The need to reconsider the Electoral College (and it has nothing to do with Trump)

[Thumper]

No disrespect intended, but NO WMD was found in Iraq other than long ago useless chemical weapons that might make you sick if you drink them, but hardly qualified as weapons of mass destruction. Moving WMD is not like moving furniture, it leaves a chemical trail, and had there been massive movement of WMD, it would have been traced.

No disrespect to your service brother, but soldiers on the ground do not know, or are they told everything. My daughter is an E8 .. and believes the less she knows about the politics, they better she can do her job. Soldiers and politics are like oil and water.

Political naritive.

I did CP for the Corps and then later FID once that was taken out of our core tasks cause DEVGRU was butt hurt that they weren't the only ones doing it anymore.

Oh. And even improperly sealed munitions can't be traced the way you suggest. You've been watching too many movies.
The news that hit the stands only talks about the rusty old stuff with speculation about why it wasn't released sooner. It doesn't talk about the other 2k that was found and had only degraded after being improperly stored after we were ready to go in.

 

[Thumper]

Political naritive.

I did CP for the Corps and then later FID once that was taken out of our core tasks cause DEVGRU was butt hurt that they weren't the only ones doing it anymore.

The news that hit the stands only talks about the rusty old stuff with speculation about why it wasn't released sooner. It doesn't talk about the other 2k that was found and had only degraded after being improperly stored after we were ready to go in.

As an aside. The lethality of things like mustard is greatly overstated in movies and understated in the media. There are islands that were hit during WWI that are still grossly contaminated.

Problem is that most of the population doesn't understand how these things work.

 

[Celticguy]

"Demographic trends also are straining the American model. Because of the way the Electoral College works, two of the past three presidents first won office while losing the popular vote. And David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-variedand-globalthreats-confronting-democracy-1511193763

Currently, the State of Wyoming has more say in electing a President then the Buffalo, New York metro area which is twice the size of Wyoming in population

Down the road it appears we will not be the representative democracy that the Founding Fathers has imagined

That's exactly the representative democracy they envisioned.

 

[blackascoal]

Where does it say "rewrite" in that supposed quote by Jefferson? You do realize Jefferson wasn't the only founding father, right? You realize that alleged sentiment of his wasn't incorporated into the Constitution, right? You see, the founders realized that even country bumpkins should have a voice, unlike leftist loons such as yourself, dummy.

Of course, you didn't even bother answering my question about how exactly we would go about "rewriting" the Constitution. Care to take a stab at it?

Not at all interested in educating a clown.

You asked where Jefferson said it .. I provided that .. you still don't get it. Your stupid ass obviously never had a history class .. but I should teach you?????

Run away dummy .. class over.

 

[toto]

Not designed, anticipated, or favored by Founders

That's exactly the representative democracy they envisioned.

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

 

[blackascoal]

Political naritive.

I did CP for the Corps and then later FID once that was taken out of our core tasks cause DEVGRU was butt hurt that they weren't the only ones doing it anymore.

Oh. And even improperly sealed munitions can't be traced the way you suggest. You've been watching too many movies.
The news that hit the stands only talks about the rusty old stuff with speculation about why it wasn't released sooner. It doesn't talk about the other 2k that was found and had only degraded after being improperly stored after we were ready to go in.

CIA Report: NO WMD FOUND IN IRAQ.

Maybe you should have watched the movie.

 

[toto]

Where does it say "rewrite" in that supposed quote by Jefferson? You do realize Jefferson wasn't the only founding father, right? You realize that alleged sentiment of his wasn't incorporated into the Constitution, right? You see, the founders realized that even country bumpkins should have a voice, unlike leftist loons such as yourself, dummy.

Of course, you didn't even bother answering my question about how exactly we would go about "rewriting" the Constitution. Care to take a stab at it?

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Trump, October 11, 2017, on interview with Sean Hannity
“I would rather have the popular vote.”

Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969),
Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

 

[toto]

I don't recall all this JPP liberal angst over the Electoral College being evident prior to November 9, 2016.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

It changes state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

 

[countryboy]

Not at all interested in educating a clown.

You asked where Jefferson said it .. I provided that .. you still don't get it. Your stupid ass obviously never had a history class .. but I should teach you?????

Run away dummy .. class over.

I accept your concession, thanks for playing.

 

[countryboy]

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Trump, October 11, 2017, on interview with Sean Hannity
“I would rather have the popular vote.”

Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969),
Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

I suggest you get crackin' and make it hap'n cap'n.

 

[blackascoal]

I accept your concession, thanks for playing.

:0) What a fucking ignoramus you are.

 

[toto]

how does one americans vote have more weight than another right now?

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"
“The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

In the 2016 general election campaign

Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
“Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
“If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

 

[toto]

the electoral college was created by the founding fathers. how the fuck do you come to the moronic conclusion that that is NOT what they had in mind?

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

 

[toto]

And that is why the separation of powers is important. Doing away with the electoral college would essentially do away with that separation.

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us mob ruled.

Mob rule would be a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or mob ruled.


The United States would be neither more nor less a “republic” if its chief executive is elected under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each separate state), under a district system (such as used by Maine and Nebraska), or under the proposed national popular vote system (in which the winner would be the candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states and the District of Columbia).

 

[toto]

I could conversely say. "So, California and New York should rule the nation? I don't think so".

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.

 

[Jade Dragon]

Yes, I think the same thing was said about slavery.
In any case you've articulated the status quo side of the argument quite lucidly here.

And now you've expressed the opposing view, also quite persuasively.

For me it's a lot easier to just not involve myself in voting for president anymore, or maybe just write in a reuben sandwich, or my ass. I don't like dealing in tainted things anyway.

 

[toto]

It also assures those regions are also represented and that rest of the nation isn’t completely dominated by a tyranny of the majority of those 15 major metropolitan regions. In the long run this is better for sustaining our Republic. It assures that national politicians can’t ignore “flyover” country.

In the short it does harm in that we are, from time to time, led by unpopular national leaders who are either demagogues or inept at governing (or both, like Trump) or reactionary minorities who resist change the majority needs.

In the long run the advantages of the electoral college outweighs its disadvantages. It is certainly understandable why it’s not popular in the major population centers but it would be a serious mistake underestimate the importance of geography in our national politics.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of three-quarters of all Americans was finished for the presidential election

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

15% of the U.S. population lives in the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX)

The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, from the free-trade party.

Parochial local considerations of battleground states preoccupy presidential candidates as well as sitting Presidents (contemplating their own reelection or the ascension of their preferred successor).

Even travel by sitting Presidents and Cabinet members in non-election years has been skewed to battleground states

 

[Irish Exit]

"Demographic trends also are straining the American model. Because of the way the Electoral College works, two of the past three presidents first won office while losing the popular vote. And David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-variedand-globalthreats-confronting-democracy-1511193763

Currently, the State of Wyoming has more say in electing a President then the Buffalo, New York metro area which is twice the size of Wyoming in population

Down the road it appears we will not be the representative democracy that the Founding Fathers has imagined

The solution is to expand the number of seats in the house, the number of electors in the EC will follow. There is no reason to end the EC.

 

[toto]

the first thing they should do is reconsider the way they apportion electoral votes.......California has way to much influence in politics because they include illegal immigrants in their population and get more congressmen and more electoral votes than they should have........

The census bureau is constitutionally mandated to complete a nationwide head count of all residents.

The current system gives "illegal immigrants" a 10 vote advantage in the Electoral College for the Democrats...because they tend to live in safe Democratic states.

An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage in Electoral College members arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens.

 

[toto]

it follows the representation in Congress. 2 electors per state,and then proportional representation.
It's designed to keep the massive population centers from overwhelming the smaller states.

The states having a voice in POTUS choice is protected this way.

Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!


Fourteen of the 15 smallest states by population are ignored like the big ones because they’re not swing states. Small states are safe states. Only New Hampshire gets significant attention.

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns.

State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, or to presidents once in office.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections.

Similarly, the 25 smallest states have been almost equally noncompetitive. They voted Republican or Democratic 12-13 in 2008 and 2012.

Voters in states, of all sizes, that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.