Why the Electoral College is the absolute worst, explained

Vox ^ | Nov 10, 2016, 1:25pm EST | Andrew Prokop

[libertarian27]

Time to pull this quote out again, I guess...

America is a Republic

[al baby]

Oh please how many freepers actually go to or read the links anyways

[notdownwidems]

The Presidency isn't a popularity contest. A successful candidate must craft a platform and campaign that appeals to a coalition of states that constitute an Electoral College majority.

That's exactly right and exactly why I said from the beginning that the 'affordable care act', which is neither affordable nor providing of care, would be an abject failure for any number of reasons, one of the biggest being that anything this transformative MUST have buy-in from a substantial majority of the opposition in order to have any chance to work. Republicans and conservatives, along with libertarians were nearly unanimous in opposition to it, it was doomed from the start. The democrats treacherous efforts to pass it anyway just made it that much more unpalatable.

[C19fan]

The other major mistake these lazy so called pundits make is assuming if the US went to a first past the post system for the POTUS there would still be only 2 major candidates. The experience with other countries that have elections for a President with real powers clearly show that will not be the case. Mexico and Chile pre-Pincohet have/had first-past-the-post elections that resulted in at least three major parties vying for the post. The 1970 Chilean election that saw the Commie Allende elected he won only 37% of the vote in a 3 way election. In countries with run off systems there are a dozen of more parties. In Brazil with a run off system the first round involves 10 or more parties; with 3 candidates receiving substantial support in the first round.

[Gay State Conservative]

One of the many,many beautiful things about our Constitution is that,built right into its core,is a mechanism to change it...to amend it.

It was intentionally made difficult to amend but it *is* possible.

[Az Joe]

Agreed!

[HenpeckedCon]

Don’t worry, they’ll never get 3/4 of the states to approve the Constitutional amendment.

[Yulee]

Watched the film on the Electoral College.

So, yes, some of us actually go to the links.

Still think that, if we really want the people’s will, each member of the Elector should cast their electoral vote, the way their Congressional District voted in the General Election. We thus can avoid the elections fraud that permeates large urban districts.

With the repeal of the 17th Amendment, we could clean up a lot of the big money influence. US Senators, would be responsible to their state legislatures, and the population of the states, rather than those who fund their elections.

[Kozak]

Thank God the Founders were smarter then these pinheads.

[petro45acp]

But without the EC, America would be a straight democracy, not the representative republic the founders envisioned for the novel “American Experiment” in primacy of the individual. Of course they didn’t envision social security, welfare, political correctness, or a dependent class.

Of course both parties have complained about the EC when it suited....

KYPD

[MNDude]

Without an EV, the USA would quickly dissolve. What smaller state would wish to live by every whim by those in large cities?

[NohSpinZone]

As ignorant as it is elitist. Basically they’re saying to trust the major population centers with the presidency because what do the people in flyover country know anyway.

[roadcat]

When I was a kid in school they taught the Constitution and government. That was about 60 years ago but lets see if I can be more correct than libretards.

Yes. The leftist teachers in school don't teach correct interpretations of the Constitution and government. Lots of millennials would be hard pressed to answer simple questions about our nation, for instance, what does the name of our nation represent? They have no clue that we are made up of individual nation-states that are united by the rules set up by our founders. Those rules were meant to protect the individual states and their peoples from anarchy and mob rule. And from an a-hole like Obama and his minions.

[CommerceComet]

So I'm supposed to take the "wisdom" of this guy rather the collective wisdom of the Founding Fathers? I don't think so.

I suspect if the results were the same but the party affiliations were reversed, the author wouldn't be the least bit concerned about the "problem" of the electoral college.

[publius911]

Mathematical proof of the merits of the Electoral College:

Thank you so much for posting that link.
I must confess that I read the document twice and failed actually to follow nor understand it.Although I had a satisfying, succesful career in Engineering, statistics were never my strong suit nor a professional necessity.

[petro45acp]

Oh yeah, about that popular vote......illegals maybe?

KYPD

[leftcoaster]

If the EC was eliminated, they wouldn’t have to. Just manufacture several million fraudulent votes in a state that is corrupt enough to allow it, and those fraudulent votes would offset all the opposing votes of all voters in all of the other states. A California going from 55% to 65% or 70% would swamp the popular vote from the rest of the country and determine the outcome.

With the EC, the winner must get pluralities in enough of the various states to get a majority of EC votes. And it must be an EC majority, not a just a plurality, as we’ve learned in previous elections with strong 3rd party candidates.

[knarf]

THE GOAL WAS TO SAVE AMERICA, NOT APPEASE COMMUNISTS

[Eddie01]

bingo

[Eddie01]

bingo