Posted on 12/14/2016 4:03:05 AM PST by drewh
Twice in less than two decades the majority vote in a presidential election was overruled by the math of the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers created the electoral college to make sure that voters in concentrated urban areas would not be able to neglect the concerns of the rural population. But many people believe that the concept of democracy is undermined when a President is put into office without gaining majority support from the voters.
The results of the Trump/Clinton contest have led to calls for the electors to cast “faithless” votes for the winner of the popular vote, Hillary Clinton, and even for a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral college.
A group called National Popular Vote has a proposed National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. And it does not require a Constitutional Amendment. Steve Silberstein, a successful businessman, co-founder of the computer software company Innovative Interfaces Inc. (one of the world’s largest suppliers of computer systems to libraries), and Board member of National Popular Vote, answered my questions about their proposal.
What was the problem the electoral college was intended to fix?
The Founding Fathers did not want the Congress to choose the President (they did not want a Parliamentary system), so they asked the state legislatures to do so. The electoral college turns over the selection of the President to the individual state legislators, who appoint electors that they think represent the interests of their individual states.
(Excerpt) Read more at huffingtonpost.com ...
The Left cares so much about the will of the people, it moves to subvert an election when it doesn’t like the outcome.
They love democracy only when they win.
Trump won the popular vote in more states then the Democrat Facist Party.
They should follow the popular vote of their state. They should ignore the popular vote in NYC, LA, and SanFran (unless those cities are in their state).
Any state can pass a law now to award their Electoral College vote to the winner of the national popular vote on its own. Why will no state step up and unilaterally do this to be a leader for the cause?
Why are they hiding behind this need to have a compact of 270 votes lined up before making the change? Why won't some liberal state lead by example?
-PJ
I'm too short on time to look, but, thanks to H. Ross Perot, I don't think WJC ever got a majority in either 92 or 96.
Hillary must have forgotten that as she didn’t try to go after those rust belt states and did a lousy job going after those battleground states.
The presidency was won by a landslide of electoral votes (that, democrats, means MANDATE ). Bill could have (should have?) told her that. She phoned the whole thing in and expected to win on her charm and good looks (gag...barf) and the fact that she didn’t have a schlong was suppose to guarantee her win.
If New York Ninnies and West Coast Wussies don’t like the electoral college math, then all they need to do is move their entitled butts to some battleground state. Of course that would mean that they’d then have to live amongst us deplorables, and on a daily basis encounter those who hold different viewpoints - which essentially rules out that option for these safe-place snowflakes.
Except in Maine and Nebraska.DJT won one of Maine's 4 Electoral votes last month.
Technically, the “nation’s popular vote” is a statistic and has no other value. Each state’s own popular vote is a different thing. Frankly, that is what is being “ratified” in all but two states as it currently stands.
The nation’s popular vote is like “yards rushing” in a football game. It may play into the final score, but it is only a statistic.
Ummmm - it can’t. If the electoral college decided to ratify the popular vote, the electoral college would cease to exist as the electoral college. Kind of like the problems with time travel.....
“A group called National Popular Vote has a proposed National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. And it does not require a Constitutional Amendment.”
Unconstitutional. The power of the state legislatures to chose their electors can’t be changed without a constitutional amendment.
If I remember correctly, Socrates through Jefferson, and many others, too many to count, recognized that; tyranny by the majority is still tyranny and possibly its worst form.
I seem also to remember an observation of ‘mob hysteria’ in the form of ‘like thinking in concentrated masses’ can be a strength but is more often a weakness to be exploited.
To boil this down; it appears that in way too many cases a city type is less likely to be able to insure his/her own personal survival in the event of a catastrophe, this appears to me to be the result of bad judgment and poor primary/secondary education regarding reality.
Historically, concentrations of people; first led to an improvement in overall safety, however as growth continued and increased, it also led to disaster and the trouble hit humanity in many forms. Concentrations have perpetuated and exacerbated most natural and man made problems- sickness through war.
This leads to the thinking behind the electoral college; the common sense of the rural people is higher in value, do to the fact they were not dumb enough to place themselves in the ‘crosshairs’ in the first place.
Excellent point, and one that brings up new questions if the Electoral College is to be replaced by a straight popular vote.
I recall during the Clinton years, G. Gordon Liddy would rail each time he reported on some stupid move by the administration "oh ye 43%, oh ye SUCKERS!" referring of course to the 43% popular vote that Clinton received in his first election. H. Ross Perot was a fairly strong third party candidate in that and the next election cycles.
If the U.S. were to go to a direct popular vote, what would be the threshold? The winner would be the candidate with 50%+1 votes, perhaps triggering a runoff election between the top two vote-getters? The winner would be the candidate that won a plurality? Would the plurality also have a threshold of 45%? 35%? 20%?
Very well stated. The president is the President of the (United) States and is elected by the states over which he presides.
They are a glorified DU site .
They are bat sh$t crazy .
The popular vote in a given state? Yes. The total popular vote? No. That's not their purpose.
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.