Why? It's 100% Constitutional. And it's exactly what's supposed to happen. Matter of fact ... Millions sign petition urging Electoral College to elect Hillary Clinton
Because those states represent an outsized number of citizens. Entirely fair. Sorry. Other countries manage the 1 man = 1 vote thing pretty well. We're the outlier here. Has the electoral system acted in the way it was designed to? Doesn't look like it to me.
Mob rule over the yokels in flyover country. Yeah, that'll go real good. Some do, some don't. Germany and Italy don't. But we're a hell of a lot bigger and more diverse than any of those other countries you refer to. It's one of those slogan-based solutions that sounds good on paper (especially after Tuesday) but would destroy the country in very short order. Uhhh ... they haven't even met yet. That's in December. A lot could happen between now and then. But you're correct ... if faithless electors aren't allowed, then it's not working as designed. I'd be in favor of a law eliminating penalties on faithless electors. But not for eliminating the EC itself. This country really would break out into a civil war if you did that. And the other side has all the guns this time.
I disagree. I'm not entirely sure what they had in mind with the whole thing (and neither are you) but my best reasoning tells me they intended for it to be a final safeguard against fraud or some other malicious attempt at taking power. Well, Trump may be a lot of things but there was nothing fraudulent about his run for the presidency. Far from it. He told us EXACTLY who he was. And what he didn't expose, others merrily did. And yet the electorate voted for him in FULL AND COMPLETE transparency, knowing EXACTLY who he was and what he represented. As democratic a process as there is on this planet. No, electoral college, you don't get a shot at this guy. He EARNED the oval office, with the full and complete support of the American people, and as opposed as I may be to everything he stands for I would FIGHT for his right to assume office at this point if anyone tried to pull any shenanigans.
Actually ... I'm pretty sure. As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
Well hey then, I'll just BET all those electors read this good and careful and are taking it into consideration! Not.
Ok, I see your point. Thank you for helping me understand this differently. Trust me, I DO like the idea of states like California and New York having MORE of a say in who becomes president, but I still contend that this would deepen the divide we have been urban and rural America, not lessen it. But, as you say, this is a purely academic argument as nothing is likely to happen to change it.
You are right, I've done the math. If our electoral system eliminated the 2-vote bonus all states get (disproportionately helping small states), the result would have been Trump 246 - Clinton 190.
In order to eliminate the EC, you'd need the vast majority of the population on board. At that point, you're not going to see civil war. Yeah, if you wave a magic want to make it disappear, you'd get war. But that doesn't mean the EC is right. Or fair.
We assume that all of the people in "flyover states" vote GOP. While many clearly do, how many people in those states even bother to vote, knowing they have no voice anyway? (The same could be said for GOP voters in "blue" states like California and New York.) But if one person = one vote, we might actually OPEN UP the process to other candidates, even other parties, because they might actually stand a chance. And a savvy candidate might figure out ways to appeal to, say, most women, and get a win regardless of which state is red or blue. I think the electoral college helps maintain the two party system more than anything, and though neither party likes to lose, neither wants to invite other political parties in to eat away at their lunches. The electoral college suppresses the vote.
And if we must keep the EC, I would like it to be awarded proportionately, rather than the stupid winner take all that we have now. For example, not ALL of California was for Hillary. Rather than getting all 55 electoral votes, she should receive say 38 or whatever it would be if the votes were adjusted to reflect what ALL the voters said. (Of course I was rooting for Hillary to get all 55, but honestly, that's a crazy way to silence many people and suppress their voices, regardless of which side is winning and losing.) That way, Places like Idaho or Wyoming or other deep red states could perhaps be focused on to eek out an electoral vote here, another there, eventually totalling the 270 needed. That would be more fair and open things up to third and fourth party candidates, too. I expect zero support on this from the GOP or Democrats, by the way.
I really believe doing either of the above would open up the process, not make certain states "done deals" the way they are now. Better ideas would be needed, and candidates would have to listen to more voices, not less.
But that would render the EC obsolete. Rewarding electoral votes proportionately and counting the popular vote would yield the same result. At that point, you might as well just count the popular vote and do away with the EC altogether. Keep in mind, killing the EC would result in shifting the power away from middle states to urban population centers and would make it VERY difficult for a Republican candidate to become president. After all, a Republican candidate has won the popular vote just once in the last seven elections.
Gonna do my obnoxious thing... The electoral college was not set up to protect "small states." It was set up to protect slavery and southern states. Slave states were able to count their slaves as 3/5ths in censes and therefore bolster their electoral college influence. Any time anyone talks about "states' rights" or protecting small states, your red flags should go right up. But the question also becomes, why are we worried about "state representation" anyway? That in and of itself is an antiquated notion. Why should states pick the president instead of the people anyway? See here: The real reason we have an Electoral College: to protect slave states If you don't believe me, read this: Edit: Hmmm, it keeps altering that link no matter how I do it. It's an Amazon link to "Slavery's Constitution," a book that brilliantly (and accurately) challenges the notion that the Founders avoided the topic of slavery. They were all over it.
But another feature of the Electoral College was that the breakdown between the states meant that nobody could win by simply courting one part of the country. A pro-slavery candidate couldn't win without any votes from the north and an anti-slavery candidate couldn't with without any votes from the south. In that way, it encouraged compromise and a multi-issue platform, rather than sticking firmly to strict ideals Although the breakdown is different today, the basic premise still works. Candidates can't win elections with only mostly-rural or highly-urban states, nor can they win with just the coasts or just the "fly over" states; they need to have a mix of both, and theoretically that means they'll campaign on concepts that appeal to a variety of voters
