Why do we need the Electoral College?

[Ana the Ist]

I think this is a red herring.

Ok.

The issue is worth discussing, but has no bearing on the use of electoral college votes to determine the presidency.

It goes to the calculus of whomever should vote.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You missed by almost a 100 years, Revolutionary War you may have meant to say and slave freedom was not even on the horizon , yet.(Edit, I'm referencing the naturalization act)

I'm referencing the 14th Amendment.

I kinda' understand your point. otoh, the decisons made by our represenatives effect all of us living here, citizen and non-citizen alike. I would presume that initially, and I'm only guessing because I/we live in a vastly different world from the founders, they thought that reresentation of ALL living in the district was important enough to count - or - perhaps it was just a compromise for southern slave owners.. I dunno.

On that, if you'll indulge me an anecdote:
I live in Tennessee's Fifth Congressional District, inside the city limits of Nashville. I've been here over a quarter century. when I first arrived the 5th district was centered over Nashville and extended into the nearby suburbs. My representative was Jim Cooper (D). I came to TN a registered Republican. Jim had an office in downtown Nashville and was always accomodating when I asked to speak with him (when he was not in DC) and his staff always opened the door. He (or a staff person) always answered my correspondence, even where we disagreed. I could tell it was read because the answer usually addressed specifics in my correspondence. I became supportive because I felt represented, even though we disagreed on some items.

Flash forward to now, the TN State legislature gerrymandered the 5th district after the 2020 census. They split Nashville into thirds and extended three districts through the city, beyond the suburbs and the 5th now extends south of Columbia. The R's got their desired result and a George Santos clone Republican was elected in the 5th. If he has an office, I don't know where it is. He lives somewhere between Columbia and Hohenwald almost 100 miles away. he, nor his staff has ever, not once responded when I wrote, utilizing the email submission form on the US Congress website. He doesn't represent, in any way, whether we agree or disagree on issues.

I tend to think a representaive Government should represent everyone living within the jurisdictions.

Hey I get what you're saying.

My consideration is the validity of the elections. You know how Democrats are hollering and whining about "Russian interference" in our elections?

Well they won't shut the border...and they won't exclude illegals from voting. I believe it's Virginia that just purged 6 thousand non citizens from it's voter registry.

That's foreign interference in our elections. In fact, it's arguably the most foreign interference in our elections every 4 years.

If we were going to explicitly look the other way on who is and isn't a citizen....foreign interference in our elections is going to start looking like shoving a half million to million people across the border, and having them reside on key swing states. I mean, what exactly is stopping them?

We would need....

1. Functional control of the border.
2. No more sanctuary cities.
3. Real verification of citizenship to vote.

Otherwise this would be amongst the dumbest ideas of any group of people that call themselves a society.....ever.

Does that make sense?

 

[Whyayeman]

It goes to the calculus of whomever should vote.

Yes, if the electoral college is kept as it is or only adjusted for population size. If, as the title of the thread suggests, you Americans do away with the Electoral college in favour of something more akin to a popular vote, the calculus is irrelevant.

My own view is that the Electoral college has become an encumbrance and long ago lost its purpose, which I think had to do with the growing country's limited communications. I don't think that it has any other constitutional function other than its role in deciding the next president.

 

[FenderTL5]

I'm referencing the 14th Amendment.

Yes, that was my mistake. My comment was in reference to the Naturalization Act (1790). When I realized my error, i made the edit rather than wholesale deletion.

Hey I get what you're saying.

Thanks.
My comments are (as much as I can) about the Electoral College and its function and proposed changes. I oppose the notion of eliminating the Electoral College altogther in favor of a popular vote. That would require a Constitutional Amendment.
I would prefer to repeal and replace the Reapportionment Act of 1929 with a more up to date method/solution without the need to change the Constitution.

My consideration is the validity of the elections. You know how Democrats are hollering and whining about "Russian interference" in our elections?

Well they won't shut the border...and they won't exclude illegals from voting. I believe it's Virginia that just purged 6 thousand non citizens from it's voter registry.

That's foreign interference in our elections. In fact, it's arguably the most foreign interference in our elections every 4 years.

If we were going to explicitly look the other way on who is and isn't a citizen....foreign interference in our elections is going to start looking like shoving a half million to million people across the border, and having them reside on key swing states. I mean, what exactly is stopping them?

We would need....

1. Functional control of the border.
2. No more sanctuary cities.
3. Real verification of citizenship to vote.

Otherwise this would be amongst the dumbest ideas of any group of people that call themselves a society.....ever.

Does that make sense?

Yes, in the sense/understanding that you are conflating voting eligibility with the Electoral College. The EC plays no role in who can/cannot vote. Its role is in establishing apportionment in Congress and the number of electors in each state. Regardless of how the EC were to be amended it would not effect your concerns.
If it were to be done away with, (I oppose doing away with the EC), then your concerns may have validity.

The other challenge for your consideration is there is little to no evidence to the suggestion that non-citizens are voting in any significant way. (liberal) (conservative)
Of course some may try, some may get away with it. However, even that would be relatively few.
Why? Because "they won't exclude illegals from voting" is a false narrative. It is illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in every state, throughout the nation, without exception.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, if the electoral college is kept as it is or only adjusted for population size. If, as the title of the thread suggests, you Americans do away with the Electoral college in favour of something more akin to a popular vote, the calculus is irrelevant.

Irrelevant?

It's so relevant that we marked people as 3/5ths a person to avoid handing undeserved political power to certain states.

Unless you imagine the 30 million people here illegally are all residing in a manner equally spread out between states....it's relevant.

 

[Whyayeman]

Irrelevant?

It's so relevant that we marked people as 3/5ths a person to avoid handing undeserved political power to certain states.

Unless you imagine the 30 million people here illegally are all residing in a manner equally spread out between states....it's relevant.

Yes, relevant to the Electoral College for any given state. I don't dispute that. The first sentence of the original post is this:

It's an obsolete, archaic relic of 18th century thinking.

I can quite see the absurdity of counting voters as only 3/5ths of a person. I doubt if many are much inclined to support that strange principle nowadays.

I think your Electoral College is an obsolete relic of the 18th century and could be abolished to the advancement of democracy. This would be true if there were no illegal immigrants or if there were many.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, in the sense/understanding that you are conflating voting eligibility with the Electoral College.

No...I'm simply being realistic.

The EC plays no role in who can/cannot vote.

Technically it's role is to ensure no one votes for anyone but their electors.

Its role is in establishing apportionment in Congress and the number of electors in each state.

Yup.

The other challenge for your consideration is there is little to no evidence to the suggestion that non-citizens are voting in any significant way. (liberal) (conservative)

Right....this would take a little effort on your part to understand but you should look at...

1. Voter registration forms from several states. Look at what they require for proof of citizenship.
2. If you have half a brain in your head you'll realize....they require the voter to check a box declaring themselves a citizen....something they can do from a sanctuary city without punishment.
3. Texas removes over 1M ineligible voters from voter rolls

A Virginia voter roll purge sparks renewed rhetoric over 'non-citizens' casting ballots

Local Virginia officials attributed much of the presence of possible noncitizens on the voter rolls to errors made when people fill out paperwork or answer questions online.

www.nbcnews.com

This is my personal favorite.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbs17.com/news/capitol-report/republicans-seek-removal-of-225000-people-on-nc-voter-rolls/amp/

250,000 people. In 90 days. Impossible says the governor. Can't do it.

Aren't these the same nitwits who assured is everything was kosher after the last presidential election after about a week or two? It's all good they said. No voter fraud.

I'm not saying there was voter fraud....but I certainly can't say there wasn't. All it takes in most cases is checking a box to declare yourself a citizen. That's it. If you think the audits check everyone's citizenship....no....they check to see if you declared yourself a citizen.

Of course some may try, some may get away with it. However, even that would be relatively few.
Why? Because "they won't exclude illegals from voting" is a false narrative. It is illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections in every state, throughout the nation, without exception.

Right. It is illegal. There's simply no mechanism for checking. It's illegal to cross the border as well....and they did that, didn't they?

Imagine if I said "there's no illegal immigrants in the US, that's illegal!".

But we know there are...because a group of feds are at the border every day catching them. Under some presidents they're released into the country. Under others they're removed. Under either some sneak into the US detected but not caught.

That's a mechanism for understanding the relative number of times the law is broken. What's the mechanism for voting? If thousands of people across 3 states are registered to vote and not even citizens....there is no mechanism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think your Electoral College is an obsolete relic of the 18th century and could be abolished to the advancement of democracy. This would be true if there were no illegal immigrants or if there were many.

Illegals aren't just for representatives....they're for the apportionment of federal funding. That's another kind of political influence.

 

[Richard T]

It's also probably worth noting that any elector who doesn't follow state laws is unlikely to be punished or their vote discarded.

I thought more would have criminal penalties. "Thirty-two states require that their electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. Electors who snub the popular preference face fines or criminal charges in a few states." Source: The Electoral College: How American voters pick their president

 

[Hans Blaster]

I thought more would have criminal penalties. "Thirty-two states require that their electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. Electors who snub the popular preference face fines or criminal charges in a few states." Source: The Electoral College: How American voters pick their president

There was a notion in the drafting of the Constitution that the electors would be those enlightened, learned, and informed men of substance that would select from the whole of the nation the man who could serve as the chief executive. While most states did have the people elect the electors (rather than appointing them by the legislature), those voters knew they were electing the men who would vote for President. No expectations of being "pledged". Because of that it is almost surprising that there are any penalties at all. Just another sign that the EC is not even functioning the way it was intended and should be abandoned.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I thought more would have criminal penalties. "Thirty-two states require that their electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote. Electors who snub the popular preference face fines or criminal charges in a few states." Source: The Electoral College: How American voters pick their president

Those are state laws....right? I'm not even going to look at them, I'm just going to assume they're state laws.

Does any state law supercede the authority of the constitution? No?

Well tell me what would happen then....

 

[Hank77]

Well they won't shut the border...and they won't exclude illegals from voting. I believe it's Virginia that just purged 6 thousand non citizens from it's voter registry.

A Virginia voter roll purge sparks renewed rhetoric over 'non-citizens' casting ballots

Local Virginia officials attributed much of the presence of possible noncitizens on the voter rolls to errors made when people fill out paperwork or answer questions online.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Richard T]

Those are state laws....right? I'm not even going to look at them, I'm just going to assume they're state laws.

Does any state law supercede the authority of the constitution? No?

Well tell me what would happen then....

Yes, states are given the right in how they handle Electoral College Electors. Some are more strict than others. There is no Federal Law that I know of that would supercede punishment for failing to cast a required vote. These are called faithless electors. The are picked by the political parties so this has now been tightened up. Federal law has procedures of acceptance too. but if the election was close a rogue elector could theoritically force the Congress to choose the President if no majority was of EC votes obtained even if it was from rogue Electors.

Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ana the Ist]

The other challenge for your consideration is there is little to no evidence to the suggestion that non-citizens are voting in any significant way. (liberal) (conservative)

I'd like to point out your statement here, is the same one (basically) we hear from the political left and nightly news.

There is no evidence of large numbers of illegals or just noncitizens voting.

There is no evidence.

No evidence.

Notice they don't say that there's no large numbers of illegals voting in large numbers in elections, here's the evidence, we've traced nearly every vote back to a US citizen with whom citizenship is proven.

It's a bit like when a person goes missing, and police say there's currently no evidence of foul play. Maybe this person will turn up...maybe not...but it's not a settled issue.

Saying there's no evidence presumes the idea that evidence exists, and has been examined, and isn't present. It's just as possible no evidence exists, because it can't be examined, and it therefore isn't present.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A Virginia voter roll purge sparks renewed rhetoric over 'non-citizens' casting ballots

Local Virginia officials attributed much of the presence of possible noncitizens on the voter rolls to errors made when people fill out paperwork or answer questions online.

www.nbcnews.com

I'm well aware of the excuse given.

Local Virginia officials who spoke to NBC News attributed much of the presence of possible noncitizens on the voter rolls to errors made when people fill out paper or online forms or when they respond to a question about citizenship on a touchpad device at the department of motor vehicles.

What sort of mistake can be made on a citizenship question? We have a bunch of people who got caught and claim they meant to press "no, I'm not a citizen" instead of "yes"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, states are given the right in how they handle Electoral College Electors.

True....but they don't control how they vote.

Some are more strict than others. There is no Federal Law that I know of that would supercede punishment for failing to cast a required vote.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-5/ALDE_00013802/

The Constitution does not prohibit electors from casting their ballots as they wish and occasionally electors have done so.1 In 1968, for example, a Republican elector in North Carolina chose to cast his vote for George Wallace, the independent candidate who had won the second greatest number of votes rather than for Richard M. Nixon, who had won a plurality in the state. Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate objected to counting that vote for Mr. Wallace, insisting that it should be counted for Mr. Nixon, but both bodies decided to count the vote as cast.

In short, states can make laws requiring Electors to promise this or do that....they simply cannot enforce them should the elector choose otherwise.

 

[JSRG]

True....but they don't control how they vote.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-1/

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C2-5/ALDE_00013802/

The Constitution does not prohibit electors from casting their ballots as they wish and occasionally electors have done so.1 In 1968, for example, a Republican elector in North Carolina chose to cast his vote for George Wallace, the independent candidate who had won the second greatest number of votes rather than for Richard M. Nixon, who had won a plurality in the state. Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate objected to counting that vote for Mr. Wallace, insisting that it should be counted for Mr. Nixon, but both bodies decided to count the vote as cast.

In short, states can make laws requiring Electors to promise this or do that....they simply cannot enforce them should the elector choose otherwise.

States can enforce those laws, including the replacement of the elector with someone else if they don't vote the way they pledged. There was a Supreme Court case about this a few years ago, Chiafolo v. Washington, where the constitutionality of such laws was challenged, but the Supreme Court upheld them as constitutional (unanimously at that, even if there was a little disagreement over the reasoning).

 

[Ana the Ist]

States can enforce those laws, including the replacement of the elector with someone else if they don't vote the way they pledged.

2020 huh?

There was a Supreme Court case about this a few years ago, Chiafolo v. Washington, where the constitutionality of such laws was challenged, but the Supreme Court upheld them as constitutional (unanimously at that, even if there was a little disagreement over the reasoning).

Ok...I stand corrected. Didn't hear about this case back in 2020 or any year since.

 

[JSRG]

2020 huh?

The case was actually concerning faithless electors in the 2016 election, but trials and appeals take so long it didn't end up making it up to the Supreme Court until 2020 (it was decided prior to the 2020 election).

 

[Pommer]

States can enforce those laws, including the replacement of the elector with someone else if they don't vote the way they pledged. There was a Supreme Court case about this a few years ago, Chiafolo v. Washington, where the constitutionality of such laws was challenged, but the Supreme Court upheld them as constitutional (unanimously at that, even if there was a little disagreement over the reasoning).

Fresh precedent, right before bunches of republicans were convinced that since they’d vote for whom they were declared, this part wouldn’t be worrisome, legally.