Posted on 07/24/2015 12:14:09 PM PDT by HarleyLady27
I just read about the Electoral College....
(Excerpt) Read more at Electoral College.org ...
If I vote for Trump/Cruz (just saying) and Bush/? wins, that means that the person representing my state decided that Trump/Cruz wasn't going to win, but Bush/? did, is that fair???
Does this Electoral College damage our voting rights?
I know it's part of the Constitution, but if I want to vote for Trump/Cruz and my vote doesn't count....why vote at all???
The Electoral College doesn’t have anything to do with the Primary election. Yes, it’s of critical importance to the General election, as it serves as 50 state elections, instead of one federal election. This gives the states their individual rights and representation under the Constitution. This is civics/government 101 stuff.
The EC is A Good Thing. Know how I know? The ‘Rats want to do away with it and make elections a Popularity Contest!
The EC gives bigger states with smaller populations an equal share in the decision. It evens the playing field - which ‘Rats are always harpin’ on - though not in THIS case.
*Rolleyes*
Nope. The EC needs to stay.
what she said
The Electoral College was established by our Founding Fathers.
We were originally intended to be a limited government constitutional republic, not a popular mass democracy.
And for good reason. You see what popular mass democracy has accomplished.
Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
Taken from Who are the Electors?
On the whole the electoral college is a good thing. A direct popular vote would be more subject to voter fraud. For the average voter, if you live in a state that leans heavily to one party, it doesn't matter if you vote for President (but there may be other races that matter...and you may want to minimize the victorious candidate's margin in the popular vote).
I had a distant cousin (whom I never met) who was an elector in the 1948 election. Never could get a transcript from the electoral college.
The Electoral College was one of the mechanisms established to protect the states.
The Founders also thought the presidential election would wind up in the House of Representatives much more often than it has.
When you vote in a Presidential Election you are voting for your State’s Slate of Electors. And then they go to DC and in the House of Rep’s Chamber the REAL Presidential Election takes place, THAT is the Electoral Collage. It made to that the state’s with LARGE populations(CA, NY, TX) cannot over ride state’s with small populations(like your State). Welcome to a REPUBLIC!
yes, I agree. The EC works well when it works. Sadly, it has failed us lately by not doing it’s job and conceding to the popular vote.
I applied to be an adjunct at Electoral College, but the dean said that I didn’t have 18 graduate hours in Electorical Engineering.
Here’s how I explained the Electoral College to a millenial who wanted it abolished...
Say that for argument sake, Rush Limbaugh is running for President.
Since WABC is his flagship radio station, out of Noo Yawk, he campaigns in NY state - ONLY Ny state, and ignores all other 49.
Come Election Day, Limbaugh pulls 75% of the vote in NY, but loses all other 49 states by an average of 60,000 votes.
BUT, since he won 75% of the Noo Yawk vote, he has the numerical majority vote even after losing all other states, so even though he only won in ONE SINGLE STATE, he wins the popular vote and Rush Limbaugh is now President.
Now. Still want to get rid of the Electoral College?
He called me a racist.
The race between Trump, Cruz and Bush will happen in the primary. You vote for one. The winner picks a running mate for the general election. Then You vote between, say, Trump/Cruz and Hillary/Kerry (ugh!!).
The electoral college is very important because it keeps all states with a proper, proportional influence. Without it you could end up with presidents chosen by the big cities and rural America would not count at all. Only once, I think, did a candidate lose the popular vote but win the electoral college. Don’t let liberals talk you into thinking we should switch to a straight popular vote. When a representative (which is what a President is) represents the entire country it is important that the entire country has equal influence.
When you vote for president, you are voting for representatives to an assembly.
And on the November ballot, there will be several slates of electors (representatives).
If Tump is the republican nominee, the choice would not be between Trump and Bush, but Trump and the democrat (or Bush and the democrat, whatever the case may be).
Your “representatives” in the assembly that is the Electoral College, are supposed to vote for whoever wins a majority of the votes of your state (except in the in the cases of NE or ME).
It’s an indirect vote. You vote for the representatives and if your slate of representatives wins, then they vote for who shall be president. And a majority of the assembly is required.
It’s the most innovative system yet devised by man to choose an executive. A representative assembly, equal to the size of the national legislative body, that sits for one reason, to choose the executive.
Absent the EC and just relying on the “popular” vote means southern CA, southern FL and the Northeast would be the center of gravity as they have 51% of the population, and that would mean candidates would only care about those population centers and nothing else, no need to listen to anyone outside those small areas.
So, the EC ensure ALL states have a vote, that while some states have large EC votes, every state is ensured their voice in the vote.
Primary elections have nothing to do with the EC.
Adherents claim it makes elections fairer. It does not. It just means states like Ohio, Missouri & Florida decide presidential elections while Texas, California & New York are ignored. As if the concept of 1 person/1 vote is so complicated.
The EC ensures power for the Big Two at the expense of other political parties.
Does not always go with the popular vote.
Recall in 2000, Algore won the popular vote, but the EC went with GWB.
Doesn’t happen often. But I think there have been four instances in history when a president was elected by the EC, or Congress, but did not win the popular vote. John Q. Adams, Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and GWB.
As a resident of the People’s Republic of CA, I can only wish we were completely ignored when it comes to electing a POTUS.
You mean like in 2000?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.