BMX Bandit said:

---

"Electoral college" is a relic that in no way matches what founders envisioned.

Win the most votes in Texas? You get 40 votes. No need for the middle step of electors getting together to "vote".

Wouid require an amendment, so won't happen but makes much more sense.

---

Say what?

The electoral college is, word for word, exactly what the Founders intended. Because the States choose the president and they set it up where even small states have sway in the election.

They knew that any sort of popular vote would devolve into chaos, because history shows that pure democracy cannot be effectively implemented.

They also knew that some states would have much higher populations than others and that what was important in New York wouldnt be important in South Carolina and created a system that ensured that a handful of states could not essentially run the entire country.

The only change i would like to see to the EC is every state go to an apportionment system instead of winner take all.

That would reduce the power that CA, NY, TX and FL hae over every election.

schmellba99 said:

---

The only change i would like to see to the EC is every state go to an apportionment system instead of winner take all.

That would reduce the power that CA, NY, TX and FL hae over every election.

---

That sounds essentially the same as a popular vote

Read My post again. In no way do I advocate a national popular vote.

Trajan88 said:

---

Candidates would spend little to no time campaigning in "fly-over country" states.

There would be no reason for a candidate and president to listen, be concerned with citizens in those states

---

This.

The Electoral College makes pretty much all states relevant in an election. Doing away with it would make most states irrelevant in most elections.

PCC_80 said:

---

It is not just the Electoral College that the Dems want to get rid of. It is the entire Constitution. That is what I am worried about. The Dems know that a Constitutiona Amendment to get rid of things like the EC, 1sr Amend, 2nd Amend, 2 Senators per state, etc. will never pass.

The Dems need a complete rewrite in order to get the power and control they dream. Or they need to convince people it should be just ignored and forgotten because it is old and out dated.

---

Then why don't they call a Constitutional Convention?
The Founders covered this.
Dems don't want a Constitutional Convention because they realize that deep down most Americans prefer freedom to tyranny. When they have to write down what they want, then their corruption would be exposed to the people.

96AgGrad said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

The only change i would like to see to the EC is every state go to an apportionment system instead of winner take all.

That would reduce the power that CA, NY, TX and FL hae over every election.

---

That sounds essentially the same as a popular vote

---

No states with one congressional district ( population of 750,000 or less ) get 3 votes or one EC vote per 250,000 residents states with 10 reps get one vote for every 625,000 residents and states with 30 get one for every 725,000 residents



Doubt the Ds would go for this given most of the states with one only Rep are reliably R states

Hunger Games! Let those provinces support Capitol City (Cities)!

The problem we have is too much democracy for federal government offices.

The founders were not against democracy on the local level, where candidates have a greater opportunity to be known by those electing them. These elected officials could then choose who represents the state in the federal government.

If people are just voting for state and local representatives, then they would pay more attention to the elected officials who have the greatest influence on their lives.

Direct elections for president and Senate seems to have given greater power to big money influences and corruption in government.

One thing that has changed is that local populations have grown to the point that the advantages of personally knowing your elected officials is no longer an option for most citizens. We end up with corrupt local officials promoting corrupt state politicians promoting corrupt national representatives.

BuddysBud said:

---

The problem we have is too much democracy for federal government offices.

The founders were not against democracy on the local level, where candidates have a greater opportunity to be known by those electing them. These elected officials could then choose who represents the state in the federal government.

If people are just voting for state and local representatives, then they would pay more attention to the elected officials who have the greatest influence on their lives.

Direct elections for president and Senate seems to have given greater power to big money influences and corruption in government.

One thing that has changed is that local populations have grown to the point that the advantages of personally knowing your elected officials is no longer an option for most citizens. We end up with corrupt local officials promoting corrupt state politicians promoting corrupt national representatives.

---

Direct election of senators has absolutely altered the Senate and eliminated it's purpose as the state's legislative body. Senators are accountable to nobody which makes them accountable to donors and that was never the plan. Repeal the 17th and we'll see a dramatic shift in the makeup of the Senate and a significant increase in the influence of the states in DC.

BMX Bandit said:

---

"Electoral college" is a relic that in no way matches what founders envisioned.

Win the most votes in Texas? You get 40 votes. No need for the middle step of electors getting together to "vote".

Wouid require an amendment, so won't happen but makes much more sense.

---

This is a curious post. I wonder if you could expound on the differences, in your mind, in how the founders intended the EC to work compared to today's implementation of it.

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

"Electoral college" is a relic that in no way matches what founders envisioned.

Win the most votes in Texas? You get 40 votes. No need for the middle step of electors getting together to "vote".

Wouid require an amendment, so won't happen but makes much more sense.

---

This is a curious post. I wonder if you could expound on the differences, in your mind, in how the founders intended the EC to work compared to today's implementation of it.

---

Curious on this as well. The biggest change I'm aware of is using popular vote to decide who each state's electors vote for. Originally it was a popular vote but rather part of the state's political maneuvering. Originally the state's elected the president via their electors in the EC, the state legislatures selected the Senate and the people voted for their representatives. Each element of the federal government was accountable to a different segment of society. Now they're accountable to nobody and it shows.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Abolishing it will allow New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Philly, Detroit, Denver, and Atlanta to pick the President every single time.

---

I'm against popular vote, but how many democrat votes in those cities total in 2020?

15 million? How wouid that be choosing the winner?

---

80.7% of the us population resides in urban areas.

Now, what is defined as an urban area is probably somewhat gray, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of the US population is concentrated in a relatively small amount of surface area, and that population could (and would) absolutely vote themselves anything and everything at the expense of teh remaining 19.3%. Every time, without fail.

Look at the map posted on page 1 - every blue area is an urban center. Those areas represent 80% of the population.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

The electoral college is a leftover artifact from America. The new country that has taken its place will get rid of it.

---

Not a chance in hell.

---

With The Party in power there's no reason why it won't be gone, along with the 1st and 2nd amendments.

I'm told we have to wait until people "feel pain" before anything is done about it though.

---

Stop being so dramatic. It would take a constitutional amendment to get it passed and that ain't happening.

---

Not really. SCOTUS has ruled time and again that there are limitations on the 1st and 2nd, and people are conditioned to believe that offending somebody now is breaking the law.

Death by 1000 paper cuts is how it will happen. The education system doesn't teach kids actual facts anymore - hell, civics class is a relic of the past. Students aren't taught much, if any, about the revolution and the founding fathers and certainly aren't taught the actual meaning and context of the Constitution.

InfantryAg said:

---

The only thing that can check the federal govt is the states. Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a better choice if you're gonna have a new Amendment.

Since that won't happen, the only thing the states can do is the Convention of States.

Probably a national divorce is the most realistic option.

---

A convention of states in this day and age absolutely terrifies me. We do not have the caliber and character in our government officials today that existed in 1776.

Imagine what a constitution written today by today's elected officials would look like. If that doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, you are either a full blown commie or willfully ignorant of how bad the political elite wants us to go back to feudal or caste systems where they can rule with almost unlimited power over us lowly serfs who they see today as existing only to provide them with title and power.

96AgGrad said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

The only change i would like to see to the EC is every state go to an apportionment system instead of winner take all.

That would reduce the power that CA, NY, TX and FL hae over every election.

---

That sounds essentially the same as a popular vote

---

But it isn't. It would essentially reduce the stranglehold that large urban areas have on states with the whole "winner takes all" approach. It better represents how the people of the state voted, but isn't the same as a true popular vote.

As it stands right now in most states, it is much closer to a pure democracy when it comes to how the EC votes go - 50.1% is all it takes to get 100%.

It would break up the monopoly held by CA, NY, MI and some others that every democrat candidate in the last 30+ years has started off with. IMO it woudl also increase the importance of flyover country - because candidates would be forced to recognize that even small EC states like Nebraska or Wyoming can be the deciding factor in an election.

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

"Electoral college" is a relic that in no way matches what founders envisioned.

Win the most votes in Texas? You get 40 votes. No need for the middle step of electors getting together to "vote".

Wouid require an amendment, so won't happen but makes much more sense.

---

This is a curious post. I wonder if you could expound on the differences, in your mind, in how the founders intended the EC to work compared to today's implementation of it.

---

the intent was never "electors must vote for whomever gets the most popular votes in that state." over half the states had legislature chose who electors would be. the EC was not intended to be a rubber stamp, but it was to elect men that would then in turn analyze the candidates for president to determine who was best suited to be president. federalist 68 spells it out.

if all states just give it to the candidate with the most popular votes in their state (or even apportionment like NE), then why have the meeting of electors? the go between is an unnecessary step in what the EC has evolved into.

LOYAL AG said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

The problem we have is too much democracy for federal government offices.

The founders were not against democracy on the local level, where candidates have a greater opportunity to be known by those electing them. These elected officials could then choose who represents the state in the federal government.

If people are just voting for state and local representatives, then they would pay more attention to the elected officials who have the greatest influence on their lives.

Direct elections for president and Senate seems to have given greater power to big money influences and corruption in government.

One thing that has changed is that local populations have grown to the point that the advantages of personally knowing your elected officials is no longer an option for most citizens. We end up with corrupt local officials promoting corrupt state politicians promoting corrupt national representatives.

---

Direct election of senators has absolutely altered the Senate and eliminated it's purpose as the state's legislative body. Senators are accountable to nobody which makes them accountable to donors and that was never the plan. Repeal the 17th and we'll see a dramatic shift in the makeup of the Senate and a significant increase in the influence of the states in DC.

---

This. Senators were intended to be appointed by State legislatures to go to Washington to represent their STATE, not themselves, donors or registered voters.

It was specifically set up that way so that the states had power within the fed, and so that state elections had more significance than just state elections. The 17th changed the entire makeup of the fed, and in the worst way.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Read My post again. In no way do I advocate a national popular vote.

---

But you essentially are by abolishing the concept of the EC.

Candidates would focus only on the states with the highest populations and only on the concentrated urban centers of those states, because all you need to do is win the popular vote of a few states to get the automatic points (cant be EC votes anymore because you've eliminated the actual EC) to become president.

Electors are not necessarily bound by the state vote either.

And with places like CO that have decided their electors go with whomever wins the national popular vote (or at least talked about it, not sure if they actually passed that or not), even more effort is spent on wooing the urban areas.

schmellba99 said:

---

96AgGrad said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

The only change i would like to see to the EC is every state go to an apportionment system instead of winner take all.

That would reduce the power that CA, NY, TX and FL hae over every election.

---

That sounds essentially the same as a popular vote

---

But it isn't. It would essentially reduce the stranglehold that large urban areas have on states with the whole "winner takes all" approach. It better represents how the people of the state voted, but isn't the same as a true popular vote.

As it stands right now in most states, it is much closer to a pure democracy when it comes to how the EC votes go - 50.1% is all it takes to get 100%.

It would break up the monopoly held by CA, NY, MI and some others that every democrat candidate in the last 30+ years has started off with. IMO it woudl also increase the importance of flyover country - because candidates would be forced to recognize that even small EC states like Nebraska or Wyoming can be the deciding factor in an election.

---

If every state is splitting their votes based on whatever ratio of Democrats to Republicans they have, how is that not different than a nationwide popular election vote, which would essentially bypass the states? I'm sure the Democrats would love that.

Sure, at the state level it isn't winner take all, but at the national level it becomes (approximately) a simple majority of the people instead of a vote of the states, as the Constitution prescribes.

Quote:

---

Candidates would focus only on the states with the highest populations and only on the concentrated urban centers of those states, because all you need to do is win the popular vote of a few states to get the automatic points (cant be EC votes anymore because you've eliminated the actual EC) to become president.

---

this is completely wrong. if you are getting texas' 40 points (yes, 40) or electoral votes that are by law required to go to winner, why would you change your strategy? either way, you get 40.

candidates would focus on states the same way they do now. the middle man rubber stamp doesn't change how campaign runs because the electors are still chosen by parties in every single state. we don't even actually vote for the actual electors anymore. in 1800, in those states that used popular votes for electors, they voted for elector Steve Jones, not John Adams. Steve Jones then voted for Adams, or whoever he wanted.

Quote:

---

And with places like CO that have decided their electors go with whomever wins the national popular vote (or at least talked about it, not sure if they actually passed that or not), even more effort is spent on wooing the urban areas.

---

colorado passed their law, but the threshold for states passing it has not occurred so not in effect.

i agree that would be an enormous change, but nothing remotely like removing the ministerial act of electors meeting to cast a vote without any thought on their own

How often do candidates currently visit flyover states while on the campaign trail?

I do think the winner take all approach is silly with some states having 20M+ people. NY, Cali and Illinois are blue right off the bat. 104 electoral votes. Despite having large sections of conservatives in those states.

The thought process behind the electoral college is solid. But it certainly could use some tweaking. It is silly that Florida, Georgia, Penn, Ohio have had the power to pick the president for essentially the last 20+ years. Outside of 5-6 states, your vote for president is largely useless. They should honestly divide each states into a couple voting blocs (Texas 1 and Texas 2, etc). But someone (red or blue) will get an advantage on the split so it'll never happen.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

The electoral college is a leftover artifact from America. The new country that has taken its place will get rid of it.

---

Not a chance in hell.

---

With The Party in power there's no reason why it won't be gone, along with the 1st and 2nd amendments.

I'm told we have to wait until people "feel pain" before anything is done about it though.

---

Stop being so dramatic. It would take a constitutional amendment to get it passed and that ain't happening.

---

All they have to do is keep stealing elections and they'll get their constitutional amendment. It might be in 2 years or it might be in 10. But it will happen.

---

No it won't, chicken little.

schmellba99 said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

The only thing that can check the federal govt is the states. Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a better choice if you're gonna have a new Amendment.

Since that won't happen, the only thing the states can do is the Convention of States.

Probably a national divorce is the most realistic option.

---

A convention of states in this day and age absolutely terrifies me. We do not have the caliber and character in our government officials today that existed in 1776.

Imagine what a constitution written today by today's elected officials would look like. If that doesn't scare the bejeezus out of you, you are either a full blown commie or willfully ignorant of how bad the political elite wants us to go back to feudal or caste systems where they can rule with almost unlimited power over us lowly serfs who they see today as existing only to provide them with title and power.

---

I never understood this mindset. There are few remaining non-violent options for creating change to reign in the federal government and this is one of them. A convention can create new amendments that then have to be ratified by at least 38 state legislatures. There are like 32 red legislatures and like 12 blue ones. What is there to be afraid of here? Conservatives should be screaming for a convention as it's where the right holds the most power. This is the one forum where the Democrats have very little ability to drive the outcome. The biggest risk is that the significant Republican majority horse trades away 1A or 2A restrictions in exchange for a repeal of the 17th. Stupidity is always possible but this risk is far outweighed by the fact that the right would have a very large majority in that room. That has to be exploited. The only known is that staying the course is a terrible idea.

schmellba99 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Abolishing it will allow New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Philly, Detroit, Denver, and Atlanta to pick the President every single time.

---

I'm against popular vote, but how many democrat votes in those cities total in 2020?

15 million? How wouid that be choosing the winner?

---

80.7% of the us population resides in urban areas.

Now, what is defined as an urban area is probably somewhat gray, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of the US population is concentrated in a relatively small amount of surface area, and that population could (and would) absolutely vote themselves anything and everything at the expense of teh remaining 19.3%. Every time, without fail.

Look at the map posted on page 1 - every blue area is an urban center. Those areas represent 80% of the population.

---

A good example of how just a few places would decide a presidential election in a national popular vote is the 2016 election.

Clinton had the most popular votes and Trump of course won the EC. If you took LA County and the cities of San Francisco and New York City and changed the vote totals for Clinton to 50% + 1, then Trump would have had the most popular votes.

Of course things can change, but the huge cities are so deep blue that it would be tough to beat in an election.

Would you mind sharing with the class what the Census definition of an urban area is?

dead said:

---

Would you mind sharing with the class what the Census definition of an urban area is?

---

Good point. BCS and Waco are considered urban areas.

tysker said:

---

The electoral college isnt the problem as much as the two party system and increasing power of of the POTUS

---

Feels more like a 1.5 party system than a 2 party system. I hate this system.

BMX Bandit said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

"Electoral college" is a relic that in no way matches what founders envisioned.

Win the most votes in Texas? You get 40 votes. No need for the middle step of electors getting together to "vote".

Wouid require an amendment, so won't happen but makes much more sense.

---

This is a curious post. I wonder if you could expound on the differences, in your mind, in how the founders intended the EC to work compared to today's implementation of it.

---

the intent was never "electors must vote for whomever gets the most popular votes in that state." over half the states had legislature chose who electors would be. the EC was not intended to be a rubber stamp, but it was to elect men that would then in turn analyze the candidates for president to determine who was best suited to be president. federalist 68 spells it out.

if all states just give it to the candidate with the most popular votes in their state (or even apportionment like NE), then why have the meeting of electors? the go between is an unnecessary step in what the EC has evolved into.

---

But that is what the states have decided, no?

There is nothing that would keep the states from changing the way they select electors in the future, for better or worse. This movement to give the electors to the national popular vote by some states is an example. Nothing to stop the states from saying electors are to be selected by the state legislatures, either. In fact, I think that this would be a very good idea in conservative states if the rift between urban and rural gets too severe.

I think it makes a difference that the right is there, even if it presently unused.

rocky the dog said:

---

---

So are you saying the less popular option should govern the majority? That doesn't sound like a democracy. Land doesn't vote. People do

Quote:

---

So are you saying the less popular option should govern the majority? That doesn't sound like a democracy. Land doesn't vote. People do

---

Once again, LAND DOESNT VOTE!!!!