Posted on 01/26/2011 5:09:06 AM PST by MichaelNewton
Many today want to get rid of the electoral college method of choosing our president. For example, there is a book called Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America. It has quite a lot of good information in it, though the author draws the wrong conclusion. Or search Google for “electoral college failure” and browse through some of the 333,000 results. Attacks on the electoral college system accelerated after the 2000 election in which Al Gore won more popular votes but George Bush won the electoral college. The Founding Fathers considered, debated, and voted on different methods of choosing a president during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 before choosing the one they thought best.
Deciding how to select or elect the president was one of the most difficult decisions the Founding Fathers had to make during the Convention. They held at least sixteen votes on this one issue...
(Excerpt) Read more at whatwouldthefoundersthink.com ...
Honestly, I think that his is, and he wants to drag the entire country there as fast as possible if he only could.
That's what makes him so dangerous. He is a capable enemy.
How's that work, exactly?
Gore won overwhelmingly in these areas and just barely squeaked out a victory in the popular vote. In the vast majority of presidential elections to date the popular vote and the EC went for the same candidate.
If the election was by popular vote, election strategies would change, but I don't see either party gaining an overwhelming advantage from the change.
At present the election is in practice decided by less than 10 states, where the vast majority of the campaigning takes place.
It does anyway. NY gets 20 electoral votes. Wyoming gets 3. NY gets roughly 7 votes to Wyoming's 1 vote. Meanwhile, NY state has a population of roughly 20 million, with NYC accounting for close to half of that. That means that NYC alone accounts for roughly half of NY state's electoral votes, which would equal 3.5--more than the entire state of Wyoming.
Electoral votes are proportional, and each state's votes are dominated by the urban areas. So how exactly does the electoral college help Wyoming?
It makes a huge difference. Each state has a number of electors to the EC equal to their number of representatives plus their number of senators.
The EC has the same weighting as Congress, where the House is based on population, and the Senate is two senators per state regardless of population.
If you really believe what you posted, you should also advocate abolishing the US Senate. And Al Gore would have been president in 2000 without the EC.
When the framers nationalized and consolidated the Union into one government, they obliterated federalism. The big states all demanded, and got, proportional representation.
It would make sense for like-minded, similar states to band together. Thought bubble----what if the Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas united into one state? Then they might have some pull.
What people believe, as opposed to what is true and correct, is not the issue. There are real reasons that the contract between the states and the Federal Government in distributing and assigning power are the way they are.
The current public school system is failing us in teaching this generation just why things are the way they are. THAT is what needs to be changed, not the brilliant mechanisms of the U.S. Constitution that created the greatest Republic that the world has ever seen.
I would even respectfully go so far as to suggest that perhaps even you have been "dumbed down" in your education if you don't see the justice and protection against the tyranny-of-the-majority inherent in the system that the Founding Fathers have built. It is not always apparent on first glance, but a good study of it shows how the genius of the ages has been brought to bear on the question of how best man is to rule himself.
Equal protection under the law and freedom from tyranny of all kinds is VERY difficult to provide. And tinkering with this system ALWAYS makes it worse once you start looking carefully at it "under the hood."
Perfectly constitutional, if the states and Congress agree.
How these states would increase their clout by reducing their representation in the Senate from 10 to 2, and their votes in the EC by 8 requires math that is beyond my skill level.
I am not referring to the number of electoral votes of the 2 states, or the ratio of votes per state. At the moment, Wyoming does of electoral votes, be they only 3, but take away the EC and they have nothing.
It's difficult for me to express what I am trying to say with the written word.
A common delusion. The Constitution is a pact among "the people of the United States," not between the states and the federal government. The preamble was carefully worded.
Since every state gets the +2, it's meaningless. That leaves proportionality, which means big states' power is tied to their population. So it's no difference at all. Big states dominate, and the cities dominate within the states.
By population alone, CA would generate 12% of the total vote, while MT would be 0.3%
By elector, CA provides 10% of the total and MT 0.6%
It's not much individually, but it provides for a level of influence from smaller states.
No, they'd have exactly what they have now--virtually no say at all in their president.
If my math is correct, under the electoral college, Wyoming represents .005 of the electoral college---half of one percent. They simply don't matter.
You're right of course. I always think of it as the States representing the People. Maybe I should have been more particular.
Half of one percent is totally meaningless. It makes NO difference.
You’ve got it backwards. I would keep the Senate, and eliminate the House—and the executive.
Democrats always want to get rid of the Electoral College when they have a chump loser in at the helm.
It makes the cheatin’ so much easier.
There are lots of people who think the States created the Constitution. Even (perhaps especially) on this site.
In fact, of course, the sovereign people withdrew some elements of the sovereignty they had delegated to the states and delegated those portions instead to the federal government, leaving the remaining elements with the states, creating the mixed system we call federalism.
That this system is commonly abused doesn’t change what it is.
True, just like the Constitution. And the Electoral College.
WY has about .5M people, out of a country of 300m or so. In a popular election they control 1 vote in 600 for president, or about .16%.
WY has 3 votes in the EC out of 535 or about .56%.
WY has little clout in the EC, but each WY voter has about 3.5x the clout he would in a popular election. The clout of the inhabitants of the bigger states is reduced accordingly.
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.