Reform the Electoral College

seattletimes ^ | 08/27/2019 | Seattle Times Editorial Board

[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.

[JGPhila]

“Mass, instant communication — of news, commentary and campaign rhetoric — means voters have no need to designate others to make informed choices . . .”
_______________________

As long as the “commentary” and “news” is biased against conservatives, and as long as the voters in the Blue States vote Democrat, there is no need for those in fly-over country to have any say in who is elected to govern. Seems like Socialism/Communism 101 - make the people think they have a choice when they really don’t. Later, the ballot can be winnowed down to a group of “candidates” selected by the elites hiding behind the curtain.

[MrEdd]

The electoral college is as it should be.

[Bayan]

The usual Leftist BS, it’s only ‘controversial’ when Democrats lose. Blatantly obvious and 100% hypocritical.

[knarf]

Read correctly;

THE CONVERSATION IS BARRELLING TOWARD ...

not the event.

[Puppage]

The controversial way America elects presidents is barreling toward a crisis point

Controversial to whom?

[bert]

The destruction of LA or San Francisco and New York city will effectively end the issue

[Puppage]

which twice in the last five elections put presidents into office against the wishes of the majority of American voters

Which is why we're a representative republic, and NOT a democracy.

[antidemoncrat]

If they discounted the illegal votes cast in 2016, Hillary probably didn’t win the popular vote.

[Dixie Yooper]

Every time there is a National Census, The House of Representatives and The Electoral College gets reformed.

[libertylover]

The best way to understand the purpose of the Electoral College is to look at the county-by-county voting in the 2016 presidential election. The Founding Fathers wanted the president to elected from a broad consensus of citizens, not a narrow-minded mob. Someone please post the map.

[zencycler]

“... against the wishes of the majority of American voters”.

The founders did not trust Democracy. That’s why they created a Republic AND the EC, with checks on all types of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority.

Originally, citizens did not vote for President, or Senators, which got decided by state legislatures. Only the House was set up to reflect a national majority.

Constructionally, nothing has changed at the federal level for presidential elections - which still get decided by state legislatures. The only change has been that every state delegated that decision to its resident voters.

Which is why there still is no national popular vote for president. That is a fiction. On Election Day you vote for president is being done more as a state resident to represent your sovereign state than as a US citizen, which is a secondary qualifier. So there are 50+ separate presidential elections on that day, as each state rallies its citizen residents to help it decide how to exercise its constitutional power to decide who will lead our Republic for the next four years.

Accumulating the totals of those elections is really no different than accumulating the total votes for Governors by political party, and then wondering why we have more GOP governors if most people voted for Democrats. Both should be viewed as equally ridiculous and irrelevant.

The only reason any confusion exists is because teachers spend too much time pushing progressive propaganda rather than properly teaching our kids about history and civics.

[chief lee runamok]

What a surprising opinion coming from a heavily democrat party state.

[bkopto]

The controversial way America elects presidents

The Rats try to "controversialize" everything when it is in their power-grabbing interest to do so.

"Reform", huh? Like when electing senators was "reformed"?

The Rats use wizard words to pry open their social oysters.

[dead]

The Constitutional Amendment process is very understandable. Go for it, leftists.

You're task is to convince the people in three fourths of the states to nullify their own vote and let NYC and California elect their president.

[loveliberty2]

Given the complex and critical provisions for liberty of individuals and restrictions on power in government, the Electoral College provision can be seen as another Constitutional protection to be treasured.

The Constitutional Structure For Limited And Balanced Government

The Constitution was devised with an ingenious and intricate built-in system of checks and balances to guard the people's liberty against combinations of government power. It structured the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent as to function, but coordinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpation of power. Only by balancing each against the other two could freedom be preserved, said John Adams. Another writer of the day summarized clearly the reasons for such checks and balances:

• "If the LEGISLATIVE and JUDICIAL powers are united, the MAKER of the law will also INTERPRET it (constitutionality).
• Should the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATIVE powers be united... the EXECUTIVE power would make itself absolute, and the government end in tyranny.
• Should the EXECUTIVE and JUDICIAL powers be united, the subject (citizen) would then have no permanent security of his person or property."

"INDEED, the dependence of any of these powers upon either of the others ... has so often been productive of such calamities... that the page of history seems to be one continued tale of human wretchedness." (Theophilus Parsons, ESSEX RESULTS)

What were some of these checks and balances believed so important to individual liberty? Several are listed below:

• HOUSE (peoples representatives) is a check on SENATE - no statute becomes law without its approval.
• SENATE is a check on HOUSE - no statute becomes law without its approval. (Prior to 17th Amendment, SENATE was appointed by State legislatures as a protection for states' rights - another check the Founders provided.)
• EXECUTIVE (President) can restrain both HOUSE and SENATE by using Veto Power.
• LEGISLATIVE (Congress - Senate & House) has a check on EXECUTIVE by being able to pass, with 2/3 majority, a bill over President's veto.
• LEGISLATIVE has a further check on EXECUTIVE through power of discrimination in appropriation of funds for operation of EXECUTIVE.
• EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE in filling important posts in EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
• EXECUTIVE (President) must have approval of SENATE before treaties with foreign nations can be effective.
• LEGISLATIVE (Congress) can conduct investigations of EXECUTIVE to see if funds are properly expended and laws enforced.
• EXECUTIVE has a further check on members of LEGISLATIVE (Congress) in using discretionary powers in decisions regarding establishment of military bases, building & improvement of navigable rivers, dams, interstate highways, etc., in districts of those members.
• JUDICIARY is a check on LEGISLATIVE through its authority to review all laws and determine their constitutionality.
• LEGISLATIVE (Congress) has restraining power over JUDICIARY, with con­stitutional authority to restrict extent of its jurisdiction.
• LEGISLATIVE has power to impeach members of JUDICIARY guilty of treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors.
• EXECUTIVE (President) is a check on JUDICIARY by having power to nominate new judges.
• LEGISLATIVE (Senate) is a check on EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY having power to approve/disapprove nominations of judges.
• LEGISLATIVE is a check on JUDICIARY - having control of appropriations for operation of federal court system.
• LEGISLATIVE (Peoples Representatives) is a check on both EXECUTIVE and JUDICIARY through power to initiate amendments to Constitution subject to approval by 3/4 of the States.
• LEGISLATIVE (Senate) has power to impeach EXECUTIVE (President) with concurrence of 2/3, of members.
• The PEOPLE, through their State representatives, may restrain the power of the federal LEGISLATURE if 3/4 of the States do not ratify proposed Constitu­tional Amendments.
• LEGISLATIVE, by Joint Resolution, can terminate certain powers granted to EXECUTIVE (President) (such as war powers) without his consent.
• It is the PEOPLE who have the final check on both LEGISLATIVE and EX­ECUTIVE when they vote on their Representatives every 2 years, their Senators every 6 years, and their President every 4 years. Through those selections, they also influence the potential makeup of the JUDICIARY.

It is up to each generation to see that the integrity of the Constitutional structure for a free society is maintained by carefully preserving the system of checks and balances essential to limited and balanced government. "To preserve them (is) as necessary as to institute them," said George Washington.

---

Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III:  ISBN 0-937047-01-5

[Verginius Rufus]

Harry Truman in 1948, JFK in 1960, Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996--all were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. If Carter cracked 50% in 1976 it was by the slimmest of margins.

Since the Civil War only 3 Democrat Presidents have won 51% of the popular vote--Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Barack Hussein Obama.

[deport]

Someone please post the map.

**************

Please go ahead. You aren’t barred from posting maps.

[CommerceComet]

We will keep the Electoral College as our Founding Fathers designed it.

Okay, let me ponder. Who has more wisdom? The Founding Fathers? The editorial board of the Seattle Times? I think that I'm going to with the Founding Fathers.

[Jim Noble]

The only reform I am interested in is eliminating the popular vote.

The electoral college is fine.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Look at another way, with Hillary’s 48%, a comfortable majority of 52% wanted someone other than Hillary.

If that's the way you want to look at it, an even more comfortable majority of 54% wanted someone other than Trump.