Electoral college: What is it, how does it work and is it really the best system?

The Independent ^ | Wed, 11/09/16 | Harriet Agerholm

[daniel1212]

"And the system technically allows the electors to hijack the result, since it is not certain the electors will vote the way their state does.

Although around 30 of the 50 states have passed laws that mean their electors must vote according to the popular vote in their state – the punishment for not doing so is can merely be a fine. This means they could potentially defy the electorate's choice." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/electoral-college-how-does-it-work-us-election-day-2016-states-votes-donald-trump-hilalry-clinton-a7404086.html

[Secret Agent Man]

It also makes a lot more states relevant and important.

[Steely Tom]

Have you ever noticed it is almost universally the leftists who float this idea and support it?

Of course.

Ben Franklin — in my opinion the great genius of the founders — actually anticipated this when he gave his famous answer "A Republic madam, if you can keep it."

A Republic, with multiple "laboratories of democracy," is anathema to liberals who want to control the search for truth because they don't trust that truth will suit their designs.

You can see it in our present political life. Which political party lives on lies, and which party fears them?

Which party elevates its best liars to high office, and which one isolates them and curtails their power?

[snarkytart]

IA too! This is only the second time in 8 presidential elections it went red. DT won by 10%!

[Alberta's Child]

I would prefer a system where every state adopts the Nebraska/Maine model of awarding electoral votes by Congressional district, with the two “extra” electoral votes in each state awarded to the candidate who wins the state overall.

[al_c]

Yep ... exactly as planned.

[lepton]

Thanks for that link. I was thinking of hunting for it. There are even more benefits than are mentioned there.

[Osage Orange]

Rush...mentioned this today.

Thing is....the Left NEVER gives up...

We will have to beat them at every turn....

And beat the lukewarm GOPe,,,at every turn too.................

[cynwoody]

I would prefer a system where every state adopts the Nebraska/Maine model of awarding electoral votes by Congressional district, with the two “extra” electoral votes in each state awarded to the candidate who wins the state overall.

I agree. I can think of three advantages of tallying the vote by CD:

1. It eliminates the problem of the faithless elector.
2. It firewalls the damage that election fraud can cause. Once you've stuffed enough ballots to steal a CD, there is no point in further stuffing in that CD. You can't steal a whole state by stuffing ballots in a few vulnerable localities.
3. It solves the undue influence urban cesspools have on presidential elections.

Of course, #2 and #3 are why it won't ever go through. Vote fraud is a core competency of the Democrat Party, and the party feeds off those urban cesspools.

[angelsonmyside]

bump

[FrdmLvr]

Thomas Jefferson originally referred to it as the united States of America, small u, in the Declaration of Independence. The new country was the 13 colonies that were declaring themselves to be States of America which were united. I love the way their minds worked.

[philman_36]

Well that didn’t take long.

[stremba]

Actually it is the winner take all system of allocating electors, rather than the electoral college itself that is responsible for some of the criticisms in this article. The Constitution certainly does NOT require that states allocate all of their EV’s to a single candidate. In fact, in this very election, Trump won 1 of Maine’s 4 EV’s, with Clinton taking the other 3. The Constitution explicitly grants the legislature of each state the power to determine how that state’s EV’s are awarded. The fact that most states use the winner take all system is a result of these decisions by the state legislatures, not a feature of the electoral college, per se.

Theoretically, a state could award its EV’s by congressional district (like ME and NE do currently), by proportion of the vote (ie, in a state like PA with 20 EV’s, a candidate gaining 60% of the vote would get 12 of the EV’s), by legislative action ignoring the popular vote altogether (albeit unlikely), or by some other system that I cannot imagine. Most of what this article discusses are consequences of the fact that 48 of the 50 states, and 530 of the 538 EV’s are allocated on a winner take all basis, not consequences of the Electoral College.

[stremba]

See my last post. Eliminating the Electoral College might not be necessary. Most of what people think are consequences of the EC are really consequences of the winner take all allocation of electoral votes by the states. If enough state legislatures switched to proportional allocation of electors, for example, it would drastically change the fundamentals of our Presidential elections. There would be no Amendment needed; the Constitution grants the power to determine the method of EV allocation strictly to the legislatures of the states. A measure passed by a state’s legislature is all that is needed to change the way the EV’s are allocated among the candidates.

[daniel1212]

Thanks for the very informative reply.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

You only need 34 states to call for a convention to amend the constitution. Then Congress must call it.

[daniel1212]

Hillary highjacked the election by having 60,000 felons pardoned and made eleigble to vote thereby winning VA by less then 10,000 votes.

Out-rageous.

[Valk Rider]

***** Absolutely it is the best system. Otherwise, NY, FL, CA, IL, and PA could choose the president, while the rest of the country would have to pay the bills.*****

That’s the way I see it as well. The Presidential hopefuls could win Texas, New York, and California and their opponent would have to win virtually every other state. The hell with Utah, Montana, Colorado, Maine...who needs em.

[Ransomed]

We haven’t had even 65% eligible voter turnout since 1908. This election’s turnout is supposedly less than the last two elections, which I didn’t see coming given a Trump win. I thought it was going to be a really big swell, maybe 70% or something record breaking. I guess it didn’t happen, which isn’t a good sign, in my opinion.

In any case, why should anyone care about the electoral college system not working right when 40+% of the eligible voters don’t care enough to vote? I mean come on.

Freegards

[VanShuyten]

“The electoral college was not put in place to “ensure regional balance”, “

There were no political parties when the Electoral College was invented, so there was a real worry that a candidate popular in just a few big states would win a plurality, with the votes of the rest split among several other candidates. This, in fact, happened. The Electoral College was there to ensure that a winner had the majority of electors’ votes, even if he didn’t have a majority of the popular votes. If no one could get this majority, then the election was thrown to the House to decide.

A direct election with the winner being the person who gets the most votes could result in a person in a field of four getting only 30% of the vote and winning. The Electoral College in this case would prevent that and likely give the selection over to the House, where a majority is required.

This election illustrated that, with no candidate getting a majority of the votes. The Electoral College clears that up.

[OrangeHoof]

No sane person would want a national vote recount in a close election. That would be a nightmare that would take months to decide.

So if the Left really hates the Electoral College, I have an alternate idea:

One county, one vote. Like it?