Reevaluating the Electoral College

[mystery-ak]

Reevaluating the Electoral College
By Joshua Rabotnick February 22, 2019



With politicians beginning to announce their candidacies for the 2020 presidential race, the topic of the Electoral College is once again emerging to the forefront of American politics. Since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 presidential election with 2.9 million more votes than Donald Trump, and Al Gore lost the 2000 election despite outpacing George Bush by half a million votes, little has had a greater effect on the presidency in modern times than the institution of the Electoral College.

At the founding of the United States, there was plenty of controversy regarding the means by which the president would be elected. Many thought that Congress should elect the president directly, although others feared that such an establishment would give Congress a tyrannical degree of power. James Madison worried extensively about a true democratic election, fearing that the masses would vote to elect men who would encroach on the constitutional rights of other citizens in the name of the public good (an eerie thought in light of Senator Bernie Sanders’ recent announcement of his second presidential bid).

With a term later popularized by Alexis de Tocqueville as “tyranny of the majority,” the Founders sought to develop a system in which a small body of well-informed, educated, and passionate citizens would themselves elect the next president of the United States who would best represent the interests of the nation. In 1787, James Wilson created the Electoral College we know today which is enshrined in Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution; however, the college today is effectively just a shell of the founder’s original intent, with most electors being legally bound to vote in direct accordance with the popular vote.

more
https://pjmedia.com/trending/reevaluating-the-electoral-college/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Excerpt:

but one must also recognize the frustration of the Left after losing an election they otherwise had the votes to win (for the second time in two decades) in a country founded on rebellion from being governed without proper representation.

The election of a President was never about the national popular vote, even if the electoral college did not exist.

It is about the election of a President by the voters in individual states.

That is a big difference.

[bilo]

a term later popularized by Alexis de Tocqueville as “tyranny of the majority,”

IOW, 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

[Fishrrman]

Actually, I think it -is- time to reconsider how the Electoral College should operate. But this doesn't mean abolishing it.

Rather, I believe it should be revised (by Constitutional Amendment) to work the way it works in Maine and Nebraska.

In those states, electoral votes are won by the votes of each Congressional District (rather than a "winner-take-all" scenario).

Yes, the Pubbies would take a hit in Texas, but they would also pick up elsewhere. I believe things would even out to "more than favorable" towards Republicans than the current system works today.

The Republicans should push this as alternative to the "National Popular Vote" laws that are being passed in the blue states.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Actually, I think it -is- time to reconsider how the Electoral College should operate. But this doesn't mean abolishing it.

Rather, I believe it should be revised (by Constitutional Amendment) to work the way it works in Maine and Nebraska.

In those states, electoral votes are won by the votes of each Congressional District (rather than a "winner-take-all" scenario).

Yes, the Pubbies would take a hit in Texas, but they would also pick up elsewhere. I believe things would even out to "more than favorable" towards Republicans than the current system works today.

The Republicans should push this as alternative to the "National Popular Vote" laws that are being passed in the blue states.

The problem in the article I saw mentioned was more of that the Electoral College voted for the President, not the people themselves.

What you are describing does not change that, if I read your comment correctly.

[txradioguy]

a term later popularized by Alexis de Tocqueville as “tyranny of the majority,”

IOW, 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner.

That's why the left wants.  And unless people wake up...especially people on the right who might for some uneducated reasons support abolishing the EC...we're going to have a handful of cities in the deepest of blue states on the East and West Coast dictate to the rest of the country how things are gonna go.

The EC needs to stay...it needs to be defended and people need to be educated about it's true purpose.

[txradioguy]

IMHO most of the people calling for the abolishment of the EC are also the ones that refer to our country as a Democracy...instead of what it really is...a Representative Republic.  They fail to see how the EC is integral to the "representative" part.

[Wingnut]

I beg to ask the question...Would the EC need "reevaulation" had the failed Democrat candidates won in the same fashion?

[txradioguy]

I beg to ask the question...Would the EC need "reevaulation" had the failed Democrat candidates won in the same fashion?

Nope.  It was never an issue with Billy Jeff...and any talk of abolishing the EC disappeared for 8 soild years under Big Ears.

[Cyber Liberty]

Actually, I think it -is- time to reconsider how the Electoral College should operate. But this doesn't mean abolishing it.

Rather, I believe it should be revised (by Constitutional Amendment) to work the way it works in Maine and Nebraska.

In those states, electoral votes are won by the votes of each Congressional District (rather than a "winner-take-all" scenario).

Yes, the Pubbies would take a hit in Texas, but they would also pick up elsewhere. I believe things would even out to "more than favorable" towards Republicans than the current system works today.

The Republicans should push this as alternative to the "National Popular Vote" laws that are being passed in the blue states.

I've always preferred keeping the EC the way it is.  If Maine wants to split their EC votes, that's there business.  I think a President should be the President of the 50 States, and not be allowed to ignore flyover country.

The big problem I have with this NPV movement is, the State will have an election, then ignore the votes in favor of votes cast in another State.  Sounds like a violation of Equal Protection.

[txradioguy]

I've always preferred keeping the EC the way it is.  If Maine wants to split their EC votes, that's there business.  I think a President should be the President of the 50 States, and not be allowed to ignore flyover country.

The big problem I have with this NPV movement is, the State will have an election, then ignore the votes in favor of votes cast in another State.  Sounds like a violation of Equal Protection.

Not to mention it's voter nullification.  I may not vote for the person who wins the popular vote in another state.  But if the state I'm in adopts NPV...the person I'm voting against in MY state gets the EC votes because of some stupid political arrangement they've made with California or New Jersey.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not to mention it's voter nullification.  I may not vote for the person who wins the popular vote in another state.  But if the state I'm in adopts NPV...the person I'm voting against in MY state gets the EC votes because of some stupid political arrangement they've made with California or New Jersey.

I'm sure a lawyer that loves the idea, because Hillary and Gore, will come along and assure us this scheme doesn't violate the Equal Protection clause because of an obscure SCOTUS case a century ago.

ETA:  States will refuse to release the vote counts, so you won't know if your vote was nullified or not, to avoid pesky lawsuits.

[Bill Cipher]

I've always preferred keeping the EC the way it is.  If Maine wants to split their EC votes, that's there business.  I think a President should be the President of the 50 States, and not be allowed to ignore flyover country.

The big problem I have with this NPV movement is, the State will have an election, then ignore the votes in favor of votes cast in another State.  Sounds like a violation of Equal Protection.

How is that a violation of equal protection, since the Constitution expressly grants the power to the state legislatures to come up with their own mechanisms for choosing electors?

[Wingnut]

How is that a violation of equal protection, since the Constitution expressly grants the power to the state legislatures to come up with their own mechanisms for choosing electors?

Oh shit here we go.  The liberal lawyer in you really is annoying.

[Bill Cipher]

Oh shit here we go.  The liberal lawyer in you really is annoying.

And again, here come the personal attacks.  And I’m not even a lawyer. 

Seems to me it’s a pretty simple question. 

[Wingnut]

And again, here come the personal attacks.  And I’m not even a lawyer. 

Seems to me it’s a pretty simple question.

Oh give it up.  We have history.  It was fine when we hated Trump. 

[Bill Cipher]

Oh give it up.  We have history.  It was fine when we hated Trump. 

Huh?

[DCPatriot]

And again, here come the personal attacks.  And I’m not even a lawyer. 

Bullshit.

[Bill Cipher]

Bullshit.

Which part, pray tell?

[Wingnut]

Huh?

A 36 month posting absence....  Must have had amnesia

[Bill Cipher]

A 36 month posting absence....  Must have had amnesia

Again, “huh?”

[Wingnut]

Again, “huh?”

Run for cover.   

[Cyber Liberty]

@The Ghost Toldja.   

[Wingnut]

@The Ghost Toldja.   

@Cyber Liberty   I was born at night.  But not last night.

[Fishrrman]

Cyber wrote:
"The big problem I have with this NPV movement is, the State will have an election, then ignore the votes in favor of votes cast in another State.  Sounds like a violation of Equal Protection."

It is, and will be found to be so if and when the Constitutionality of this pact reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.