the other 10 amendments.
So if you want to go by what the founding fathers would recommend we have House of Representatives that is woefully inadequate.
According to current US population for 324 Million the US would need to have 10,800 Representatives instead of just 435.
The US is an outlier in how many people each representative is supposed to represent:
US 729,000 people per Rep
Britain & Italy 97,000 per Rep
Canada & France 114,000 per Rep
Japan 265,000 per Rep
[economix.blogs.nytimes.com]
Gerrymandering
Most states determine presidential bid by a statewide election. I have no problem with this. However, many people say that makes the Electoral College not vulnerable to Gerrymandering manipulation, and I think that is a naïve stance to take.
In 2011 Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi wanted Pennsylvania to award its electoral votes not via the winner-take-all system in place in forty-eight states but instead based on the winner of each Congressional district. The Electoral College is vulnerable to Gerrymandering because of political shenanigans like this. You simply cannot guarantee that they will never be successful. Presidential Popular vote would prevent all this.
[thenation.com]
“Maine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes by U.S. House district, but Maine only has two districts and Nebraska only has three, so the effects on a presidential election don’t amount to much, if anything. If a state like California or Texas or Ohio allocated their electoral votes by district, then gerrymandering would play a larger role in presidential elections.” In other words, other states could easily do this as well.
[quora.com]
One Person One Vote Principal
One Question I have trouble getting answered by people happy with the Electoral College is “how much more is my vote allowed to count than yours before it becomes unfair?” I admit I have never gotten an answer. I would say if my vote counts more than twice as much as yours, then it is obviously wrong.
A Wyoming voter has almost four times the power of a New York voter to elect president.
[sightline.org]
The One Person One Vote principal has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v Sims in 1964.
This was in response to Alabama’s malapportioned votes. Population had grown in cities, but didn’t get more votes
Chief Justice Earl Warren, always considered Reynolds v Sims the most important of his tenure on the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that these happened during his tenure: Due Process Right, Brown v Board, Due Process Miranda Rights
[encyclopediaofalabama.org]
Winner take all states suppress voter turnout and the voices of voters that do turnout.
“Are you a Republican in Oregon? A Democrat in Idaho? Thanks for voting, but your vote does nothing. The current red-state-blue-state Electoral College strategy means Oregon will assign 100 percent of its Electoral College votes to the Democrat no matter how many Oregonians like you turned in a ballot. Idaho will do the same for the Republican candidate.”
[sightline.org]
Winner take all approach was not always how elections were done, and like capping the House of Representatives was done for political reasons.
[fairvote.org]
@Myah I posted a reply to this hours ago. Not sure what happened to it.
Anyway, I'm not actually taking the position that the electoral collage doesn't have issues, and maybe if there was a ballot initiative I might vote to get rid of it.
The only reason I brought up Madison wasn't to say that we should follow the founder's vision, but was too attempt to show they didn't have the general population's interest in mind.
<tangent> Well, to be fair, Madison thought that having an enlightened upper class would be best for everyone. I heard be regretted that one he noticed that the enlightened upper class was only looking out for their own interest. </tangent>
The points of view you describe between Washington and Madison was a question about how much power do we have to concede to the general population to get them and keep them on board with the new government.
My point is that I simply don't agree with their goals. So tweaks to the system are not that exciting to me. I general focus my attention on economic issues mostly. Which is why I brought up industrial democracy. We could use some help! ????
@Myah well, generally I think we should extend democracy principals to the economy. I think there are some interesting ideas on how to do that.
Worker coops are an example. Consumer coops are another. Take a look at the Mondragon system in Spain to get an idea of the scope of what is possible. The reclaimed factory movement in Is another good example. There Catalan region in Spain during the Spanish Civil War is really interesting.
For any of this to make since, you have to see current situation as a problem.
As a side note, i looked through the links you posted and didn't know some of that was going on. You make an interesting case, though I still stand by the idea it's still a tweak. Getting money out of campaigns send like it would have a bigger impact. But this is all a question of tactics.
Myah:
I think I also didn’t really know what you meant about Democratic principles in the economy. So I was probably talking past you a bit.
Thank you for the examples. I don’t think it’s really a topic I have thought about really. I’ve thought more about unions. Thank you for giving me a different perspective to examine.
That's a very good question. Other than the occupant of the White House who believes that he won the electoral college, which he didn't, everyone I know who does not hold elected office believes that the electoral college has not been needed for at least the last 100 years. Unfortunately, I think we would have to throw all the rascals who are in office out before it could be accomplished. As archaic as it is, it seems to be a desirable political appointment, and as long as politicians can dish out perks, they are not going to give them up.
MikeEC
Level 7
Feb 28, 2018
1
@TheMiddleWay of course you are right you are right – it was wishful thinking 
@TheMiddleWay Ironically, my other post today had to do with spellchecking and proofreading documents. I did not mean to repeat, "you are right" I do not mind apologizing when I'm wrong, but once is enough. I need to do a better editing job.
I see a lot of comments about how the northeast or California would rule the election if we used the popular vote and places like Montana wouldn't matter. If we went with the popular vote we would have to stop thinking like the electoral college (if you win California you get all its votes) and look at it from a standpoint of, there are voters of all stripes in a place like California and they would all have their say as opposed to, its a blue state and that candidate got all their votes. If 99.999% of the people lived in California and the rest were scattered around the rest of the country, do you give Montana voters more "weight"? Maybe we sould look at it as one country and not by state, JS.
fearlas
Level 6
Mar 1, 2018
0
Votes are for people, not land. If 9 states have most the people, so be it. Other states will have to make alliances.
clarkatticus
Level 7
Mar 1, 2018
0
What would it take to get rid of the 1/10th of 1%? the super rich? the oligarchs? I'm sorry but the rule of law has rarely been applied less uquably. It will take violence to uproot them and distributing the wealth will be a challenge. you can redraw all the districts and you can back that cause and this candidate, but until you keep the oligarchs from spending freely in
Senate and House races you are pissing into the wind.
Willber
Level 5
Feb 28, 2018
1
Why would we want to get rid of the electoral college? Without the electoral college we would have had Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. What a disaster!!!
Trajan61
Level 8
Feb 28, 2018
0
Instead we got Bush 43 and Trump. What a disaster!!!
Two words: Constitutional amendment
tioteo
Level 8
Feb 28, 2018
1
And you’ll never get it!
That was going to be my answer, but you beat me to it. That is how it can change. The other way is for the states to pass a law in each state to assign the electoral votes for the president as a percentage of the vote that they receive from the public. A couple of states already do that. Let say they win 53% to 47% and that state has 11 electoral votes 5.8
electoral votes would be rounded up 6 for the winner and 5 for the loser.
Two more words: probably not.
A Constitutional Convention is need to get states on board to amend any part of the Constitution. The untra-conservative groups such as Focus On The Family, The Eagle Forum, The New American (John Birch Society) are the ones who are holding this up through their state representatives.
Goat
Level 5
Mar 1, 2018
0
One person, one vote, no exception. This would eliminate the "Crosscheck" voting machine used by the GOP this last time to make sure that Smith and Jones in Georgia did not also vote in Wisconsin. The idea was absurd but used only on Dem votes. The results were accepted by the electoral college.Look for more nonsense with this in the future. It's illegal. One person, one vote, no exception is the only way.
DenoPenno
Level 9
Mar 1, 2018
0
There is a path without revolution. Moreover, a revolution does not guarantee such a change. Power brokers tend to want control, and the electorial college allows it.
It will be difficult, and take years. The right has been working to control US politics since 1776. They took it from the King, but did not give it to the people.
It will be necessary to take local elections, state elections, and national elections. It is only necessary to gain the hearts and minds of the people, and keep them interested.
To make much progress, it will be necessary to eliminate big money from politics.
EdEarl
Level 8
Mar 1, 2018
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.