Electoral college?

[Gene&Mary]

Regarding the discussions around whether or not your vote counts in the presidential election, it is everyone's civil duty and responsibility to vote. Anyone who chooses to not vote doesn't deserve a seat at the table.

It is interesting that one of the unintended (and good) consequences of such an interest in the election and such a high turnout is that topics such as the electoral college, minority rule, the differences between the House and the Senate, gerrymandering, and the importance of controlling state legislatures is being discussed and debated much more.

Its too bad that civics is not being taught in high school anymore........and gym.

 

[hardee]

Regarding the discussions around whether or not your vote counts in the presidential election, it is everyone's civil duty and responsibility to vote. Anyone who chooses to not vote doesn't deserve a seat at the table.

It is interesting that one of the unintended (and good) consequences of such an interest in the election and such a high turnout is that topics such as the electoral college, minority rule, the differences between the House and the Senate, gerrymandering, and the importance of controlling state legislatures is being discussed and debated much more.

Its too bad that civics is not being taught in high school anymore........and gym.

:thup :thup

My Vote: Toss the EC and use the popular vote. Might get more folks out to vote as they would feel that their vote counts.

I vote, but I have to say that there are times when I have felt it was useless.

And while we are on the subject, Here is another issue (Caution possible Hyjack in progress -- sorry!) The voting should start and end at the same time all across the country not time zoned. Give them 48 hours to vote, mail in whould have to be in the counting booth by the end of the 48 hours. Keep out the projections, and exit polls. Give us a true, media blank for 48 hours, then let them count and report the outcome.

Now back to the regular and useful programing.

Harvey
SleepyC:moon

 

[Molly Brown]

Using the popular vote is nothing more than mob rule. Your individual vote is an indication of your personal preference, but it never has been what elects presidents. The electoral college is in place to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If you are a majority, over time you will become a minority. History is full of such examples, all failed societies. I do agree with Harvey on set, time restricted vote counts. With 50 different sets of rules on how and when the votes can be counted, it causes needless delays and fosters conspiracy theories, ill will and dissent.

James

 

[Gene&Mary]

and limit the time our elected officials can campaign. Seem like half or more of their time is trying to get re-elected and fishing for campaign donations.

 

[dotnmarty]

Its too bad that civics is not being taught in high school anymore........and gym.

Now, I do agree with that. It was in Miss Harden's class called "Problems of American Democracy" in 1952 where I voted for Dwight David Eisenhower, the last republican I ever voted for. (I have always been impressed with high ranking officers that wear just one row of ribbons).
Believe it or not, that's all I have to say about that. Now back to finding out how Colby resolves his dual helm problem.

 

[Anita Marie]

Funny how folks say they just want to talk about boats and boating but has to get in one more snarky comment on the way out.
This is a boating site and the only rule is be nice so how about it.

 

[Foggy]

Of course.

Some of us have it all figured out.

Question.

How can we know truth when we live in an illusion?

Aye.
Boat more. Talk less.

 

[smckean (Tosca)]

The electoral college is in place to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Unfortunately, the effects of the EC are not limited to protecting the minority; indeed the EC may have the opposite effect!

First off, remember that the only purpose of the EC is to elect a President. The EC system does not create legislation, administer laws, dispense justice, or do any of the million other things we need government to do. The EC has only one purpose.....it is a process to choose the President. It's not hard to see that the EC does a poor job of doing that task. In the 3 most recent non-incumbent elections, the process has given the Presidency to the candidate with the fewer votes more times than it has not (2000, 2016).

Frankly, I can't see how awarding the Presidency to the candidate with the fewer votes protects a minority. If anything, it often puts the minority in power.

 

[westward]

How can we know truth when we live in an illusion?

The answer to that question is probably the magic key to life :wink:

 

[ssobol]

... How can we know truth when we live in an illusion?
...

Even if we do, does it make any difference? If you can't tell the illusion from reality, then the illusion is reality.

It's how magic tricks work.

 

[krc]

So what would be your response to a conservative voter in my state of Washington?

Push for splitting the electoral vote of your state by popular vote. Sure, it won't be quite perfectly exact as I don't think you can do fractional electors, but it is close enough. And, again, way easier to do than anything anyone else has mentioned on this thread. That is why I bring it up - everyone gets exasperated as supposedly this can't be changed - when it can. State legislature decides how the electors are selected and deference is given to the states in this area.

Just need folks who are actually committed to represent ing ALL the views of the state population, verse parties seeking advantage - whether or not one party is dominate.

Happy boating! I hope to get out on Veteran's day tomorrow for some Delta stripers!

 

[krc]

How can we know truth when we live in an illusion?

.

Red pill or Blue pill.

 

[garyf]

Frankly, I can't see how awarding the Presidency to the candidate with the fewer votes protects a minority. If anything, it often puts the minority in power.

IMHO, the point of the EC is to give the states some measure of representation in the process of picking a president. In the times the President is picked while losing the popular vote, the President won the vast majority of states, so it shows (to me) that it works, not that it's a failure. And since this time around it appears (so far) that the winner took both the EC and the popular vote, it's obviously possible to do that as well. The president's party has been bouncing back and forth as you'd expect with a reasonably fair system. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I bet Harry Reid wishes he didn't remove the super majority requirement for court picks. Just my humble opinion.

 

[garyf]

Push for splitting the electoral vote of your state by popular vote. Sure, it won't be quite perfectly exact as I don't think you can do fractional electors, but it is close enough.

It's an interesting thought... and maybe since the granularity of EC chunks would still be fairly large, it might not "break things" as much as a straight popular vote across the nation. IDK. First off, I can't imagine CA or NY ever agreeing to the change. If only conservative states did it (for example), they'd be hoodwinked into possibly giving up some of their EC power. Tough call.

 

[Gene&Mary]

Another possibility which is already in progress is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The NPVIC is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As of November 2020, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. These states have 196 electoral votes, which is 36% of the Electoral College and 73% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force. The NPVIC is pending in the legislatures of states with another 60 electoral votes....not quite enough yet to reach 270 electoral votes but getting closer.

 

[colbysmith]

IMHO, the point of the EC is to give the states some measure of representation in the process of picking a president. In the times the President is picked while losing the popular vote, the President won the vast majority of states, so it shows (to me) that it works, not that it's a failure. And since this time around it appears (so far) that the winner took both the EC and the popular vote, it's obviously possible to do that as well. The president's party has been bouncing back and forth as you'd expect with a reasonably fair system. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I bet Harry Reid wishes he didn't remove the super majority requirement for court picks. Just my humble opinion.

I guess it boils down to this. Do we want a president chosen by the people, regardless which state they live in, or do we want a president that is chosen by the states. If it's by the states, then why bother with the presidential election by the people anyway. Just let each state's legislature elect the president. I think we can still have a democratic republic while allowing each individual person's vote to count, regardless which state they chose to live in. Honoring the Electorial College is nothing more than ancestry worship, sort of like daylight's saving time. It had it's purpose at one time, but the times have changed and it's no longer necessary or needed. JMHO. Colby

 

[smckean (Tosca)]

First off....right on colbysmith!

Push for splitting the electoral vote of your state by popular vote.

Yes, that could be done if all the state legislatures did that, but it might be a fragile arrangement because what would happen if just 1 state in some election subsequent to this 50 state agreement decided at the last minute to go back to the old way (especially if their purpose in doing so were to swing the election). Chaos would ensue.

Besides, if every state decided to split their EC votes according to statewide voting percentage, that would mathematically be the same thing as electing by the national popular vote. Note I didn't say "exactly the same" because of the "rounding error" problem already mentioned, and a system of splitting the EC votes would still give the low population states an advantage over the high population states (since a voter in states like Wyoming would still have 3 times the clout of a voter in a state like California).

 

[cmetzenberg]

Man, I wish y'all wouldn't talk politics on here.

 

[dotnmarty]

Man, I wish y'all wouldn't talk politics on here.

Lots of people feel as you do . I am not one of them. But I do think, however, when a thread veers into politics it should be moved to the "that's life" forum.

 

[westward]

Conrad:

If you see a thread with a title like "electoral college", or "please vote", couldn't you choose not to click on it?

I personally enjoy some of these on this forum because of the relatively high level of restraint, respect, and reason demonstrated by C-Brats, including those I might disagree with. When it starts to get heated or personal I just stop reading.

Just a thought, sent with respect.