How would you choose a President?

[jayem]

We are the United States of America.

So? What's in a name? The Constitution begins with the words, "We the People..." In big letters. The interests of states are already represented in Congress. Why should states be more important that people in choosing the President?

The EC exists to combat factions that are not representative of the citizens of a state

How does it do that? If anything, it does the opposite. The EC magnifies the influence of the higher population urban/suburban areas of a state.

it is also to keep California and New York from deciding all our national elections.

Do you really think everyone in CA and NY votes the same way? Donald Trump got 4.5 million votes in CA, and 2.7 million votes in NY. Hillary got 3.8 million votes in TX. Why shouldn't these votes count?

I might be willing to entertain the idea of ditching the EC if there was an iron-clad national voter ID that ensured only taxpaying citizens are voting.

As I stated in another post, I'm willing to keep the EC if the Presidential nominees are chosen only by the voters. Not the parties. The worst political problem we have today is this malignant hyper-partisan ideological divide. I believe most voters are middle-of-the-road--liberal on some issues, conservative on others. I want a President who reflects this and is not beholden to either liberal or conservative "bases." Bases are toxic to good government and must be neutralized. The best chance of achieving it is having the voters directly nominate the candidates. Or directly electing the President without middle-men electors (who are just party hacks anyway.)

 

[98cwitr]

So? What's in a name? The Constitution begins with the words, "We the People..." In big letters. The interests of states are already represented in Congress. Why should states be more important that people in choosing the President?

We're a republic and our electorates are assigned by the states to represent the people of each state; more specifically voting citizens. Moreso, to simply try and make on point on the first three words of the Bill of Rights, without including the rest of the founding document in context, means you need to familiarize yourself with the Constitution as a whole before trying to use it to bolster your arguments.

How does it do that? If anything, it does the opposite. The EC magnifies the influence of the higher population urban/suburban areas of a state.

How the Electoral College Squelches Faction

Do you really think everyone in CA and NY votes the same way? Donald Trump got 4.5 million votes in CA, and 2.7 million votes in NY. Hillary got 3.8 million votes in TX. Why shouldn't these votes count?

No. The massive centralized populations in New York and Los Angeles, as well as the other larger metropoleis though are by far liberal Democratic bastions, and therefore outnumber the other rural populations. Look at political sociology. Why are city folks usually democrats and rural folks GOP?

As I stated in another post, I'm willing to keep the EC if the Presidential nominees are chosen only by the voters. Not the parties.

I sort of agree with your point there. The problem then remains: Whose campaign is best funded? The richest would usually win in your scenario due to marketing ability alone. I would like to see party primaries go by the wayside, but I fear that's a pipe dream. We'll always have parties, but I think we need a third one.

The worst political problem we have today is this malignant hyper-partisan ideological divide. I believe most voters are middle-of-the-road--liberal on some issues, conservative on others. I want a President who reflects this and is not beholden to either liberal or conservative "bases."

Human nature and psychology are playing key roles here. There are hardlined issues that people want to hear a stance on, and if you don't cater to them as a potential president, then you're probably not going to get very far. Maybe the problem isn't the system, but us?

Bases are toxic to good government and must be neutralized. The best chance of achieving it is having the voters directly nominate the candidates. Or directly electing the President without middle-men electors (who are just party hacks anyway.)

Middle-men electors aren't party affiliated though, they're state affiliates. How thoroughly have you researched how the EC works?

 

[Albion]

Yet if the Founders wanted to prevent that, they would have included in the Constitution that the popular vote would determine the electors selected by the state.

Wait a minute. The proposition we have been talking about does not choose the electors in any new way. It merely binds their votes, requiring them to vote for the candidate favored by some other states but rejected on election day by the people they represent themselves, the voters of their own state. If democracy is supposed to be enhanced by this change, the legislation itself does the exact opposite thing!

 

[jayem]

We're a republic and our electorates are assigned by the states to represent the people of each state; more specifically voting citizens. Moreso, to simply try and make on point on the first three words of the Bill of Rights, without including the rest of the founding document in context, means you need to familiarize yourself with the Constitution as a whole before trying to use it to bolster your arguments.

How the Electoral College Squelches Faction

I was quoting the first 3 words of the Preamble. Not the Bill of Rights. Maybe you can do a bit of review yourself. And your link discusses history. I don't see any answer to the question of why in the 21st century, we need an electoral system from 200+ years ago that disenfranchises voters.

The massive centralized populations in New York and Los Angeles, as well as the other larger metropoleis though are by far liberal Democratic bastions, and therefore outnumber the other rural populations. Look at political sociology. Why are city folks usually democrats and rural folks GOP?

Are you saying that nationwide, there are more liberal than conservative voters? Even if that were true, so what? Why shouldn't the voters directly elect the President? Why should any political philosophy need a handicap?

Middle-men electors aren't party affiliated though, they're state affiliates. How thoroughly have you researched how the EC works?

Of course the electors are party people. Read the link.

U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?

 

[98cwitr]

I was quoting the first 3 words of the Preamble. Not the Bill of Rights. Maybe you can do a bit of review yourself. And your link discusses history. I don't see any answer to the question of why in the 21st century, we need an electoral system from 200+ years ago that disenfranchises voters.

Ah you got me there, but my point still stands. I shared in your sentiments once; thinking that conservative votes were ever suppressed due to the EC in blue states; then I did my homework on the EC and the provisions of its existence. I found a new gratitude to the brilliance of our founding fathers to consider such intricacies and battle factions of the majority. The EC is definitely worth keeping.

Are you saying that nationwide, there are more liberal than conservative voters? Even if that were true, so what? Why shouldn't the voters directly elect the President? Why should any political philosophy need a handicap?

To fight off factions. It sounds to me you fully support tyranny of the majority even at the national level? Is that the case? Seeking a Boolean reply if you would.

Of course the electors are party people. Read the link.

U. S. Electoral College: Who Are the Electors? How Do They Vote?

"The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each state"

And so we come full circle. They represent how the state has voted, and the states elect the President of the United States of America. Makes sense to me.

 

[Albion]

"The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each state"

And so we come full circle. They represent how the state has voted, and the states elect the President of the United States of America. Makes sense to me.

But this was the post that was the subject of the earlier criticism:

Middle-men electors aren't party affiliated though, they're state affiliates. How thoroughly have you researched how the EC works?​

The members of the Electoral College are chosen by the political parties in their respective states. They are "party-affiliated" therefore.

 

[SimplyMe]

Wait a minute. The proposition we have been talking about does not choose the electors in any new way. It merely binds their votes, requiring them to vote for the candidate favored by some other states but rejected on election day by the people they represent themselves, the voters of their own state. If democracy is supposed to be enhanced by this change, the legislation itself does the exact opposite thing!

That would be false, it does choose the electors -- you don't get the same slate of electors regardless of how the election is decided. Nor does it bind their votes -- just as electors (at least in most states) are not currently required to vote for the candidate they signed up to support, or, if you prefer, they are not required to vote according to the majority of votes in a state. In fact, it seems you are pointing out that we already have a system that does not require the voters of a state be honored -- since "faithless electors" are free to vote for whomever they choose -- so why should it matter if the legislature does not always take the state popular vote into account when deciding which slate of electors they want to vote for President?

 

[Albion]

That would be false, it does choose the electors -- you don't get the same slate of electors regardless of how the election is decided.[/quote
On that, I'm thinking that we have misunderstood each other somewhere along the way.

[quote Nor does it bind their votes -- just as electors (at least in most states) are not currently required to vote for the candidate they signed up to support, or, if you prefer, they are not required to vote according to the majority of votes in a state.[/quote
Oh yes it does. That is the whole point of the proposal.

[quote In fact, it seems you are pointing out that we already have a system that does not require the voters of a state be honored -- since "faithless electors" are free to vote for whomever they choose -- so why should it matter if the legislature does not always take the state popular vote into account when deciding which slate of electors they want to vote for President?

I wasn't referring to faithless electors before, but that is a very rare phenomenon, not worth of any correcting. Binding the electors to vote for the candidate of the other party, as this proposal does, however is quite a change.

If, for instance, the state in question votes for the Republican candidate--and therefore elects the Republican electors--they would be bound by law to vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party (!) in the Electoral College voting if that candidate had won the popular vote nationwide. Either that or be replaced by an appointee elector who would do so.

 

[jayem]

To fight off factions. It sounds to me you fully support tyranny of the majority even at the national level? Is that the case? Seeking a Boolean reply if you would.

I still don't get how the EC deters factions. And why do you think election by a direct majority of the votes is tyranny? That's how governors, other state and local officials, Senators, and House reps are elected. I've never heard it said that this is tyrannical.

And so we come full circle. They represent how the state has voted, and the states elect the President of the United States of America. Makes sense to me.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. That's how it is, but it makes no sense to me. It's not how it should be. The only legitimate functions of states in Presidential elections are registering voters; providing safe, orderly voting places with secure voting technology; and accurately tallying results. Everything else should be determined solely by the voters with no middlemen involved. The EC is an antiquated relic of 18th century thinking. It serves no purpose in the 21st century. I'm convinced it will eventually be gone. Maybe not in my lifetime, but definitely before the end of this century.

 

[Albion]

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. That's how it is, but it makes no sense to me. It's not how it should be. The only legitimate functions of states in Presidential elections are registering voters; providing safe, orderly voting places with secure voting technology; and accurately tallying results.

Well, if any of us were asked to craft a new Constitution by ourselves, there is no telling what we would come up with.

The Electoral College does, however, provide many benefits that a popular vote does not, the most obvious being that if the latter were instituted, most of the country would never see a presidential candidate and certainly not count for anything in the voting. Why that would be an improvement over our current system is hard to see.

 

[jayem]

The Electoral College does, however, provide many benefits that a popular vote does not, the most obvious being that if the latter were instituted, most of the country would never see a presidential candidate and certainly not count for anything in the voting. Why that would be an improvement over our current system is hard to see.

Much of the country doesn't see a Presidential candidate now. Will Donald Trump show his face in Vermont, or Connecticut, or Massachusetts? Will a Democrat campaign in Utah, or Mississippi, or Kentucky? The dysfunctional EC has resulted in "safe" states and "swing" states. And I'd estimate a good 2/3 of each candidate's time and money is spent in the dozen or so swing states that will decide the election. But if states no longer matter, then a smart candidate will try to visit as much of the country as possible. Because every vote in every state will add to his total. Winning or losing is decided by the total popular vote. It's the simplest and most sensible way to conduct an election.

But more importantly, what I hope will happen is that the candidates will be less ideological. To be elected, a candidate will have to appeal to the broadest number of voters nationwide. As I said, I think most Americans average out as centrist--liberal on some issues, conservative on others. That should be a candidate's "base." Those are the voters he should win over with innovative policies addressing their needs and concerns. Never should a candidate pander to the doctrinaire zealots on either the left or right. Who are a minority of the population, but shout the loudest.

 

[SimplyMe]

I wasn't referring to faithless electors before, but that is a very rare phenomenon, not worth of any correcting. Binding the electors to vote for the candidate of the other party, as this proposal does, however is quite a change.

If, for instance, the state in question votes for the Republican candidate--and therefore elects the Republican electors--they would be bound by law to vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party (!) in the Electoral College voting if that candidate had won the popular vote nationwide. Either that or be replaced by an appointee elector who would do so.

You misunderstand. It doesn't force electors to vote a certain way. Instead, since the Constitution leaves it up to the States to determine how the electors are to be selected, the states in the compact would use the national vote to select its electors. Therefore, the electors would still vote for the candidate/party to whom they are pledged.

You are correct that if they were selecting the electors based on the voting in the state, but forcing them to vote according to the winner of the national election, that should be Unconstitutional. As I stated, instead, the state is choosing to select the electors based on the national vote, which per the Constitution is within their right.

 

[Albion]

Much of the country doesn't see a Presidential candidate now.

Much less of it will see one if this proposal succeeds. I assume that you and I both agree that such a thing isn't desirable, right?

But if states no longer matter, then a smart candidate will try to visit as much of the country as possible. Because every vote in every state will add to his total. Winning or losing is decided by the total popular vote. It's the simplest and most sensible way to conduct an election.

Nope. That sounds sensible but it is wrong. If enough of the vote is reachable in a handful of the most populous states, that is where the candidate will go--along with his TV money, etc.

Consider the idea of campaigning in West Virginia rather than California or New York, for example. If he wins West Virginia, he doesn't get all of its Electoral Votes anymore; he only gets the difference between his popular vote count and the other candidates -- maybe a few tens of thousands of votes. He could instead have campaigned in New York City and been covered by the media reaching five other states at the same time, with millions of votes at stake, win or lose.

 

[Albion]

You misunderstand. It doesn't force electors to vote a certain way.

The state simply certifies as the winning slate of electors the ones committed to the national winner, even though she or he may have been the loser in that particular state. In other words, there are rival slates being voted on, but the winning slate of electors will be disqualified and the losing slate certified instead on the basis that the voters were not voting as a state but simply as part of the whole (nation) like an election precinct.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I would hold an election with districts that are set up to favor one party over any others, and after the people made their voices heard I would chose the most unqualified person who received the lesser amount of votes.

 

[jayem]

Much less of it will see one if this proposal succeeds. I assume that you and I both agree that such a thing isn't desirable, right?

It's a trivial concern. Which pales to insignificance when compared to 2 benefits of direct popular vote:

1) Every vote counts. No voter is disenfranchised by the anti-democratic winner-take-all electoral vote scheme practiced in all but 2 states.

2) I admit this is theoretical. Hopefully, the parties will nominate more moderate candidates. Whose platforms will have to resonate with the entire electorate. Not just a socio-economic or philosophic base. I want pragmatism to be the focus--not ideology. If this happens, it will improve our government and political environment more than anything else I can imagine.

 

[Albion]

My reaction is that those two points are reasonable enough, but two other factors need to be considered.

1) There are definitely benefits to the Electoral College, just as there are to separation of church and state and the three branches of government--both of which concepts most Americans, including the fans of a national popular vote--support. Why? Because a separation of power is good. Checks and balances are good. It keeps a momentary majority from becoming a tyranny.

2) That point #2 is a wish, but it isn't really related to the idea of a national popular vote replacement for the current system. The result will more likely be that candidates will be even more the spokesmen for special interests since they will be campaigning almost exclusively in the large urban areas of the East and West Coasts. North dakota and Kentucky will count for next to nothing and neither will farming or any other concerns that are special to them. But you can bet that rent controls and mass transit systems will!

 

[SimplyMe]

My reaction is that those two points are reasonable enough, but two other factors need to be considered.

1) There are definitely benefits to the Electoral College, just as there are to separation of church and state and the three branches of government--both of which concepts most Americans, including the fans of a national popular vote--support. Why? Because a separation of power is good. Checks and balances are good. It keeps a momentary majority from becoming a tyranny.

2) That point #2 is a wish, but it isn't really related to the idea of a national popular vote replacement for the current system. The result will more likely be that candidates will be even more the spokesmen for special interests since they will be campaigning almost exclusively in the large urban areas of the East and West Coasts. North dakota and Kentucky will count for next to nothing and neither will farming or any other concerns that are special to them. But you can bet that rent controls and mass transit systems will!

I find myself unable to agree. While Checks and Balances are good, even without an Electoral College, we still have a couple of checks on tyranny by the majority. First, we have the Constitution that protects "minorities." Beyond that, the Senate will still be apportioned as it always has -- 2 per state -- giving small states the power to make sure their interests are taken seriously.

Beyond that, currently the "urban areas" of the East and West coast are largely ignored, as both parties largely assume they'll support the Democrats -- despite millions of Republican voters. But, with a state level winner take all, since there tend to more Democrats, the Republicans give up on the cities. Perhaps, without an Electoral College, you'd see Republicans work to compete in those cites and they would crack the Democrats majorities.

Next, the issue is that North Dakota and Kentucky count for next to nothing in the current system, so why is it so terrible that they'd still count for next to nothing. Seriously, the states that currently matter are Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Caroline, Virginia, and Wisconsin -- those are the states that Presidential Candidates need to give their attention to, the only ones that really "matter." And, honestly, they'd still be pretty important in a popular vote election -- just that suddenly New York, California, Illinois and Texas go back to being important for a national campaign, as well.

Or, more to your example, if you promise things like "rent controls" and "Mass transit systems" to gain votes in urban areas -- but it only gets you 1% of extra votes from places like New York and California, but lose 10% of the vote from "flyover states," you've had a net loss in the people who will vote for you. In a popular vote election it is true that smaller states (as individual states) will be less important than larger states. OTOH, they won't be any less important than they are today -- where all the emphasis tends to go to the "rust belt" states -- and the fact that margin of victory becomes important makes all states more important -- as well as each vote.

 

[Albion]

I find myself unable to agree.

Oh well. Sometimes that is where we have to leave things.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

It's seems like it's more partisan politics that keeps the EC in business rather than pragmatism and an honest concern for our historical electoral processes.

I would bet that if it were the Republicans who had lost two national elections while securing more total votes nationally than their Democratic opponent, we'd be hearing all about the shortfalls of the antiquated system that was designed to disenfranchise voters.