Elizabeth Warren says she wants to eliminate Electoral College

[Steve Petersen]

The EC does not violate the notion of all being equal. The founders though in their wisdom foresaw that the potential for mob and one-party rule was so great, they had to devise a way to prevent it. We are not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic that elects representatives and our leaders through a careful system of checks and balances. The EC is not perfect, but reduces the risk of one party takeover and dictatorship.

A FEDERAL government. The tenth amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[variant]

And it worked as it was intended to.

Intended by whom? Federalists who invented it had a much different purpose in mind.

Why an electoral college?

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.”

The Reason for the Electoral College - FactCheck.org

So, what do you even mean by "worked as intended" exactly?

 

[Resha Caner]

The national vote means the voters preferred her. Thats all I'm claiming.

And I think that's an erroneous claim. I couldn't find the type of study I was looking for (the type I mentioned in my previous post) ... all I found was this, which has its own biases. You could probably find similar types of things. The point I would make from that chart is not whether Trump or Clinton was polling higher, but the fact that the swings in the numbers over time are more than the 2.2% difference of the final election. So, I wouldn't be surprised if the result would have been different if the election had been held on a different day.

There were polls showing that both Trump and Clinton had high unfavorable ratings. IOW, there was a "none of the above" subtext. And that was me. I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton. I voted for a 3rd candidate. The way the current rules work, the election is decided by those who swallow their dignity and vote. Those who can't stomach the choices and don't vote, aren't heard. If their "none of the above" voice was added to elections, the results could easily be very different.

I tend toward a Libertarian view, but I wasn't especially fond of the Libertarian candidate. Still, I cast my vote knowing a 3rd party wouldn't win - cast it as a deliberate "none of the above" vote. The rules are that the winner must get a majority of electoral votes. My hope was that enough 3rd party votes would be cast to prevent that and throw the election to the House. Not that it would have changed the winner, but to send a message: I don't want either.

So in a straight popular vote, what would you do with the 1996 election, when no candidate got >50%? When there is no national preference?

If we were to change the voting system, I would want to add a "none of the above" option. I think if that had been available in 2016, neither Trump nor Clinton would have gotten >50%. And I'd push for a lot of other modifications as well. You can bet I wouldn't be the only one. It would be a chaotic free-for-all.

So that's my claim. At best, 2016 was a tie. There was no winner - no national preference. And until you address why that is, you're going to continue to get these lesser-of-two-evils close elections.

 

[RDKirk]

If you think that’s bad, then the electoral college is worse. A minority can enslave the majority, and we aren’t talking about a minority of more qualified people. Just people who live in more rural areas.

I kinda resent the use of "enslave" for such a cavalier concept of a vote that was, to be honest, pretty darned close, relatively speaking.

This election wasn't taken from Clinton, she lost it by losing states Obama had won. She lost it by not being a clearly superior candidate in every way to someone like Trump. She didn't lose it to Trump's hardcore 25%, she lost it by not being enough better than someone like Trump to capture the middle 50%.

 

[RDKirk]

No one is suggesting we eliminate the representative nature of the republic. The pres would gain no additional powers. The congress would remain a representative body.

The original notion of choosing wise electors to pick a pres for us is already gone. Perhaps we should bring it back? Electors NOT pledged to a candidate.

The electors are a representative body of the states for the citizens of that state, just as Congresscritters are. Either you believe in representative government or you don't.

 

[durangodawood]

The electors are a representative body of the states for the citizens of that state, just as Congresscritters are. Either you believe in representative government or you don't.

You think "electors" mean anything anymore, as representatives to actually do something other than act as placeholders for your vote?

Tell me, who's names are on your ballot for the presidential race? Electors.. or the candidates?

Yes, youre correct: its the candidates. Thats because the electors are no longer the wise and respected men we would elect to go and make a choice of president for us. The days of electors as representatives, rather than mathematical placeholders, are already long gone.

 

[USincognito]

I think rural people have a greater understanding of hard work, and what made American into the lone super power of the world, a bit more than welfare recipients, ivy league professors who have never worked a day in their life, and soccer moms who think meat and vegetables come from the grocery store. Having relatives who ran a farm, they have a far better understanding of hard work, than city people.

This is an absolutely beautiful straw man. The noble rustic over the ignorant urbanite. Kudos.

 

[Sparagmos]

I kinda resent the use of "enslave" for such a cavalier concept of a vote that was, to be honest, pretty darned close, relatively speaking.

This election wasn't taken from Clinton, she lost it by losing states Obama had won. She lost it by not being a clearly superior candidate in every way to someone like Trump. She didn't lose it to Trump's hardcore 25%, she lost it by not being enough better than someone like Trump to capture the middle 50%.

Thanks for the correction. I should have used quotes - “enslaved” was the phrase the person I responded to used. I agree it was not an appropriate use of the word, and was hyperbolic.

Also, I am NOT against the electoral college because of what happened in 2016. I’ve had the same opinion on it since the day I learned about it in school as a kid. Hillary knew she was running an EC campaign and did not perform well. More importantly, she should never have been the democratic nominee.

 

[Sparagmos]

I think much of the current discontent with the EC is from those folks that believe Clinton should be President because she won the popular vote.

Yup, it definitely brought the issue to the forefront for a lot of people. I’ve been against the EC for over 35 years. Every time the EC/popular vote don’t match up, people raise the issue. We did it with GWB as well.

 

[Sparagmos]

Well I sure do.

American voters preferred her over the alternative.

But thats neither her nor there, as we can discuss the principles at stake regardless of who we preferred.

That’s what I was doing. I did not bring hillary into this discussion and am trying to keep her out of it. It really has nothing to do with her.

 

[rambot]

And it worked as it was intended to.

To undermine the equality of each vote? I didn't know that was it's intended purpose.

 

[cow451]

Yup, it definitely brought the issue to the forefront for a lot of people. I’ve been against the EC for over 35 years. Every time the EC/popular vote don’t match up, people raise the issue. We did it with GWB as well.

If it were reversed, the GOP would be screaming. That tells me there is no compelling reason for an overhaul. 2016 was the first time in my lifetime the two major candidates, IMHO, had no redeeming value. Changing the EC will not fix that.

 

[SeventyOne]

If it were reversed, the GOP would be screaming. That tells me there is no compelling reason for an overhaul. 2016 was the first time in my lifetime the two major candidates, IMHO, had no redeeming value. Changing the EC will not fix that.

You found redeeming values in Bush, Obama, Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Clinton, and Dukaksis?

 

[cow451]

You found redeeming values in Bush, Obama, Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Clinton, and Dukaksis?

They were not totally bereft of morals as is the current President.

 

[SeventyOne]

They were not totally bereft of morals as is the current President.

That's one wonky scale you are using.

 

[cow451]

That's one wonky scale you are using.

My scale is applied equally to all candidates.
Name one redeeming value of the current President that isn’t his support of a policy he merely moved along.

 

[Sparagmos]

Really? You think the minority can enslave the majority?

Well, I was responding to another poster who was concerned with the majority “enslaving” the minority. And what we have with the electoral college isn’t any kind of enslavement, but it can cause the will of the minority to prevail.

I don't like the way you said not qualified people, just more rural areas. What makes a city dweller more qualified? Are you suggesting that it is right to act like a tyrant over others, because they are rural and less "qualified" in your opinion?

I didn’t say city dwellers are more qualified. The electoral college gives more weight to voters in smaller (population) states. Generally more rural states. Unless people in more rural states are somehow more qualified to make decisions, they shouldn’t have more voting power than people in urban areas. We should all have an equal say, don’t you agree?

You do realize that every single election is a rule of the minority. You know that right?

. Yes, I think that should be obvious....?

In a pure democracy, where people are elected by a pure majority vote, it is still a minority rule system. In 2008 when Obama won the election, he only had..... 69.4 Million votes. There were 304 Million people in the country in 2008.

. Yup. And I think that’s a bad thing, just like the electoral college is a bad thing. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

I seek only to try and give those in sparely populated states, not an equal voice, but a fighting chance against states with massive numbers of people. There will never be equality in any system. But we can mitigate the differences slightly.

Ah, but they have far more than a fighting chance. Their votes actually weigh more than the votes of people in highly populated states.

“The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age. (The map above shows the population 18 years and older per electoral vote by state.) The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote.”

In other words, one Wyoming voter has roughly the same vote power as four New York voters.“

Which States Have the Most Powerful Votes?

So, like I was saying, if people in Wyoming aren’t inherently more qualified than New Yorkers to choose our president, why do they get 4 times the voting power per person?

 

[Sparagmos]

And it worked as it was intended to.

What did the electoral college do in 2016 that it was “intended to” do?

 

[thecolorsblend]

What did the electoral college do in 2016 that it was “intended to” do?

This thread has something like twelve pages worth of discussion about that. No offense but I’m not relitigating all of that just because you came in late.

 

[Sparagmos]

This thread has something like twelve pages worth of discussion about that. No offense but I’m not relitigating all of that just because you came in late.

I’ve read the entire thread. I don’t see where you said what happened in 2016 that fits your view of the intended purpose of the EC.

My question is pretty specific, and you made the claim.