An Electoral College Vote or a General Vote?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
drbrumley
Well-known member
It should be the electoral college. But I do think that the EC will ultimately get phased out. Which would be a shame.
drbrumley
Well-known member
For your reading enjoyment
For your reading enjoyment
Hands Off the Electoral College
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
The intense media focus on the divide between “red” and “blue” states in the wake of the presidential election has raised new questions regarding our federal voting system. One U.S. Senator has promised to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, claiming it is an anachronism that serves no good purpose in modern politics. Her stated goal is “simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our president.” Many Americans agree, arguing that the man receiving the most votes should win; anything else would be unfair. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.
The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: “and to the Republic for which it stands”? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (emphasis added).
The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The Electoral College likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the Electoral College.
By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the Electoral College system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states’ rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The Electoral College system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
For your reading enjoyment
Hands Off the Electoral College
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
The intense media focus on the divide between “red” and “blue” states in the wake of the presidential election has raised new questions regarding our federal voting system. One U.S. Senator has promised to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, claiming it is an anachronism that serves no good purpose in modern politics. Her stated goal is “simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our president.” Many Americans agree, arguing that the man receiving the most votes should win; anything else would be unfair. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.
The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: “and to the Republic for which it stands”? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (emphasis added).
The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The Electoral College likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the Electoral College.
By contrast, election of the President by pure popular vote totals would damage statehood. Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California and New York could win a national election with very little support in dozens of other states! A popular vote system simply would intensify the populist pandering which already dominates national campaigns.
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the Electoral College system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states’ rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The Electoral College system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
Nothing in the Constitution says that voters in smaller states should have a greater say than voters in larger states. The founders just didn't consider cases where the loser of the popular vote would win in the electoral college. They don't very often, but when they do, the results have been mediocre to horrible.
John Q. Adams
Benjamin Harrison
Rutherford Hayes
George W. Bush
Donald Trump
Not exactly the varsity, is it?
The American people are smarter than we sometimes think they are.
John Q. Adams
Benjamin Harrison
Rutherford Hayes
George W. Bush
Donald Trump
Not exactly the varsity, is it?
The American people are smarter than we sometimes think they are.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
well, no
the majority of those who voted in 2000 and 2016 preferred a president Al Gore or a president Hillary Clinton
and the majority of those who voted in 2008 preferred an unqualified, inexperienced affirmative action president
i'd say that's proof enough that the majority of american voters are too stupid to be allowed to vote
Last edited:
Barbarian observes:
The American people are smarter than we sometimes think they are.
You're making my point for me.
No. Bush lost. Someone who didn't use Daddy's influence to get into college, won.
As you just learned, the presidents who weren't the choice of most voters have been at best, mediocre, and at worst, disasters.
I'd say that's proof enough that the majority of american voters are smarter than we sometimes think they are.
The American people are smarter than we sometimes think they are.
You're making my point for me.
No. Bush lost. Someone who didn't use Daddy's influence to get into college, won.
As you just learned, the presidents who weren't the choice of most voters have been at best, mediocre, and at worst, disasters.
I'd say that's proof enough that the majority of american voters are smarter than we sometimes think they are.
My thought is that the founders intended the election of a president to be a federal process, involving the states, in which each state had an influence corresponding to its population. The problem is, the voters of very small states get a disproportionate say, compared to the voters of larger states.
A system of electoral votes that more accurately reflected the population of each state would be sufficient to prevent most of the cases where the loser actually got more electoral votes. So increase the number of votes to the point that the relative populations of each state were accurately represented.
And most of the problem goes away.
A system of electoral votes that more accurately reflected the population of each state would be sufficient to prevent most of the cases where the loser actually got more electoral votes. So increase the number of votes to the point that the relative populations of each state were accurately represented.
And most of the problem goes away.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
bush didn't lose in 2008 :dizzy:
having another senior moment, old timer?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
drbrumley
Well-known member
Exactly.....51 different elections.....and each election has a corresponding number of votes. Under this system, the votes are the two senators and however many representatives are sent to the House of any given state.
So Barbarian, it is perfectly fair that this is the system. And yes the founders thought of these scenarios....to call them ignorant is absurd.
So Barbarian, it is perfectly fair that this is the system. And yes the founders thought of these scenarios....to call them ignorant is absurd.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The Electoral College is part of the Constitution, it's not something that can go away easily. As long as Republicans have their electorates locked and maintain at least a near-majority in Congress, they'll forever keep it.
But it doesn't matter much anyway because from what I've come to learn about it is that states will just further divide without the EC and the difference would become trivial.
One of the key good things that the EC does is provide for fairer representation of interests so that the country doesn't tilt too far toward one end. The Founders were really big on matters of balance and resistance concerning gov't.
But it doesn't matter much anyway because from what I've come to learn about it is that states will just further divide without the EC and the difference would become trivial.
One of the key good things that the EC does is provide for fairer representation of interests so that the country doesn't tilt too far toward one end. The Founders were really big on matters of balance and resistance concerning gov't.
Barbarian checks... Yes, actually, he did.
The two senators are independent of population. That was a compromise, maintaining a democratic government through proportional representation in the House, while retaining the rights of each separate state. While it is possible to change the electoral college to make it more equitable, giving each voter an equal say in electing a president, I do not see how, short of greatly enlarging the House, that one could do it for representative districts. How would you do that?
If you think that some voters should have a larger say in who becomes president than other voters. That doesn't seem fair to me.
I've been looking through notes and documents, and I don't see it. What do you have?
But for you to call them ignorant if they hadn't anticipated this problem is absurd.
Is it in the Constitution?
The US has an unusual history, in that it is a federation of independent states. Both the electoral college and the makeup of the Senate reflect this.
It may be interesting to compare this system to other countries. Here (Israel) we have a more direct democracy. We have about a dozen parties, some of which represent fairly small groups. The advantage is that more types of people get represented. There are parties that represent different economic, political, religious or ethnic views. The price is the difficulty in putting together a coalition after the election.
It may be interesting to compare this system to other countries. Here (Israel) we have a more direct democracy. We have about a dozen parties, some of which represent fairly small groups. The advantage is that more types of people get represented. There are parties that represent different economic, political, religious or ethnic views. The price is the difficulty in putting together a coalition after the election.
Kit the Coyote
New member
It was established in the Constitution Article 2, Section 1
The process was changed in the 12th Amendment.
The founders were leery of pure democracy and felt that direct election of the president by popular vote would wind up with populist presidents who were beholden to the ever-changing winds of popular opinion instead of reasoned leadership. The alternatives debated was having the state legislatures choose a president or the Congress but they then felt that the president would then be too beholden to the states or Congress respectively. So they eventually settled on letting the states choose how to choose the president with the electoral college as a method to add a layer of separation.
The states subsequently moved as close as they could in this system to a popular election of the president and we are seeing just the effects from that the founders feared.