The Electoral College

[Lisa]

It's that time again. 

Every four years when a Republican becomes President, (and this is not just about Trump vs. Hillary) there's whining, carping and caterwauling about how the Electoral Colllege is bad, that it disenfranchises people, that it's racist, that it makes people's votes not count, etc.  I did a Google search, and most of what I saw was "Why Do We Still Have This Old System" or "Why The Electoral College Needs to To Go," etc.  I looked all this up when I saw Facebook posts from an old friend who wasn't happy with the election result. 

Now I know the arguments.  America is a republic, not a democracy.  The founding fathers were against democracy because they believed it would devolve into the tyranny of the majority imposing their will on the minority of voters.  I also know that the purpose is to guarantee the less populous states would have as much say the states with more people. 

And I've had similar conversations with this individual years ago.  His thing is that the votes of people in densely populated states like California and New York have their votes" thrown out" with the Electoral college in favor of far fewer people in the less populated states. 

I was reading about this. And some pro-arguments were as follows.

The more densely populated states have more Senate seats, and congressional districts, etc. 

Many states have small populations and large areas rich in natural resources.  So shouldn't the owners of those resources (the people living there) have as much say as people in New York or California, that has need for such resources? 

Personally, I say why should New York, California (and a few other states) always decide the elections?  (Of course these are blue states that will always vote Democrat, even if hell freezes over.)  What about everyone else? 

Also, majority rule in theory sounds nice (obviously to this Facebook friend) in theory when it's your side that holds the majority.  But what about if the opposite happens?

And finally, when bringing up the Founding Fathers, what would your answer be (short of saying "send them all back to Africa) if the other person was to say "Well the Founding Fathers owned slaves!" 

What do you all think?  What would you say to someone who is for majority rule and who thinks the Electoral College is outdated and needs to go. 

[Mishmaat]

I've stated this in another thread and can expound upon it later. The Electoral College should be reformed rather than abolished.

Every state should be proportional as opposed to winner takes all.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I think the system should remain as is and people waste their breath debating it.  The real argument against it is My candidate lost.

[Mishmaat]

I think the system should remain as is and people waste their breath debating it.  The real argument against it is My candidate lost.

That's true. People only whine about it after the election is over, which is fruitless.

[Zelhar]

The electoral college is easier to manipulate than a national count. For example one can run third party strawman candidates and "steel" some electors in small states, preventing an outright winner. It is also theoretically possible to win the election with the support of 25% and win over a candidate whose national support is at 75%. It is also possible to grant statehood to micro territories i.e. the Northern  Mariana Islands and they would automatically get the minimum number of electors (I think 3) (as well as senators and congressmen but that's another problem) even though their population doesn't amount to even half of an elector.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

The Electoral College can do whatever it wants. It has the power to change votes. Each state can decide if it wants to allocate the votes proportionally or to give its votes to the winner of the national popular vote. There has been talk of an interstate compact in which states that join it would automatically give their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Maryland has stated it wants to do that. Maryland votes Democrat anyway so it wouldn't change the outcome of this election.

[nessuno]

I think the system should remain as is and people waste their breath debating it.  The real argument against it is My candidate lost.

Exactly.  I wonder what kind of uprising you would have if the election was stolen from the winner?

They asked Trump if he would exit gracefully if he lost, with the country in mind, at the debate.

Chris Wallace is right.  He asked the wrong candidate that question. 

Obama and Hillary should be calling for calm.

[angryChineseKahanist]

There is nothing wrong with the electoral college.
It usually matches the popular vote.

The founding fathers knew that the people in large cities think alike and vote alike.
And they believed only men should vote. Blacks we not allowed to vote. For that matter, I would not be allowed to vote based on my race. I would not be interested in changing the rules just so I could vote.

[briann]

There is nothing wrong with the electoral college.
It usually matches the popular vote.

The founding fathers knew that the people in large cities think alike and vote alike.
And they believed only men should vote. Blacks we not allowed to vote. For that matter, I would not be allowed to vote based on my race. I would not be interested in changing the rules just so I could vote.

I'm not an expert in this subject, but I think you would have been able to vote.

[briann]

I actually would prefer some form of proportionate voting, like in Main or Nebraska.  I know it would mean a bias towards campaigning in areas with higher populations... but it just seems more fair.

But I think there are even more important issues.  Especially, that we need to have a way of stopping the massive voter fraud.... its just absurd that we don't have this as a rule.  There has to be some sort of voter identification at the polls.

[angryChineseKahanist]

1. I'm no expert either,  but  I'm not white, so I highly doubt I would be allowed to vote.

2. You need six points of ID to be able to drive,  but really nothing in order to vote.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Exactly.  I wonder what kind of uprising you would have if the election was stolen from the winner?

They asked Trump if he would exit gracefully if he lost, with the country in mind, at the debate.

Chris Wallace is right.  He asked the wrong candidate that question. 

Obama and Hillary should be calling for calm.

It's amazing, not only did he choose not to ask her that question for whatever reason, but afterwards on her plane speaking to the press, one of the reporters DID ask her point blank, and she did not answer the question.   Her reply was to say she was horrified by what Donald answered.  Huh?   She could not answer that question!

[briann]

1. I'm no expert either,  but  I'm not white, so I highly doubt I would be allowed to vote.

2. You need six points of ID to be able to drive,  but really nothing in order to vote.

I only mentioned this, because I've been researching the U.S. Census from the early 1900's when my grandparent came over. to find info... and under the race category, there are always only two categories for race:

1) White
2) Black or Colored or Negro

Occasionally they would include Mullado, but that was it.  They didnt even have an 'Indian' category.  And I noticed one of the individuals had checked 'white', but then filled in 'Japanese' for nationality of parents.  So its possible 'white' had a really general meaning back then.

 Again, I have no idea about any of this... who knows how they would handle a Chinese at the voting booth the mid-1800's.  I guess Im too lazy to use google on this.

[Zelhar]

I think that native Americans and mexicans could vote. I think that emancipated blacks could vote too.