Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Has the Electoral College outlived its usefulness?

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
33,764
I know we have discussed this before on PS but thought it might be a relevant topic to debate again.

Is the Electoral College still necessary or perhaps a modified system is the better choice like Maine and Nebraska have?

I haven't delved deeply into this topic yet but from what I know I prefer the way Maine and Nebraska split their votes.
I think it a more fair system vs the all or nothing way it is now in most states.

The outcome for this election might have been very different if we had something other than the Electoral College system we have in place now.

What are your thoughts?

calvin-hobbes-election-day1.gif

calvinandhobbesrighttoremainignorant.jpg
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
33,764

Karl_K

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
9,423
No it works exactly as designed, prevents a few high population states from bullying the rest of the states.
 

chrono

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Messages
37,353
Why does anyone bother with the Popular Vote if it has no bearing on the election?
 

asscherisme

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
2,732
YES! I think that the president should be based on the popular vote. 1 person= 1 vote period.

It makes me sick that Hilary had more people voting for her yet is not president elect today. Same thing with Gore vs Bush.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
Karl_K|1478782983|4096296 said:
No it works exactly as designed, prevents a few high population states from bullying the rest of the states.
This. Democrats might want to rethink changing it to proportional as many of the states are mostly red except in the large cities. Take a look at the latest US by county map for the 2016 election.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,640
it's funny, the people who thinks it's AOK, their candidate won! so I think the popular vote should count, and the electoral college is passe. Something from over 200 years ago has lost it's usefulness.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
Tekate|1478790235|4096338 said:
it's funny, the people who thinks it's AOK, their candidate won! so I think the popular vote should count, and the electoral college is passe. Something from over 200 years ago has lost it's usefulness.
You would rather that 5 cities in the US decide who is president? Because that is how popular vote would turn out every time. Of course it would be a democrat every time and that is not how governing for the people is supposed to work.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,640
Redwood, who cares where people live? if the majority live in a city, their votes don't count at all then.. whether it's a pub or a dem, I'm for getting rid of it.

Red: the people spoke, and yet they didn't win.. how is that democratic? it isnt..
 

OreoRosies86

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
3,023
Tekate|1478790561|4096341 said:
Redwood, who cares where people live? if the majority live in a city, their votes don't count at all then.. whether it's a pub or a dem, I'm for getting rid of it.

Red: the people spoke, and yet they didn't win.. how is that democratic? it isnt..
Totally agree, yet now we're all shocked and shaken that people are protesting this nightmare. Please.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
Tekate|1478790561|4096341 said:
Redwood, who cares where people live? if the majority live in a city, their votes don't count at all then.. whether it's a pub or a dem, I'm for getting rid of it.

Red: the people spoke, and yet they didn't win.. how is that democratic? it isnt..
You would rather 5 cities decide because they happen to agree with you. If it were the other way around and those 5 cities did not you would not agree.
 

smitcompton

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
2,605
Hi,

I'm with Karl. It works as it was designed to work. I'm not for any changes.

Annette
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,771
Is it proportional to population? Or how is it decided what state gets X number of votes?
If it's just chosen at random, or not updated with populace changes, it seems a bit defunct.
 

LadyMCh

Shiny_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Messages
318
Karl_K|1478782983|4096296 said:
No it works exactly as designed, prevents a few high population states from bullying the rest of the states.

THIS. Further, we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. Without the electoral college, people in the "flyover states" might as well not even vote. Removing the electoral college would completely disenfranchise those voters because no one would care about issues that affect them. Don't forget that parties and their ideologies change over time. The electoral college is designed to protect the scattered masses from the concentrated few. It also encourages representation of issues that affect EVERYONE, not just people in more population dense areas. Changing protective features like the electoral college to get your way now is not a good design over time. (Note: my candidate did not win!)

Also, the current popular vote totals are:
Clinton: 59,938,290
Trump: 59,704,886
So less than 250k difference...in a country with 200m registered voters...with a population of ~325m. Almost 47% of REGISTERED VOTERS did NOT vote! If you're upset and angry that your candidate didn't win, maybe it's because they were a bad candidate. Again, I AM NOT and have never been pro-Trump, but, at the same time, I recognize Clinton was a status quo candidate in a change year. She failed to say what she was going to do for our country and relied on attacking Trump. And, with 30+ years in politics, she came with a lot of baggage, including multiple scandals. She represented the establishment and political corruption. In 2008, she was defeated in the primary, only to be taken out of the DNC's closet 8 years later, dusted off, and presented as a polished turd (Remember when the Republicans tried to do that in multiple elections with McCain? Romney? How'd that work out for them?) More importantly, she failed to energize voters, including her own base. In BOTH of Obama's elections, he garnered OVER 65 MILLION VOTES! In 2008, he got almost 70m votes!!! Where did those voters go?? They didn't show up for Clinton. Why? The electoral college is not the problem.

Trump isn't even a "real" conservative. He's a former NY Democrat who railed against the Republican establishment and won without it's support. The DNC and RNC BOTH need to take a long, hard look at themselves and get back in touch with voters.
 

telephone89

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 29, 2014
Messages
3,771
redwood66|1478795498|4096386 said:
I was wrong it is equal to your state Congressional reps and senators.

Here is the website.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/
Thank you. I also found the wiki page informative (lol)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

Scrolling down to the middle of the page, it shows how the # of electors has changed through the years. So the US has had the same # of electors since 1964, though the distribution throughout the states has changed. I would assume that a states congressional reps/senate is chosen by populace too, and that is why it changes?
 

AnnaH

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,226
LadyMCh|1478796238|4096392 said:
Karl_K|1478782983|4096296 said:
No it works exactly as designed, prevents a few high population states from bullying the rest of the states.

THIS. Further, we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. Without the electoral college, people in the "flyover states" might as well not even vote. Removing the electoral college would completely disenfranchise those voters because no one would care about issues that affect them. Don't forget that parties and their ideologies change over time. The electoral college is designed to protect the scattered masses from the concentrated few. It also encourages representation of issues that affect EVERYONE, not just people in more population dense areas. Changing protective features like the electoral college to get your way now is not a good design over time. (Note: my candidate did not win!)

Also, the current popular vote totals are:
Clinton: 59,938,290
Trump: 59,704,886
So less than 250k difference...in a country with 200m registered voters...with a population of ~325m. Almost 47% of REGISTERED VOTERS did NOT vote! If you're upset and angry that your candidate didn't win, maybe it's because they were a bad candidate. Again, I AM NOT and have never been pro-Trump, but, at the same time, I recognize Clinton was a status quo candidate in a change year. She failed to say what she was going to do for our country and relied on attacking Trump. And, with 30+ years in politics, she came with a lot of baggage, including multiple scandals. She represented the establishment and political corruption. In 2008, she was defeated in the primary, only to be taken out of the DNC's closet 8 years later, dusted off, and presented as a polished turd (Remember when the Republicans tried to do that in multiple elections with McCain? Romney? How'd that work out for them?) More importantly, she failed to energize voters, including her own base. In BOTH of Obama's elections, he garnered OVER 65 MILLION VOTES! In 2008, he got almost 70m votes!!! Where did those voters go?? They didn't show up for Clinton. Why? The electoral college is not the problem.

Trump isn't even a "real" conservative. He's a former NY Democrat who railed against the Republican establishment and won without it's support. The DNC and RNC BOTH need to take a long, hard look at themselves and get back in touch with voters.
Well said!
 

House Cat

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
4,002
The electoral college was put in place by the framers because they were afraid that the common man would begin to vote in a way that would threaten their way of life. They were also afraid that the common man was too stupid and uneducated to know what was best when voting for a president.

If we apply those fears to the people of today, does that seem to fit? Maybe the Koch brothers feel that way about us, but do you feel that way about yourself?

Yes, the electoral college is horribly outdated. Frankly, it is insulting.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

"The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
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.”
 

BeekeeperBetty

Shiny_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
271
I think this election is less about the dysfunction of the electoral college than showing us that our primary system is broken. The fact that Trump got out of the primaries at all is a joke.

I find it ironic that people say the electoral college system works because they don't want cities dictating to them who governs, when as it is set up currently only a handful of states determine who governs the entire country. That's not right, either. But they don't see the irony.
 

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
562
She failed to say what she was going to do for our country and relied on attacking Trump

I think we must be living in diametrically opposed realities.
 

ruby59

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
3,553
But then would a very large blue state like California pretty much determine the election?
 

Dancing Fire

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
31,475
Yes, I would like to see Ca. split in half b/c my vote don't count.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
33,764
BeekeeperBetty|1478800165|4096422 said:
I think this election is less about the dysfunction of the electoral college than showing us that our primary system is broken. The fact that Trump got out of the primaries at all is a joke.

I find it ironic that people say the electoral college system works because they don't want cities dictating to them who governs, when as it is set up currently only a handful of states determine who governs the entire country. That's not right, either. But they don't see the irony.
Agreed. Irony is lost on so many people in general who can only see things from their (narrow) point of view.

I don't know the answers but I sure have lots of questions.
 

wildcat03

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
503
redwood66|1478790384|4096339 said:
Tekate|1478790235|4096338 said:
it's funny, the people who thinks it's AOK, their candidate won! so I think the popular vote should count, and the electoral college is passe. Something from over 200 years ago has lost it's usefulness.
You would rather that 5 cities in the US decide who is president? Because that is how popular vote would turn out every time. Of course it would be a democrat every time and that is not how governing for the people is supposed to work.
So you are saying a popular vote would always favor a democratic candidate? That doesn't seem to be borne out historically (although twice in the last 16 years, it would have meant the inauguration of a different president), but if it were the case I'd argue that it would be time for the Republicans to make some changes, not necessarily an indication of a flawed system.
 

chrono

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Messages
37,353
missy|1478868398|4096886 said:
BeekeeperBetty|1478800165|4096422 said:
I think this election is less about the dysfunction of the electoral college than showing us that our primary system is broken. The fact that Trump got out of the primaries at all is a joke.

I find it ironic that people say the electoral college system works because they don't want cities dictating to them who governs, when as it is set up currently only a handful of states determine who governs the entire country. That's not right, either. But they don't see the irony.
Agreed. Irony is lost on so many people in general who can only see things from their (narrow) point of view.

I don't know the answers but I sure have lots of questions.
I am disappointed that US voting system makes it so that only certain key states matter, and not a 1 person = 1 vote decision.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
wildcat03|1478870210|4096898 said:
redwood66|1478790384|4096339 said:
Tekate|1478790235|4096338 said:
it's funny, the people who thinks it's AOK, their candidate won! so I think the popular vote should count, and the electoral college is passe. Something from over 200 years ago has lost it's usefulness.
You would rather that 5 cities in the US decide who is president? Because that is how popular vote would turn out every time. Of course it would be a democrat every time and that is not how governing for the people is supposed to work.
So you are saying a popular vote would always favor a democratic candidate? That doesn't seem to be borne out historically (although twice in the last 16 years, it would have meant the inauguration of a different president), but if it were the case I'd argue that it would be time for the Republicans to make some changes, not necessarily an indication of a flawed system.
The only thing that would change it is if the Republicans in those deep blue states (Dancing Fire) did not stay home like they do now. They know their vote does not count. But the population in those major cities is so high compared to the rest of the country it is likely that it could not be overcome.

I think people do not understand that we are collection of sovereign states which is indicated in the very name United States of America, not a democracy. Each state has a right in the decision on who is the president.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top