This is a terrible idea and is exactly what democrats want. Eliminating the electoral college turns the USA into a pure, majority rules democracy in lieu of a republic. It would only result in the large-population democrat cities and states deciding every election, in effect, turning the USA into a one-party dictatorship.
3 Likes
We are a Republic, not a democracy.
The Electoral College system makes things fair.
3 Likes
No. Read the constitution.
6 Likes
Any solution proposed which undermines the US Constitution is NOT acceptable to common sense citizens! The Electoral College must stay to respect each state’s wishes in the voting process!
4 Likes
If you believe that minority populations in the US should have a voice, then you should 100% support the EC. To dissolve the EC would give the majority the power to trample upon the rights and privileges of the minority. My favorite aphorism to this point is: “Two wolves and a sheep voting to determine what to have for dinner”.
7 Likes
We already have enough distrust in elections. The electoral college limits the impact of cheat to only the delegates of the single state. Without it, cheating in one state could easily marginalize the votes in another state.
Also, the U.S. is not a democracy. Democracy is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Article 4 Section 4 guarantees a “Republican Form of Government”. It’s what protects us from the “tyranny of the majority”.
4 Likes
I would rather see electors be able to vote per district instead of state. So it wasn’t all or nothing for each state.
4 Likes
Absolutely not. This moves in entirely the wrong direction and grants power in your local community to the masses elsewhere in the country. The issue with the electoral college is that there is too much power at the federal level. When power is returned to the states, federal elections become less significant and you don’t feel powerless in the face of the electoral college. Elected politicians with actual power over your daily life become easier to access as the are situated in your community and not in Washington DC.
One state today is essentially the size of the entire US at the time of the framing of the constitution. If we wanted to see the system work as designed, we should really have almost all power at the state level and an electoral system within states at the county level. Direct democracy only within your specific community where you both feel the entirty of the policies you vote for and elected politicians are directly confrontable by their constituents.
3 Likes
So here’s what I agree with you on, the electoral college promotes focus on only specific states. You’ve done well in explaining why and I’m with you there. However I disagree hard on eliminating the electoral college and I think your argument is a little flawed on why.
So first off stating a vote in Wyoming weighs more than California I disagree because nobody caters or tries hard to win Wyoming over as a state because it’s only worth 3 electoral votes. Who cares right? California is worth 54 and you only need 270 to win, that’s 1/5th of the election is won right there from 1 of the 50 states so I think it’s backwards; a vote in California weighs more than a vote in Wyoming. I think that’s also why some of these states stay small and haven’t flourished like some of the other states because they’re lost and forgotten. There’s no incentive to improve them or cater to them because they don’t win you anything.
The problem with popular vote is the “mob rule” problem with democracy. It’s THE REASON we don’t have a pure strict democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. History will educate you on why mob rule is bad. Our founding fathers knew this in the 1700s. The president has to represent the states and not just the people. Some states have different needs/cultures/values/opportunities etc so if we made it all based on mob rule then your issue with swing states being the center of attention would just shift to the states with the biggest cities IE Cali, NY, TX etc. It would also defeat the purpose of having states in the first place, the point of this country is to be able to live in a state where your values are shared no matter what they are(within reason). Obviously some laws/values are universal like don’t kill, freedom of speech etc, but other laws should be left to the states based off the topics I listed earlier, culture/values/opportunities etc. That way each state can do the best job possible to cater to it’s resident’s way of life otherwise you deal with making laws that might do well in NY but do awful and cause harm to those in WY. See what I’m saying?
I can agree on the electoral college discouraging voter participation because people will know popular vote doesn’t matter and their state will most likely go the same way it did last year, hence why bother. However what about those small states? Even if they go the same way as well, their vote REALLY doesn’t matter because winning WY only accounts for 1% of the election. That’s not right.
It would make more sense for each state to only account for one electoral vote, that way each state got equal representation. Otherwise NY is essentially drowning out the votes of every state NE of PA which is nonsense. Again the presidential election is winning over the states. If it was a popular vote contest only then why bother to have states to begin with, might as just remove the idea of having 50 states and we’re just one big country like France or Spain.
1 Like
bingo. this post just bypasses the constitution lol
1 Like
People in solid blue/red states should still be voting because of the local elections. But if you really want the fairest compromise (electoral college gives “too much power to swing states” neglecting others / popular vote gives too much power to CA and NY), just make it a congressional district system ala Nebraska and Maine with the overall state winner receiving another 2 votes. Now every state still has a say but the candidates will also be flying to every state as well.
2 Likes
One interesting proposal is to have the appointment of the district judges to be ratified by thee state legislators in the affected area. I don’t think it is posible to get the people to give up voting for the senaatorsbut, if we could bring back to the state legislators the power that their senators had it might be an interesting work around
The electoral college was a brilliant hedge against “mob rule” by the founders.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
4 Likes
the Federalist papers are your best source of insight to the origins and thoughts of the processes put in place regarding the Constitution. See pg 68 @ The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68 for more info
/ninja edit, I linked 76, not 68.
4 Likes
No, they would be robbed of all power. one group in the country would overrule the rest, it would be a giant step in placing a “King” into power. Please see the federalist pg 68 The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68
4 Likes
Also Heritage has a great primer. https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-electoral-college/origins-the-electoral-college
4 Likes
This discussion is pointless as there is no way that the legislators in 36 states will approve it. End of discussion
3 Likes
I could agree with this with one caveat: The combined power of the states must be available to prevent armed takeover of the USA. One thing the founders feared was if we were only the several states then (in those years) Britain or France or Spain could attack one state and the rest of the states would not interfere. As a united group we are much stronger than if alone.
Absolutely disagree!!
2 Likes
Ranked choice voting is a sort of popular vote, and it should be illegal. So I disagree, we need the electoral college. I do not want New York in California deciding for me
4 Likes