Loki Loc: Georgia

I have heard several posters, (all Democrats) complain that the Electoral College is outmoded and we should become the Democracy our founders warned us against. For them, I offer the following article....

http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/26/electoral-college-helps-protect-voter-fraud/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_camp

glibona Loc: Nevada

Yes, it does prevent voter fraud
of mob-ocracy..

Liberty Tree

Loki, what would you think of changing it from winner take all to a percentage basis based on the percentage a candidate received in the election in each state? If he/she received 45% of the popular vote in a state then he/she would get 45% of the electoral vote.

meridianlesilie Loc: mars

they are just a bunch of sore losers that cheat to try to win like hillary did ..out of my curiousity i look to see how much hillary sold her books
about 300thousand that is a good 300 thous , that are beyond stupid !!!! i watched sean hannity it was good he talked about how crooked they are real good ..i hope they start going after her cause trump never had a thing to do with the russian crap at all !!!!he should fire mueller he is in on with hillary & the crooked lib's !!!!!

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Nice post.

I suspect that frustration is at the heart of complaints about the electoral college. The outcomes haven't favored the Democrats when the popular vote and electoral votes did not match up in two of the last five elections.

While I do consider the electoral college a wise safeguard, my concern has nothing to do with mob-ocracy. I would like to see a study of the effects of gerrymandering on the electoral college. For example, NC is a solidly red state at both the state and federal level. Yet the state is actually pretty evenly divided between Dem and Reps...even a Dem governor. The split is urban/rural. As an urbanite, I have no say in a veto-proof state assembly, nor in the policies of my national representatives. Our voting districts have been struck down by federal courts since they were drawn in 2011.

Don't get me wrong....there is no doubt in my mind that the Reps (and by extension, conservatives) have totally outplayed the Dems in the long game by focusing on the state governments and did it fairly. On the other hand, I'm starting to wonder if the electoral college itself is now manipulated by state gov't gerrymandering and affecting the national outcome that way.

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/06/25/gerrymandering-2016-election/

kohler

With the current system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), a small number of people in a closely divided “battleground” state can potentially affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.

537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

kohler

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), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

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),

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

kohler

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 in 2017 passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
It 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.

kohler

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

GmanTerry

I have always thought that the Electoral College was a genius idea. We are the United STATES of America. To make sure that small States have their say in the selection of the President, the genius founding fathers thought up the Electoral College. It is just another perfect example of the care and planning that went into the forming of the country. Every State gets a chance to have their say in the election of our country's President. Otherwise, California, New York, Texas and Florida, would elect the President and the rest of the country would be irrelevant. Thank you founding fathers, for giving Montana a say in electing our President.

Semper Fi

glibona Loc: Nevada

yep...agree. Electorial College- fair and balanced - thank you founding fathers - from the state of Nevada.

glibona Loc: Nevada

That thank you to the founding fathers also goes for the Convention of States Article 5.
research it and become involved if you already haven't. ...power to thestates.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/01/22/the-most-corrupt-states-in-america/?utm_term=.8f52957c7e68

States have no special immunity against corruption. They aren't inherently more worthy of trust, and some of their laws (Jim Crow) were ipso facto corrupt.

glibona Loc: Nevada

So true..
as Reagan said..."trust but verify"...COS has nothing to do with special immunity of States. ..just an opportunity to be a part of the solution in strenthening and preserving our Constitutional protections agai st corruption. ..instead of having a complacent - oh well, I'm just one person, what can I do to fight corruption and unjust laws?

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

The best solution is to adopt the system used by Nebraska and Maine. The winner of the statewide popular vote receives the two electoral votes represented by the senators, the other electoral votes go to the winner of each congressional district. This way a few states with large numbers of electoral votes will not force their will on the rest of the country. Currently, if someone wins the 'right' eleven states, they can become president even if they lose the other 39 states by a large margin. This approach would force candidates to actually campaign nationwide. Look up the statistics of past elections to see how the electoral college votes would more accurately represent the will of the governed.