Given that Trump lost the popular vote is it still time to do away with the Electoral College?

[Zippyjuan]

Would you feel "put on" if my scenario was the case?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Would you feel "put on" if my scenario was the case?

Michael Moore feels put-upon. If Hillary would have won, someone "on the other side" would have made similar comments. My question remains, why do folks feel it's perfectly fine to impose their views on others when they don't like it when others impose their views on them? What's the logical disconnect there?

You jumped in, so answer it.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I can't say what Michael Moore might feel. But saying that what the majority voted for does not matter is imposing a minority opinion on the majority.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I can't say what Michael Moore might feel. But saying that what the majority voted for does not matter is imposing a minority opinion on the majority.

My question has nothing to do with majorities and minorities.

 

[69360]

I honestly don't care either way. If we go to direct democracy it would be ok.

 

[EBounding]

Yes, voting for people who vote for us, has done a great job, at protecting the minority

Think how much better it would be, if we voted for people, who voted for people, who vote for us.

We could save the Republic.

We do that at precinct delegate conventions!

 

[Makes Interesting Points]

The more times that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the election, the more likely we are to get rid of the electoral college.

Everybody's vote should have an impact on the election. A conservative in California shouldn't have to live their whole life without their vote ever mattering.

The only disadvantage to a pure popular vote General Election is that it would make the election easier to rig. Say a future corrupt government wanted a certain candidate to win. They could just pump votes into the popular vote, and it would be harder to see where the votes are coming from. They could get the media to stop showing each state's results, so that people can't see which states the rigging is coming from (a state that is voting much differently than usual would be suspicious). But I still think getting rid of the Electoral College would be worth the risk of rigging.

 

[MelissaWV]

If a majority choose one thing and are forced to accept a different thing, who is doing the imposing? We could have been saved the disasterous George W. Bush and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Don't know if Gore would have been that great either- another election with two bad options).

The majority of the US population didn't choose Hillary. The majority of voters whose votes have been counted thus far the first time through have chosen Hillary. There are well over 300,000,000 people in the country, of which close to 60,000,000 voted for her. That is not an actual majority. Before you start picking apart the population and pointing out those that "don't count" (convicted felons, people too young to vote, residents of territories), those same people must abide by the mountain of laws or face consequences, too. They are the very definition of being forced to accept things others vote for.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The majority of the US population didn't choose Hillary. The majority of voters whose votes have been counted thus far the first time through have chosen Hillary. There are well over 300,000,000 people in the country, of which close to 60,000,000 voted for her. That is not an actual majority. Before you start picking apart the population and pointing out those that "don't count" (convicted felons, people too young to vote, residents of territories), those same people must abide by the mountain of laws or face consequences, too. They are the very definition of being forced to accept things others vote for.

If you want to go that way, Trump received 59.6 million votes out of 330 million people or in other words, he was elected by less than 18% of the population. You are right, that is not a majority. It wasn't even a majority of those who DID cast ballots. Clinton had more of those- and she had a plurality- not a majority herself (less than 50%). I voted- but not for either one of them.

 

[MelissaWV]

The more times that a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the election, the more likely we are to get rid of the electoral college.

Everybody's vote should have an impact on the election. A conservative in California shouldn't have to live their whole life without their vote ever mattering.

The only disadvantage to a pure popular vote General Election is that it would make the election easier to rig. Say a future corrupt government wanted a certain candidate to win. They could just pump votes into the popular vote, and it would be harder to see where the votes are coming from. They could get the media to stop showing each state's results, so that people can't see which states the rigging is coming from (a state that is voting much differently than usual would be suspicious). But I still think getting rid of the Electoral College would be worth the risk of rigging.

There is middle ground, and some states already avoid the "winner take all" model. You could have the vote counted by Congressional district, though gerrymandering would become even more of an issue in that case. You could have it be proportional. You could have the number of electoral college votes linked to something other than the number of Senators and Representatives (registered voters, for instance), but that would make the fraud-filled voter registries even more of an issue. You could have several votes, eliminating the primaries altogether, and making it more of a playoff system (but without divisions) where after each round the lowest vote-getters go away and everyone revotes. Come to think of it, that sounds like American Idol so scratch that. You could go back to multiple candidates and the 2nd place finisher becoming VP, though that would lead to a record number of assassination attempts on BOTH offices. You could do the "property owners only" thing, though I'm not in favor of that one. There's oodles of things you can do to fix it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Would you feel the same if it was Rand (or Ron) Paul who won the popular vote and Clinton won the Electoral College?

Yes. 1000x all day every day YES. The electoral college is the only reason America is not already a smoking crater.

 

[MelissaWV]

If you want to go that way, Trump received 59.6 million votes out of 330 million people or in other words, he was elected by less than 18% of the population. You are right, that is not a majority. It wasn't even a majority of those who DID cast ballots. I voted- but not for either one of them.

I understand that he didn't get a majority, either. I just think it's being utterly misused by everyone. Hillary has so far won the popular vote, but the time to whine about the EC and do something about it passed ages ago. The same would be true if it were Rand or Donald or God in this situation, though I'm pretty sure God could fix it.

 

[Zippyjuan]

You could go back to multiple candidates and the 2nd place finisher becoming VP, though that would lead to a record number of assassination attempts on BOTH offices.

VP used to go to the second place finisher. That was changed in 1804. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smith...econd-place-ask-smithsonian-180957199/?no-ist

 

[ChaosControl]

May as well. It is pointless.
People argue they will only campaign in cities if they got rid of it. People say the small rural states would have no say. The thing is as of now only swing states have any say anyway. If you dont like in one of the handful of states like Florida or Ohio your vote for president doesnt matter. All the electoral collage does is allow for a different kind of campaign strategy. It serves little to protect the republic or anything like that. I would be more favorable of it if more states were swing states.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Yes. 1000x all day every day YES. The electoral college is the only reason America is not already a smoking crater.

It works great when the same person wins both (which is most of the time). It causes confusion when it is split (which seems to be happening more often these days). The politicians are handling it better than their supporters with polite concessions to the winner. These are the rules we operate under.

 

[MelissaWV]

VP used to go to the second place finisher. That was changed in 1804. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smith...econd-place-ask-smithsonian-180957199/?no-ist

You are agreeing with me. I said we could go back to it.

 

[Sumthinorother]

What about "winner takes all"?

Why are all of CA's electoral votes (for example) going to one candidate when 35% of the residents voted for the rival.

The idea is to balance a representation of the people with a representation of the states kind of like having a senate in addition to a house of representatives was supposed to do.

I know you just randomly picked a state for your example, but the places where you could argue that it fails is where the vote was really close like so many states were this time. MI is regarded as having voted Chump and NH Killary, for instance, when both states were nearly equally split between the two.

The electoral college should be proportional. If a Candidate has won 75% or higher then that candidate will take all of the electoral votes.

This would have amounted to following the popular vote here (well, except for DC). If something like that was to be done, I think the threshold should be lower.

BUT, IF we were going to change the system, based on what I was describing above, maybe the criteria for taking a state shouldn't be based on the candidate with the most votes reaching a certain threshold, but the difference between the top 2 reaching a certain threshold.

Like say one candidate had 48% and the next closest candidate got only 20%. I'd say that in that case that you can say still that that state went for the candidate with 48%.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

If Ron Paul won the popular vote but lost the EC vote, I would say, "Well, that sucks, I guess we should have run a campaign with a broader geographical appeal, but clearly our ideas are catching on now, so it's only a matter of time before we win."

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It works great when the same person wins both (which is most of the time). It causes confusion when it is split (which seems to be happening more often these days). The politicians are handling it better than their supporters with polite concessions to the winner. These are the rules we operate under.

No confusion. If you do not have broad geographic appeal then you lose. As designed.

 

[Scott_in_PA]

This thread is just WRONG.

We are a collection of States that formed a Union.

We are not a democracy.

The citizens of each state vote to determine their state winner.

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html


A popular vote gives too much power to a few states.

population of

California - ~39 million - ~11% of the 50 state population

NY - ~20 Million - ~5.5% of the 50 state population

Texas - ~27 Million - ~7.5% of the 50 state population

The three states above have ~24% of the population.

Why would we give any state or group of state that much control over these United States ?

And as to that tweet....I voted for Ron Paul....Trump is the same as it ever was.