Medius wrote:

dolly lahmuh wrote: this discussion pertains to the electoral college, not necessarily the organization of the legislative branch. Absolutely right, my apologies. There is another thread in here discussing the senate and I was happily addressing a completely different point thinking I was in that thread. Ignore me and continue on.

naww its okay. you were correct; you were just correct about a different topic. lol.

Beyonu78 wrote:

Probably somewhere in the archives here already, but I'm the type to ask the question first and then research it myself. The recent topic of the Constitution being out of date got me wondering about Article 2 and the not so long ago 2000 election. In this more technologically advanced world than our forefathers, what benefits are there from having the Electoral College? Please excuse my ignorance, but I must learn the hard way.

The Constitution was designed to keep any one group from having too much power. A popular vote for President would give too much power to the people. The EC, however, give some of that power to the states.

I think the EC is a good thing. If you look at it historically, you will notice that the only time it has come into play has been in very close elections. The 2000 election had a .5% difference between vote totals. That's one of the closest popular votes in history. Hence, it's not too much of a claim to say that the EC probably resulted in a better president, at least in term of views around the country.

Beyonu78 wrote:

States with larger populations get more electoral votes as it is. There is nothing incorrect in that a larger percentage of the population would receive a larger influence in selecting the next president. The only difference in a non-Electoral College system would be is that the vote of those choosing the state's "losing" candidate would still make a difference.

Most of the time the EC and popular vote have the same result. Hence, the thing to examine is the historical times when the EC has had different votes than the popular vote. In those cases, the popular vote differential has been small. Hence, the winner has been the one that won the most states. Not a bad result for a highly contested election.

We have to remember, the Constitution was not designed for fairness. It was designed to keep any one group from having too much power. The EC is one example of this. It keeps the people from having all of the power in elections, by giving some to the states.

BullsLawDan wrote:

Wizard From Oz wrote: Whats your solution to stop California Texas and New York winning all the elections? As opposed to even less people (i.e. Florida, Ohio, and PA) choosing the President now? The electoral college is patently un-democratic, and was designed as such. My friend from Kansas here gets the equivalent of 3 or 4 votes compared to mine, since his electors represent much smaller numbers of people. I'd be OK with keeping the electoral college if the way a number of electors was chosen was revised, for example, a straight number, like 1 elector for every 100,000 people in a state. Because of the whole "Senators + Congressman" thing, the value of my vote is much lower than people in lower-populated states. That's obviously unfair and should be changed. My solution is a straight popular vote, but I know that will never happen (mostly because our Constitutional Amendment process once again gives the 3 people that live in Kansas an equal say to the 20 million in NY)

So are you also against the Senate set up the way it is today? After all, why should the Senators for Wyoming have equal say to the Senators for California?

Register666666 wrote:

For the "The Electoral College should only be used when the popular vote is tied within the error percentages." You can't pick and choose when to use one system or when to use the other. The law does not and should not work that way. Pick one and stay with it.

Historically, the Electoral College has only had different results than the popular vote in very close elections. Practically speaking, it is only used when the popular vote is close.

in this modern day we should be able to count the popular votes acurately.
so we no longer need the electorate. if your vote is to count it should be counted. populations of states should not matter. states should not elect our president the people should elect the president. who or what electorates are or why we need them has always confused me anyway. why trust some one or something if your not sure exactly by whom or why electorate votes are cast. all I trust is my vote. my vote should count as 1 vote some years i go home from the polls and they are anouncing the winner already. whats up with a system where your vote hasent even been counted yet and the electorates have already decided the election.

The Electoral College should only be used when the popular vote is tied within the error percentages.

centerman wrote:

in this modern day we should be able to count the popular votes acurately. so we no longer need the electorate. if your vote is to count it should be counted. populations of states should not matter. states should not elect our president the people should elect the president. who or what electorates are or why we need them has always confused me anyway. why trust some one or something if your not sure exactly by whom or why electorate votes are cast. all I trust is my vote. my vote should count as 1 vote some years i go home from the polls and they are anouncing the winner already. whats up with a system where your vote hasent even been counted yet and the electorates have already decided the election.

You are assuming that you have the right to vote for President. You don't. You have the right to vote for electors.

The founding fathers wanted to keep power dispersed. They didn't want any one group (including the people or the states) to have too much power. It is why we have the three branches of government as well. It is why we have both the House (for the People) and the Senate (for the States).

Furley wrote:

The Electoral College should only be used when the popular vote is tied within the error percentages.

Practically speaking, that's the only time it has made a difference. GW Bush and Gore were statistically within or close to the error percentages.

perdidochas wrote:

Furley wrote: The Electoral College should only be used when the popular vote is tied within the error percentages. Practically speaking, that's the only time it has made a difference. GW Bush and Gore were statistically within or close to the error percentages.

Exactly. To me, the EC is a joke.

Furley wrote:

perdidochas wrote: Furley wrote: The Electoral College should only be used when the popular vote is tied within the error percentages. Practically speaking, that's the only time it has made a difference. GW Bush and Gore were statistically within or close to the error percentages. Exactly. To me, the EC is a joke.

It's not. Pretty much it insures that near ties go to the candidate with the most states supporting him.

In normal voting conditions, however, it also ensures that the people don't get their voices heard.

The electoral college is the last thing standing between what the Constitution created and Democracy.

Our Founding Fathers did not seek to create a Democracy, in fact, most despised that form of government as something they saw doomed to failure (check out our deficit if you don't believe them). They sought to create a Republic with one part of one branch of government Democratically elected -- the House of Representatives.

The Electoral College was ingeniously created to give more populous states a larger part of the pie while smaller states were not left out, and made sure that even if 100% of Californians voted for someone it would make the same result as if 50.00000000000000000000001% of Californians voted for that person.

While we have sadly gone down the path of democracy -- democratic election of electors, democratic election of Senators, forcing the house to gerrymander by population, etc -- this one last thing does remind us of the evils of democracy. Take for example, Al Gore. Any one can see he has clearly lost his mind, and we could have elected that man if it wasn't for the Electoral College.

John Galt wrote:

Take for example, Al Gore. Any one can see he has clearly lost his mind, and we could have elected that man if it wasn't for the Electoral College.

As opposed to the guy that didn't have one to lose?

Yeah, the electoral college gave us this constant two-party standoff. Whoopdy do.

Furley wrote:

In normal voting conditions, however, it also ensures that the people don't get their voices heard.

Not really. If the candidate they vote for wins, their voice was heard.

perdidochas wrote:

Furley wrote: In normal voting conditions, however, it also ensures that the people don't get their voices heard. Not really. If the candidate they vote for wins, their voice was heard.

That isn't the point.

BullsLawDan wrote:

John Galt wrote: Take for example, Al Gore. Any one can see he has clearly lost his mind, and we could have elected that man if it wasn't for the Electoral College. As opposed to the guy that didn't have one to lose? Yeah, the electoral college gave us this constant two-party standoff. Whoopdy do.

Well, democratic elections of electors gave us that. Don't blame the Electoral College, blame Democracy.

I'm a Libertarian who supports the electoral college. I also support selection of electors by means other than democratic elections, such as indirect democracy (selection by the state government). I also support the removal of the 12th Amendment. I think gridlock is the only way to stop the federal government from completely messing up everything it touches, like the Constitution.

John Galt wrote:

BullsLawDan wrote: John Galt wrote: Take for example, Al Gore. Any one can see he has clearly lost his mind, and we could have elected that man if it wasn't for the Electoral College. As opposed to the guy that didn't have one to lose? Yeah, the electoral college gave us this constant two-party standoff. Whoopdy do. Well, democratic elections of electors gave us that. Don't blame the Electoral College, blame Democracy. I'm a Libertarian who supports the electoral college. I also support selection of electors by means other than democratic elections, such as indirect democracy (selection by the state government). I also support the removal of the 12th Amendment. I think gridlock is the only way to stop the federal government from completely messing up everything it touches, like the Constitution.

I have no problem with some Electors being directly elected, but perhaps additional voting qualifications could be imposed, or the qualifications for Elecctors increased. All electors should have to run in their own name, though, and perhaps in a non-partisan election, and the practice of vote-pledging should be abolished.

It's my understanding;

The 'framers/founders' feared a general public would not have the INTEREST of the Nation in mind when voting, establishing a system where 'electors' from each State according to districts (population) would represent their district to decide the President and VP. There was no inherent right or obligation for this individual to vote for a person or persons his State population would actually approve of....

This has evolved somewhat to where a popular vote, dictates a party victory by electoral count, but that those chose as electors are STILL not obligated to vote for the actual winner of that party, in their district and don't according to outcomes of most every caucus/primary of any State. Today these results from States are submitted to Washington and Congress has the authority to accept or refuse those results.

Since I would agree with the original concern (personal interest over National), it would seem to me that the Nation or Union of States would be best served, going back to the original concept, letting elected or assigned (by State Legislatures) to meet and hash out the eventual President. I happen to believe that the VP or members of the executive should not necessarily be of the same party and if a runner up was from another party, then thats what the electors wish. I would go further and return to the original concept of electing Senators, as well...