Posted on 08/28/2019 7:30:38 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
The controversial way America elects presidents is barreling toward a crisis point. A federal court ruling has spotlighted the confounding nature of the system, which twice in the last five elections put presidents into office against the wishes of the majority of American voters.
Under the Constitution, the voters who select a president every four years are, in fact, picking a party-chosen slate of electors pledged to that candidate. The presidential candidate who wins a state’s popular vote gets all its electors — except in Nebraska and Maine, which split the electors by Congressional districts. These electors formally select the president after Election Day passes. This mechanism solved two problems of 1789’s America that no longer plague the nation.
Mass, instant communication — of news, commentary and campaign rhetoric — means voters have no need to designate others to make informed choices, which was the argument Alexander Hamilton made in support of the Electoral College. The system also induced southern slave states to join the union by giving them power at a time when the more populous north would have dominated a national popular election.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.com ...
I don’t want Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago picking my President. Screw you.
Will there be an Editorial tomorrow about abolishing the United States Senate?
I’m waiting for the one about passing a National Voter ID Law.
It’s not controversial - it’s NEVER been controversial except when Democrats lose!
A federal court ruling has spotlighted the confounding nature of the system, which twice in the last five elections put presidents into office against the wishes of the majority of American voters.
This is a questionable statement. Hillary got about 48% of the vote in 2016. Al Gore in 2000 got about 48.5% if I recall correctly. Point is, the “winner of the popular vote” in each of the elections they are referring to, did not crack 50% of the vote.
These candidates got a plurality of the vote, which is different from a majority. Perhaps the editorial board of this newspaper ignores simple facts, because it would conflict with their narrative that somehow a majority of the American people preferred Hillary but she didn’t win.
Look at another way, with Hillary’s 48%, a comfortable majority of 52% wanted someone other than Hillary.
Nah. We will keep the Electoral College as our Founding Fathers designed it.
If you have a problem with that, you are free to move to another country that better suits your desire for tyranny. We will not stop you from leaving.
+1
The whole point of the Electoral College is that the founders did not believe the public would always make the best choice for president. The election of 2016 pretty much proves they were right.
[[[which twice in the last five elections put presidents into office against the wishes of the majority of American voters. ]]]
Sorry, premise is slightly flawed. Go back to the starting line after studying the Constitution.
The reason the original colonies we able to unite together was making sure the smaller population colonies still had a voice and wouldn’t be drowned out by the larger population colonies. Still true today with smaller population states wanting a voice and not letting high population states steam roll over them and run everything.
I’m speaking only from a Minnesota perspective - but changing our system so so that electors are determined by congressional district isn’t the worst idea.
In 2016, Clinton won the 3rd, 4th and 5th CD’s. Trump won the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th and 8th CD’s. Clinton won the overall state vote and all 10 electoral votes.
Had the electoral votes been divvied up by district and overall vote, Trump would have had 5 EV’s and Clinton 5 EV’s.
Hell, even Romney in 2012 would have won at least 3 EV’s in Minnesota. McCain too in 2008.
“against the wishes of the majority of American voters”
Lie. The 5 million illegal non citizens are not Americans
Controversial? It’s only controversial when Democrats lose.
The EC was a very intentional apparatus to keep power in check of the Federal Govt. It’s been in existence a very long time. It also protects the nation from voter fraud by maxing out the number of ballots that can be counted in one place.
And that is why the DNC and the liberal controlled media hate it so much.
The popular vote means nothing (or should mean nothing). The electoral college was and is a bulwark against “mob rule” or a charismatic demagogue with delusions of grandeur.
totalitarian democracy
a tyranny or 51% is still a tyranny
scum leftists
Motor voter, ballot harvesting, etc. If Republicans cheated like Democrats the left would be demanding a “more fair” system. Something like, oh, I don’t know...an Electoral college. You can shove your “democracy”. The electoral college is in the Constitution, and there it will stay.
Reform Seattle.
Stupid fvcking cvnts, the EC is an ingenious system that balances the way a president is elected. The candidate must appeal to a briader cross section of the public. Simply appealing to one section or region of the public won’t work.
It was designed expressly this way. There’s nothing “wrong” with it, they just don’t like it.
They want mob rule, anarchy, license, discontent, and agitation to rule. Don’t be fooled.
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.