Abolish the Electoral College

[JerryBaumchen 1,369]

Hi folks,

Re:  "Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday called for abolishing the Electoral College as part of an effort to expand voting rights . . . "

I first knew about the Electoral College when I was about 15 yrs old, in high school.  I thought it was rather stupid & unnecessary then and I still do today.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/19/elizabeth-warren-eliminate-electoral-college-1226686

Thoughts??????

Jerry Baumchen

[yoink 321]

Fuck yes.

I've always said that I'd vote for anyone who ran on this platform, almost regardless of their other politics.

 

I AM concerned with her suggestion about using anti-monopoly laws to break up large tech companies because of ‘trust’ issues, however... that’s not what that law is for.

Edited March 20, 2019 by yoink

[BIGUN 1,319]

16 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Thoughts??????

I too; at one time thought the Electoral College should be abolished. There's pros and cons for keeping it and for removing it. In my opinion, the reasons for keeping it weigh more heavily than for disbanding it.  

Advantages of the Electoral College

1. It requires a distribution of popular support. 
Because of the structure of the Electoral College, a President must receive national support to win an election. This promotes a healthy cohesiveness within the country because there must be a distribution of that support so that a majority of electoral votes can be received. Without this structure, a candidate would spend most of their time in large population centers campaigning because that’s where the popular vote would be won.

2. It gives minority interests a say in the election. 
Since a national level of support is required because of the Electoral College, minority causes, interests, and concerns are given a voice that reaches a national level. The votes of a small minority in a state can sway the difference in an election, especially since most states award all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. This allows a certain amount of leverage to be used during the election that may not be possible in general society otherwise.

3. It encourages political stability. 
The United States focuses on a two-party system because of the structure in the Electoral College. That doesn’t mean other political parties can’t get involved in the election. It just means most candidates that are elected will be either a Republican or a Democrat. The only independent candidate to be elected President in US history was George Washington. The last third-party candidate to win a state’s electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968. This means there is a reasonable certainty as to how the government will run, no matter which major party in the US winds up with the white house.

4. It maintains a system of national representation. 
The United States was founded on the idea that taxation without representation was unfair. It was part of the reason for the rebellion of the colonies in the first place. With the Electoral College, a general consensus can be maintained so the structure of the government and the independent political powers of each state and local government can continue existing. In national representation, each state and population district receives equal representation, in either the house or the senate, and that allows individual voters to still have a say in what happens.

SOURCE: https://vittana.org/5-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-electoral-college

  (Five more reasons for keeping it)

Edited March 20, 2019 by BIGUN
Five more reasons for keeping it

[normiss 803]

California has 55 electoral votes. Its population is 40 million.

1 electoral vote represents 727,272 people.

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. It's population is 573,720. 1 electoral vote represents 191,240 people.

Wyoming residents have 3.8 times the voting power of Californians.

[gowlerk 2,213]

6 minutes ago, normiss said:

California has 55 electoral votes. Its population is 40 million.

1 electoral vote represents 727,272 people.

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. It's population is 573,720. 1 electoral vote represents 191,240 people.

Wyoming residents have 3.8 times the voting power of Californians.

I'm not convinced either way on the wisdom of the Electoral College system. There is some justification for regional and geographic balance as well as equal representation by population. Your example of Wyoming versus California is, I assume, the most at the most extreme end of the imbalance. Can you cite how many people the average EC vote represents nationally?

[JerryBaumchen 1,369]

23 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'm not convinced either way 

Hi Ken,

Obviously, I am.  Why don't we vote Electoral College-like for our Congress Critters?  Why not for my state Governor, why not for my state Sec of State, etc, etc?

For a very out-dated reason, the POTUS & Vice-POTUS are the only two people in this country that we vote that way for.

I vote - 1 person; it is the most fair way to vote.  

BIGUN is just barfing the crap he has found somewhere.

Jerry Baumchen

[gowlerk 2,213]

2 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

POTUS & Vice-POTUS are the only two people in this country that we vote that way for.

Maybe so. But that completely overlooks the fact that the Senate is set up with two members per State regardless of population. That is a far more important imbalance of electoral power per capita than the Electoral College. When you add in perversion of the filibuster in the Senate a Senator from Wyoming has a ridiculous amount of real power for the population represented.

[billvon 3,000]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

3. It encourages political stability. 
The United States focuses on a two-party system because of the structure in the Electoral College. That doesn’t mean other political parties can’t get involved in the election. It just means most candidates that are elected will be either a Republican or a Democrat. The only independent candidate to be elected President in US history was George Washington. The last third-party candidate to win a state’s electoral votes was George Wallace in 1968. This means there is a reasonable certainty as to how the government will run, no matter which major party in the US winds up with the white house.

To me this is a negative.  A system that keeps two specific political parties in power to a degree of "reasonable certainty" isn't a good thing.

[billvon 3,000]

42 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'm not convinced either way on the wisdom of the Electoral College system. There is some justification for regional and geographic balance as well as equal representation by population. Your example of Wyoming versus California is, I assume, the most at the most extreme end of the imbalance. Can you cite how many people the average EC vote represents nationally?

I'm not sure either.  As others have mentioned it gives some people far more "voting power" than others, and it keeps a two-party system as the standard.  On the other hand, it moves some power from the federal government to the states.  Candidates campaign to states, not individual voters, and try to ensure that at least a slim majority in each _state_ votes for them.  This keeps state's interests better represented, even if some states have fractions of the population than others.

 

[Rick 67]

30 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Ken,

Obviously, I am.  Why don't we vote Electoral College-like for our Congress Critters?  Why not for my state Governor, why not for my state Sec of State, etc, etc?

For a very out-dated reason, the POTUS & Vice-POTUS are the only two people in this country that we vote that way for.

I vote - 1 person; it is the most fair way to vote.  

BIGUN is just barfing the crap he has found somewhere.

Jerry Baumchen

Why is it crap? Because you don't agree?

I am on the fence on the electoral college also and I like to see well reasoned articles on both sides to help me make a decision. I can see the 1 person 1 vote logic but it does give a lot of power to high population centers. 

[yoink 321]

Quote

2. It gives minority interests a say in the election. 
Since a national level of support is required because of the Electoral College, minority causes, interests, and concerns are given a voice that reaches a national level. The votes of a small minority in a state can sway the difference in an election, especially since most states award all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. This allows a certain amount of leverage to be used during the election that may not be possible in general society otherwise. [/quote]

 

I don't see that. It gives minority interests a controlling say in the election I reckon. That's the basis of its unfairness for me.

 

People get upset about power being centralized to high population areas, but I've never understood WHY that's a problem if that's where most of the people live?

Geography doesn't get a vote - people do. Why people think it's a issue that votes should stay in states if no people are there is beyond me.

Look at an extreme example: imagine a state where nearly everyone has moved out. It has 1 person living there. For that single person to have power over however many electoral college votes the state owns would be ludicrous. It devalues everyone elses votes and makes that single person impossibly powerful. 

 

 

Edit. Stupid fucking quote system.

Edited March 20, 2019 by yoink

[gowlerk 2,213]

35 minutes ago, yoink said:

People get upset about power being centralized to high population areas, but I've never understood WHY that's a problem if that's where most of the people live?

It's a problem because they are more likely to be A)darker skinned, B)immigrants, C)Democratic voters. But that is not the only reason, not everyone outside of the cities feels those things. Many Americans still hold the picture of frontier independent living as part of their National Myth. Dislike of the power of large cities is hardly an America only feeling. Large numbers of Canadians hate Toronto. Especially those with roots in the formerly rural areas that surround it. Even in far away Manitoba where I live about 2/3 rds of the people live in the greater Winnipeg area. And there is a sharp political divide that follows those boundaries.

Why is it a problem? It's a problem the same as any majority having all the attention and power. There is a natural tendency to ignore the needs of the minority unless something balances the power structure.

[jakee 1,500]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

2. It gives minority interests a say in the election. 
Since a national level of support is required because of the Electoral College, minority causes, interests, and concerns are given a voice that reaches a national level. The votes of a small minority in a state can sway the difference in an election, especially since most states award all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. This allows a certain amount of leverage to be used during the election that may not be possible in general society otherwise.

That's superficial nonsense though really, isn't it?

 

Looking at the states which are disproportionately powerful in the EC and you see that the "minority interest" most aided by the system is white small town America. They're not really a minority.

 

Big cities and major population centres tend to be more diverse with a bigger roportion of minority groups within them, and those are exactly the places that lose voting power in the EC system.

Edited March 20, 2019 by jakee

[gowlerk 2,213]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

white small town America. They're not really a minority.

Well, actually they are now. And many of them resent that.

[billvon 3,000]

1 hour ago, yoink said:

 

 

I don't see that. It gives minority interests a controlling say in the election I reckon. That's the basis of its unfairness for me.

Well, yes, in that states are minority interests.  It gives states power over people.  And per the original plan for the US, that's a good thing - the US is a bunch of independent governments (states) living together with one federal government to coordinate them.  Note that the Declaration of Independence described independent states rather than a new country, and said that "as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

That was eroded during the Civil War and has further been eroded with the growing power of (and attention paid to) the presidency.  But it was certainly the original intent to give states more power.  Is that still valid today?  To a large degree it is; states should have more power, and the growing concentration of political power in the presidency is a bad thing (IMO.)

[DJL 235]

While I don't agree with many aspects of the electoral college as far as numerical representation goes I also don't think it's in the interests of the nation to have our path dominated by the interests of the more highly populated coastal states.

[TriGirl 319]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 11:44 AM, gowlerk said:

Maybe so. But that completely overlooks the fact that the Senate is set up with two members per State regardless of population. That is a far more important imbalance of electoral power per capita than the Electoral College. When you add in perversion of the filibuster in the Senate a Senator from Wyoming has a ridiculous amount of real power for the population represented.

Senators are supposed to vote in the best interest of the country. Having the same number from each state, regardless of the population, ensures sparsely populated states like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Kansas, etc., get to contribute equally in the state of the union.  The House, though it is the lower house of our legislature, is filled with representatives based on the states' populations.  Traditionally, they should be advocating more for the constituents in their congressional districts within the full national framework.  It isn't called the people's house for nothing.

Of course, "supposed to" and "traditionally" are the key words here WRT representation.  As for the chief executive -- are we trying to say the states are voting for the president, or are the people voting?  If the former, then perhaps each state should only get two votes. If the latter, either revert to "one vote per eligible voter," or adjust the electoral college to reflect population distribution more fairly.

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by TriGirl
clarity

[billvon 3,000]

3 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

As for the chief executive -- are we trying to say the states are voting for the president, or the people?  If the former, then perhaps each state should only get two votes. If the latter, either revert to "one vote per eligible voter," or adjust the electoral college to reflect population distribution more fairly.

 

The original intent was that the federal government be a loose organizing force that unified 13 (later 50) states.  Hence the former interpretation was the original one.  The original Constitution calls for electors from each state who meet to elect the President. The 12th amendment changed this a bit but not significantly.

[gowlerk 2,213]

12 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

Senators are supposed to vote in the best interest of the country.

I don't think so. Where does it say that? Senators nearly always run as being the best at looking after their state.

[TriGirl 319]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

The original intent was that the federal government be a loose organizing force that unified 13 (later 50) states.  Hence the former interpretation was the original one.  The original Constitution calls for electors from each state who meet to elect the President. The 12th amendment changed this a bit but not significantly.

Historically speaking, I concur.  Additionally, the understanding (if I recall correctly from school) was that the electors would cast their vote for the "right" person, even if the uneducated masses screwed it up in their own states.  The founders created a system that made some sense for the intent and the circumstances at the time.  They could not have conceived of mass shootings with a high powered firearm.  They also could not have predicted such an immense disparity in the population numbers of the states.  Regardless, the question on the table is how we move on from here?  What is our intent today and for the future?  States picking, or people?

[billvon 3,000]

1 minute ago, TriGirl said:

Historically speaking, I concur.  Additionally, the understanding (if I recall correctly from school) was that the electors would cast their vote for the "right" person, even if the uneducated masses screwed it up in their own states.  The founders created a system that made some sense for the intent and the circumstances at the time.  They could not have conceived of mass shootings with a high powered firearm.  They also could not have predicted such an immense disparity in the population numbers of the states.  Regardless, the question on the table is how we move on from here?  What is our intent today and for the future?  States picking, or people?

That's the $64,000 question.  Does state sovereignty still matter?  It's been eroded for decades by new federal laws.  If it doesn't matter any more, then popular election makes more sense.

[JerryBaumchen 1,369]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

It's been eroded for decades by new federal laws. 

Hi Bill,

Has it been eroded or have we evolved?  I think that the original concept was OK for the times; however, with modern communications systems, et al, I consider it as outmoded at the rotary dial phone, if not more so.

Jerry Baumchen

[BIGUN 1,319]

On 3/20/2019 at 10:37 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

BIGUN is just barfing the crap he has found somewhere.

SInce when is citing the source you're in agreement with considered, "Barfing the crap?" If you or Billvon cited your sources regarding climate change even though others might disagree with your position; it gives them a starting point for your position and adds some credibility to why you've taken that position. The only "Barfing" I see here is those attacking others' positions and not providing any source citations to refute the original citations. 

EDIT: Did you even notice the source cited was a prominent California Democrat that is not only an Election Law expert, but also Jerry Brown's main drafter of the Political Reform Act, an initiative statute that California voters approved in 1974, thereby creating a new Fair Political Practices Commission. Governor Brown appointed Lowenstein as first chairman of the Commission in 1975. 

That comment was way beneath you, Jerry. You're reading too many Trump Tweets.      

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by BIGUN
Additional Information

[jakee 1,500]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

SInce when is citing the source you're in agreement with considered, "Barfing the crap?" If you or Billvon cited your sources regarding climate change even though others might disagree with your position; it gives them a starting point for your position and adds some credibility to why you've taken that position. The only "Barfing" I see here is those attacking others' positions and not providing any source citations to refute the original citations.

Bigun - there were no original citations in your quoted text. Sure you cited the source you got the text from, but the text itself is purely the opinion of its author. 

 

Claiming that that one cannot legitimately disagree with the content of that author’s opinion unless one has another author’s opinion to cite is utterly ridiculous.

[BillyVance 34]

On 3/20/2019 at 1:32 PM, DJL said:

While I don't agree with many aspects of the electoral college as far as numerical representation goes I also don't think it's in the interests of the nation to have our path dominated by the interests of the more highly populated coastal states.

Especially when there are several entire states with less population than Los Angeles County.