Is the Electoral College Flawed and if So How do We Change It? (Pennsylvania, economic)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indeed. There were very few discussions of replacing the Electoral College following each of Obama's victories.
No bevause in both Obama victories and even Bush's second, they both won the electoral sand popular votes. Gore narrowly won the popular vote in 2000, Clinton won it in a larger margin. She won by votes in New York State and California alone.
As Ambrose Bierce commented, back in the 1880's, the man elected President is the only one we KNOW was not wanted for that office by the majority of his fellow-citizens. Nearly half the voters chose the other guy and a significant number of his own party wanted to nominate somebody else.
This was after the election of the Grover Cleveland for his first term. It is now known that he won by a Tammany Hall politico counting the votes in one district for a third-party candidate, Benjamin Butler, for Cleveland (D), which gave New York's electoral vote (by a narrow margin) to him. More recently, we had Bush II "elected" over Al Gore by the Supreme Court's stopping the recount of Florida's vote when it became apparent that the absentee ballots putting Bush over the top were not valid under the State election laws.
A direct popular vote would prevent such crookedness. If nobody gets 51%, then have the House and Senate decide, like the Founding Fathers thought would usually happen.
Fairly recently, a Texas politician, and at the time millionaire, John Connally, bought an electoral vote, just to say he got one. Nobody voted for him in the election; he wasn't even on the ballot.
As Ambrose Bierce commented, back in the 1880's, the man elected President is the only one we KNOW was not wanted for that office by the majority of his fellow-citizens. Nearly half the voters chose the other guy and a significant number of his own party wanted to nominate somebody else.
This was after the election of the Grover Cleveland for his first term. It is now known that he won by a Tammany Hall politico counting the votes in one district for a third-party candidate, Benjamin Butler, for Cleveland (D), which gave New York's electoral vote (by a narrow margin) to him. More recently, we had Bush II "elected" over Al Gore by the Supreme Court's stopping the recount of Florida's vote when it became apparent that the absentee ballots putting Bush over the top were not valid under the State election laws.
A direct popular vote would prevent such crookedness. If nobody gets 51%, then have the House and Senate decide, like the Founding Fathers thought would usually happen.
Fairly recently, a Texas politician, and at the time millionaire, John Connally, bought an electoral vote, just to say he got one. Nobody voted for him in the election; he wasn't even on the ballot.
Sending it to Congress is subjected to gerrymandering so I hate that idea. Both parties do it to be clear here, but right now the republicans benefit from it more and are far more guilty of coping up districts that vendor them.
Both parties do it to be clear here, but right now the republicans benefit from it more and are far more guilty of coping up districts that vendor them.[/quote]
It's their only way to offset all those polling places in the cemeteries! LMBO
Is the Electoral College Flawed and if So How do We Change It?
No. Losing doesn't mean the system is flawed. It simply means you lost.
Perhaps, you would have a point if the system's flaws had not become so visible in recent years. Prior to the year 2000, the winner of electoral had the plurality or majority of popular votes in every election going back to 1876. One reason the system hasn't been changed is simply because many deemed it an irrelevant consideration after 124 years of candidates winning both electoral and popular votes. Suddenly, in 2000 we were confronted with the electoral vote winner losing the popular vote. Than, in 2016 it happened again. I have no reason to believe it won't continue to happen. The other discouraging thing is that the process seems weighted in favor of one political party. Small population states tend to vote republican and republicans benefited from this system in 2000 and in 2016. Its the white elephant in this room. I strongly suspect that everyone urging that we keep the electoral college voted one way and that everyone seeking its abolition voted the other way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Baustian
Indeed. There were very few discussions of replacing the Electoral College following each of Obama's victories.
Why should there have been? He was the popular vote winner in each election? The issue is when a President is allowed to take office with fewer popular votes than his opponent. That is the opposite of how elections are supposed to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
The system is the only thing that has kept the US together for as long as it has been, even with a civil war during that time.
If you want the US to break apart, by all means, end the electoral system.
This is ridiculous drama. No one talked about violence when Bush and Trump won with fewer popular votes than their opponents. I suppose there were people who felt the same way when we gave women the right to vote or provided for a direct vote for United States senators. Its a question of trying give every American--regardless of where he lives--equal at the ballot box. Right now, Americans are not equal at the ballot box.
Quote:
Originally posted by CEKKK
It's their only way to offset all those polling places in the cemeteries! LMBO
If you are trying to make a back handed claim that democrats commit election fraud and republicans don't than back up your assertion. I don't mean cite me have a dozen cases where one person voted illegally. I mean cite me proof that widespread election fraud is occurring at that its benefiting democrats. Your little attempt at a joke is not a joke. Its really quite insulting.
It's their only way to offset all those polling places in the cemeteries! LMBO
Spoken like a true partisan fool. There is no proof of cementary voting fraud, if anything there's support behind removing voters with the same name of a deceased person on a voter roll. Say Jane Smith might be removed if there is a dead Jane Smith in her district.
Perhaps, you would have a point if the system's flaws had not become so visible in recent years. Prior to the year 2000, the winner of electoral had the plurality or majority of popular votes in every election going back to 1876. One reason the system hasn't been changed is simply because many deemed it an irrelevant consideration after 124 years of candidates winning both electoral and popular votes. Suddenly, in 2000 we were confronted with the electoral vote winner losing the popular vote. Than, in 2016 it happened again. I have no reason to believe it won't continue to happen. The other discouraging thing is that the process seems weighted in favor of one political party. Small population states tend to vote republican and republicans benefited from this system in 2000 and in 2016. Its the white elephant in this room. I strongly suspect that everyone urging that we keep the electoral college voted one way and that everyone seeking its abolition voted the other way.
Why should there have been? He was the popular vote winner in each election? The issue is when a President is allowed to take office with fewer popular votes than his opponent. That is the opposite of how elections are supposed to work.
This is ridiculous drama. No one talked about violence when Bush and Trump won with fewer popular votes than their opponents. I suppose there were people who felt the same way when we gave women the right to vote or provided for a direct vote for United States senators. Its a question of trying give every American--regardless of where he lives--equal at the ballot box. Right now, Americans are not equal at the ballot box.
If you are trying to make a back handed claim that democrats commit election fraud and republicans don't than back up your assertion. I don't mean cite me have a dozen cases where one person voted illegally. I mean cite me proof that widespread election fraud is occurring at that its benefiting democrats. Your little attempt at a joke is not a joke. Its really quite insulting.
Obama lost the popular vote to Hillary in 2008 primaries.
Do you need a civics lesson?
We're a REPUBLIC and the EC is built based on the HOUSE/population vote ratios. One person/One vote gets you Venezuela.
The only reason Hillary won the popular vote was because she was an idiot and poured money into the urban locations she was ALREADY WINNING in order to boost her popular vote. Instead of RUNNING AN ELECTORAL CAMPAIGN.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
