Hillary Wants To Abolish The Electoral College. Is There An In-Between Solution?

philibusters

Active Member
The thing is that we have changed the Constitution many times. Why do you believe that it is unrealistic to imagine another change?

Because 3/4ths of the states need to agree and enough small states are clear losers by changing the rule that its unlikely they would agree. Most other amendments don't directly favor some states over others.
 
Last edited:

philibusters

Active Member
Why? I think the electoral system is brilliant - it allows each state, no matter how small, to be represented, and it is crafted in such a way that more populous states have more representatives to keep within the theory of democracy.

If I were to recraft it, I'd go a step further. I'd make it so each state's electoral votes are awarded by voting district and not winner take all. For example, here in Maryland it's three or four districts that decide our elections, effectively leaving everyone else out of the democratic process. Voters in Baltimore and Montgomery County do not have the same interests as western Maryland and Eastern Shore, and yet they are the ones who decide our elections. That's neither fair, nor is it democratic.

But that makes the system worse. I think Republicans would have won have every election since 1996 if that method was used despite the fact that Obama beat McCain by 8% in 2008. The rest of the world uses one person one vote. What is wrong with that?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
A vote is a vote. Why should a vote in Wyoming and Montana count more than a vote in California. Is a Wyoming person inherently superior to a person in New York or California.

The rest of the civilized world follows the one person one vote method, yet its a "far left socalist" thing. Come on now. You like it because it benefits the politicians you like. You can cite other reasons, but one person one vote is a much simpler cleaner rule that better comports to the equality standards society promotes.
Utter baloney. The EC still serves exactly the purpose it was originally set up for and it does it pretty well. End of story.

Other governments are different in form than ours...most of them far different.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet
Friday, March 14, 1788.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. [1] I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best," yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.

The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

PUBLIUS.

1. Vide FEDERAL FARMER.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
A vote is a vote. Why should a vote in Wyoming and Montana count more than a vote in California. Is a Wyoming person inherently superior to a person in New York or California.

Utter baloney. The EC still serves exactly the purpose it was originally set up for and it does it pretty well. End of story.



why should the Country be run by the majority populations of both coasts ... people in Montana or Wyoming vote not count :shrug:
because that is whats happening in a one person = one vote situation .... California and NY would Rule the Country.

when the country was founded - no one wanted Virginia running the country so the electoral college was invented
 

philibusters

Active Member
Utter baloney. The EC still serves exactly the purpose it was originally set up for and it does it pretty well. End of story.

Other governments are different in form than ours...most of them far different.


Why is our gov't far different from theirs. Are we not talking about representative democracies all around? As conservatives know, states have lost influence. If the purpose of the electoral college was to keep a state like Virginia from dominating the gov't haven't the circumstances charged a lot. Whereas there were 13 states in 1789 there are 50 now. Whereas the most populous state Virginia had 19.1% of the population in 1790 the most populous state now California has 10.9% of the population. Whereas in 1790 the fear was that all state representatives would act together as a bloc, we now have parties that politicians give greater loyalty to than their state. We are not worrying about California and New York making an alliance with Texas to control the gov't, because politicians owe their political loyal to national parties.

To me its simple. If I was re-writing the system, one person, one vote. Everybody's vote counts the same. One person's vote doesn't count more just because of where they happen to live than another person's vote. Would it be fair for example if white people's vote counted for 1.5 whereas all other races only got .5 votes, or if people with PhD got to count their vote for 1.3 times the amount of a normal vote. To me, weighing some people's vote more than others just on where they live is just as random. Like I said, I don't think the system will ever be changed because if you are a small state you have nothing to gain by changing the current system, but I don't think its idea.
 

philibusters

Active Member
why should the Country be run by the majority populations of both coasts ... people in Montana or Wyoming vote not count :shrug:
because that is whats happening in a one person = one vote situation .... California and NY would Rule the Country.

when the country was founded - no one wanted Virginia running the country so the electoral college was invented

Why should the country be run by a MINORITY of the population between the coasts? They don't even make a majority of the population?
 

philibusters

Active Member
The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet
Friday, March 14, 1788.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:...

Here is the thing about the long piece you quoted from Hamilton. You probably don't even agree with its reasoning. I read the first few paragraphs and he is saying that a small group of elites should cast each states electorals, not the people of the state. Basically he is saying the people of the state elector the electoral voters and the electoral voters are free to make up their mind on how to cast their vote regardless of how the people voted in the state. This was before the first elections, so Hamilton was imagining the system working a bit differently than it ended up working as he probably thought the states would split their electoral votes and what not.

Isn't this just further proof that things have changed so much from how the founders envisioned them working that an idea system, we just take out all their needless complications?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Why should the country be run by a MINORITY of the population between the coasts? They don't even make a majority of the population?

Because that "bloc" that makes up the difference that creates that majority is nearly monolithic. Without the protections built in by the EC, a bunch of incompetent far-left liberals could effectively dominate the politics of the country much as they dominate the politics in - thankfully- only a few (pretty much financially devastated) states now.
 

philibusters

Active Member
I cannot think of another country with a government structured like ours.

My point is that the basics of our gov't is the same as other countries. We are a democracy but not a direct democracy. We elect representatives who represent a certain number of people in a legislature. Our legislative branch is pretty similar to others in the basics. A lot of other countries have the same basic Executive, Legislative, and Judicial balance of power. From a distance there are a lot of other countries similar to us.

When you look closely you can find a lot of differences. But here I think that is circular reasoning. For example you can say there is no country with an electoral college like ours which makes our gov't different and because our gov't is different we need the electoral college---but if you cited the electoral college as a reason why its different than that circular reasoning.
 

philibusters

Active Member
Because that "bloc" that makes up the difference that creates that majority is nearly monolithic. Without the protections built in by the EC, a bunch of incompetent far-left liberals could effectively dominate the politics of the country much as they dominate the politics in - thankfully- only a few (pretty much financially devastated) states now.

To Democrats the block that makes up the middle is monolithic. To liberals, the EC is enabling a bunch of incompetent right wingers to control the politics of the country. Hillary beat Trump by 2% in the overall voting but loses to Trump. Republicans get 52% of the votes casted total in House races but get 57% of the seats in the house. To liberals Trump is an incompetent. And judging from this board, to both liberals and conservatives, the Republican House is incompetent. Everything you fear happening to conservatives is actually happening to liberals.

Further, why would liberals dominate the government. If the President was elected using a straight popular vote, would the Republicans still have 57% of the House seats?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
To liberals, the EC is enabling a bunch of incompetent right wingers to control the politics of the country.

Except for the obvious fact that it is liberals that have run their respective cities and states in to the dirt, while successful cities and states are run by generally conservative Republicans.

Pesky facts.
 

philibusters

Active Member
I cannot think of another country with a government structured like ours. Electoral College completely aside.

How are we unique in any fundamental way. To me the fundamentals is that we are 1) representative democracy 2) with three branches of go and 3) who divides power between the national and the states. What am I am missing?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
How are we unique in any fundamental way. To me the fundamentals is that we are 1) representative democracy 2) with three branches of go and 3) who divides power between the national and the states. What am I am missing?

States...for starters.

The amusing part of all of this is that there is no way in hades that the EC is going away. So it's an academic argument anyway. ;-)
 

philibusters

Active Member
To liberals, the EC is enabling a bunch of incompetent right wingers to control the politics of the country. /QUOTE]

Except for the obvious fact that it is liberals that have run their respective cities and states in to the dirt, while successful cities and states are run by generally conservative Republicans.

Pesky facts.

That is not obvious to me. Isn't it true the people on the coasts are significantly wealthier? The average income in CA or NY probably significantly higher than the national average. Doesn't that mean they have better gov't.

In terms of this argument, I actually don't think its that simple, but I feel it can be factually defended that people in blue states tend to have more wealth---isn't that a sign of success. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Are not the poorest states with the most civil rights violations conservative states?--- Alabama, Mississippi, et cetera.
 

philibusters

Active Member
States...for starters.

The amusing part of all of this is that there is no way in hades that the EC is going away. So it's an academic argument anyway. ;-)

I stated that in my original post that everybody responded to. Its not politically feasible to do away with it. On this point we are in agreement!
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Why is our gov't far different from theirs. Are we not talking about representative democracies all around? As conservatives know, states have lost influence. If the purpose of the electoral college was to keep a state like Virginia from dominating the gov't haven't the circumstances charged a lot. Whereas there were 13 states in 1789 there are 50 now. Whereas the most populous state Virginia had 19.1% of the population in 1790 the most populous state now California has 10.9% of the population. Whereas in 1790 the fear was that all state representatives would act together as a bloc, we now have parties that politicians give greater loyalty to than their state. We are not worrying about California and New York making an alliance with Texas to control the gov't, because politicians owe their political loyal to national parties.

To me its simple. If I was re-writing the system, one person, one vote. Everybody's vote counts the same. One person's vote doesn't count more just because of where they happen to live than another person's vote. Would it be fair for example if white people's vote counted for 1.5 whereas all other races only got .5 votes, or if people with PhD got to count their vote for 1.3 times the amount of a normal vote. To me, weighing some people's vote more than others just on where they live is just as random. Like I said, I don't think the system will ever be changed because if you are a small state you have nothing to gain by changing the current system, but I don't think its idea.
Representative democracy is not what we have, it is a republic for a reason. Democracy is the omnipotent rule of the majority with little to no protection for the minority. Whereas a Republic imposes limits upon the majority with protection for the minority.
 

philibusters

Active Member
Representative democracy is not what we have, it is a republic for a reason. Democracy is the omnipotent rule of the majority with little to no protection for the minority. Whereas a Republic imposes limits upon the majority with protection for the minority.


I think you need to look up the definition of representative democracy and republic. They are not mutually exclusive.

It seems to me we are a representative democracy. We elect a President. We elect a Congress. We don't elect federal judges, but we are considered a representative democracy.

A republic is one a gov't where executives and legislators are appointed or elected rather than inherited. A representative democracy is a specific type of republic. They are not exclusive terms.
 
Top