Eric Holder: "Abolish The Electoral College"

Real Clear Politics ^ | November 12, 2016 | Ian Schwartz

[C19fan]

Former Attorney General Eric Holder joins Bill Maher to discuss the aftermath of Donald Trump's election and calls for the abolition of the Electoral College.

Holder said the U.S. should elect presidents via popular vote instead of through electoral votes. The former attorney general said there is a simple solution, "we have to just abolish the electoral college."

[Vermont Lt]

Have at it Eric. There are rules for changing the Constitution. It’s not brain surgery.

[Rastus]

He was going to be running mate to that guy in New York. Weiner Holder 2020!

[Pearls Before Swine]

A popular vote, a/k/a democracy, has problems:

1) It enormously amplifies the effect of cheating. The last found ballot box, or the last hacked voting machine, determines the Presidency. This gives enormous power to machine precincts in places like Chicago and Philly.

2) It removes the balance between the cities and everyone else. Look at the red/blue map of counties one. The dense blue patches would rule over the vast expanse of the country. It removes regional representation (that’s why we have a geographically representative Senate to balance the States’ interests against the proportional House).

[Chode]

[Verginius Rufus]

Population did not matter under the Articles of Confederation because each state had one vote. The small state delegates at the Constitutional Convention wanted to keep it that way but finally compromised, with only one house having equal representation for each state.

True, the 3/5ths compromise had to do with allocating representatives in the House of Representatives under the Constitution, but original formula of "five slaves equals three free men" dates back to the Confederation period.

[mom of young patriots]

I don’t know about other states, but I don’t want to give Austin even one delegate of the 38 from Texas. Most of the inner city is unhinged and it is a tiny blue thumbprint surrounded by a sea of red.

[rlmorel]

Yes, in 1783, buy in in 1787 it was adopted in the Constitutional Convention, and the representation aspect was a far bigger issue then. I see the distinction you make, though, under the Articles of Confederation.

Good point.

[Oztrich Boy]

And after they count the votes, they would need to examine and recount every vote, and keep doing it until two consecutive counts were the same. It’s the only way to be sure

[AndyJackson]

Haven’t you heard of “Holder’s People?”

Oh, those folks! The thugs who thought it would be fun to celebrate Obama's inauguration by deracinating the rare and wonderful plants in the Enid Haupt garden behind the Smithsonian Arts and Industry building. I met the poor curator two days after. She was in tears at the destruction of her pride and joy.

That Holder and his people. Yeah, now it is coming back to me.

[omni-scientist]

Here’s my top 3 reasons for NOT abandoning the Electoral College system, which I don’t believe were foreseen by the founders:

1. In a close election, lawsuits and recounts would be spread across the entire country. Unlike the election of 2008, where the seemingly interminable back and forth or recounts and litigation continued until ended by the Supreme Court, these same antics could be propagated everywhere in attempts to gain popular votes, regardless of how close any particular election was. It might take months to decide a winner.

2. Natural disasters can affect the outcome. A few days before an election, suppose an earthquake hits California, an early blizzard descends on the midwest, or a freak late-season Hurricane decimates the Atlantic coast. Any of these could dramatically swing an election. In that case, would the President defy the Constitution and call-off the election? With the Electoral system we have, the impact would be confined to the states affected, and while the number of voters might be reduced, the electoral vote would be preserved.

3. There would be federal elections run by Washington. All elections are now run by the states. Should we move to a popular vote for the office of President, the federal government would exert control over the election process. This may not sound like a bad thing, but there would probably be a new cabinet post or agency under the DOJ to regulate the states ability to conduct elections, or even count the votes. The danger here is that a powerful agency in the hands of one party would do everything in its ability to insure its grip on power, potentially leading to tyranny.