The Electoral College is ripe for reform

Junkieturtle · Mar 11, 2024

The Electoral College is fine and nobody had a problem with it until Trump won.

This is NOT the way you prevent Donald Trump's from being elected. This is petty nonsense that's about as smart of an idea as expanding the supreme court was. The right may have a lot of self-serving ideas and seem to be prone to believing anything that some rich person who isn't from Hollywood tells them but the left has a monopoly on pure dumbness.

Darthcervantes · Mar 11, 2024

fmw said: ↑

Political hacks all want a one party system which is the worst possible system. That has been proven time and again.
Click to expand...

They might all WANT that but I only see one party actually making moves to push for that, for example, don't like your opponent? Take him off the ballot, and so on, etc, we see through all this crap man, see you election day!

Cybred · Mar 11, 2024

fmw said: ↑

Oh. You mean it is on the voters. I agree. However since I don't vote I am an exception to that. So "you" doesn't include me.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

fmw · Mar 11, 2024

Darthcervantes said: ↑

They might all WANT that but I only see one party actually making moves to push for that, for example, don't like your opponent? Take him off the ballot, and so on, etc, we see through all this crap man, see you election day!
Click to expand...

Democrats do politics better than republicans. The reason is that they don't value fair play. Politics is humanity at its worst and democrats are better at it.

fmw · Mar 11, 2024

Cybred said: ↑

Yes it does.
Click to expand...

Cryptic again. How can elections be on me if I don't vote?

modernpaladin · Mar 11, 2024

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑

The Electoral College was a great compromise between the balance of power between large and small states. It was negotiated at the ratification convention in 1787 and is now in the constitution. So, without an amendment, we have to live with it. What the framers were unable to foresee, was the emergence of two political spectrums, how they would congregate in rural versus urban and the eventual tendency for the electoral college, with greater frequency, allow the minority vote to win the presidency. I assure you, having a minority rule was never the intent of the framers (more on this below), They believed that the vote and the EC would coincide, and in fact it did, for many years to follow and even then, only once in the 19th century was there a disparity. Given this fact, clearly majority on both sides (EC and actual vote count) was the intent. But, in the last 2 decades, it's occurred twice. Writ large, the electoral system is ripe for reform.

Wikipedia on Federalist 10:

Madison's nationalist position shifted the debate increasingly away from a position of pure state sovereignty, and toward the compromise.[8] In a debate on June 26, he said that government ought to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and that unchecked, democratic communities were subject to "the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions".[9]

"Protect against' does not equal 'minority control'. Because, if that were true, then flip argument is just as valid, 'the government ought to protect the majority of the opulent against the minority'. IF one is true, then why not the other? "Why not the other' is far more relevant and applicable today when we are talking about voting blocks of some 65 million or so, as they exist today, but did not exist in the late 18th century.

In essence, the EC was a compromise between the idea of absolute state sovereignty and overreaching federal power. Please note that there is nothing sacred nor reverent about any compromise, as they are, in a sense, necessary and inescapable undesirables where both sides widely disagree on a policy. What "Publius" feared the most were unruly factions with narrow agendas in the electorate taking control. This is the 'mob rule' Republicans famously fear. The right seems to argue that 'mob rule' equals the majority, but that idea does not actually exist anywhere in the Federalist papers. There is NO INTENT nor mention by the framers that the minority, the smaller vote, is supposed to be victorious. The opposite is actually true.

Thing is, today, given the size of the electorate, many many millions more than existed when the Constitution was ratified, each party's vote tally in the neighborhood of some 65 million or so, each, so, if one is honest and looks at the current situation as it really is, both sides, dems and repubs, are a consortium of factions, or 'mobs', if you will. In short, mobs are all we have today, they cannot be avoided, EC or otherwise, so any argument for the EC which says 'the EC solves mob rule problem' is a moot argument.

That can't be valid argument for 3 reasons: 1. The framers never claimed 'mob rule' was minority rule. 2. EC was a way to bolster the voice of smaller states. "Bolster' doesn't equal 'dominance', it just means, made stronger against the bigger states, to diminish the larger states tendency to dominate. 3. Today 'making the voice of small states stronger' is a moot point given that the larger states are 20 times the size of smaller states, who, even after 'making their voices stronger' has little effect given the disparity of size differences compared to the size differences, which were much less, at the time the constitution was ratified. Moot. Capiche? As it it no longer works the way it was intended due to the tremendous size differences and the emergence of right v left politics and the shifting demographics between large and small states comparing now to yesteryear

I think the confusion on the right stems from their misinterpreting what the framers meant by their fear of the 'tyranny of the majority'. What they never did, was seek minority rule, but what they actually did was TEMPER what they believed were the excesses of majority rule. They did this by establishing, in the constitution, a bicameral legislature--a senate and a house of representatives, the electoral college and requiring that the states model their governments similarly. Tempering, which is to say, smoothing out the excesses of majority rule does NOT equal 'favoring minority rule'. Especially when the minority and the majority are now in excess of 65 million people, which means that all we have now are factions, each side is a consortium of factions. Factions are now inescapable.

Another thing, when I make this argument, which is clear, makes sense, I'll present it to Republicans and many on the right who will, or appear to, totally ignore what I just wrote, and continue to spew their nonsense about 'mob rule'. completely misrepresenting what 'Publius' actually wrote, and they will totally ignore the point I just made, won't even comment on it. This happens every time I bring this argument up. They refuse to see what is in front of them. And if you are on the right and are about to make the same blunder, may a suggest that you either engage with me and debate the argument actually made herein, or ignore this post.

Republicans (a number of them, at least) cling to the false idea that the framers were okay with a minority winning, that the only figure that is important is the elector count, ignoring the fact that the popular vote has been tracked in every vote in history. so, if what they were saying is true, that the actual vote count (aka 'popular vote') didn't matter, why in hell has it been tracked in every election since the first election? Why in hell would Hamilton, say this in Federalist 22?

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail

Yes, of course it is a fact that only the electoral count elects the president, but that doesn't equal 'the popular vote doesn't matter'. It most certainly does not.

And when did Republicans and those on the right start making this argument, that the framers created the EC to prevent 'mob rule' as an argument to justify losing the popular vote? Interestingly enough, I started noticing it not long after a decade of them losing the popular vote for the president. Suddenly, they no longer care about the popular vote. So, they concocted this cocamamy argument so that they could feel better about losing the popular vote. But this is a specious argument, because the minority vote does not equal 'the will of the people',, and that it is a fundamental principle of a republican form of government (i.e., a representative democracy) that the sense of the majority should prevail. IF that is wrong, why in hell did Hamilton say it?

The fact that the electoral vote count occurring as a disparity of the actual vote count resulting in a situation where the elected president does not have will of the people, is occurring too often, where, historically speaking, it only occurred once in a century. It has occurred twice in a couple of decades. Clearly, the framers could not foresee the demographic shift of the nation which has occurred twe centuries later, that this has resulted in this tendency of EC v popular vote disparity, and thus the electoral college is ripe for reform, the sole point of this thread.

This takes me to discuss the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

What is the NPVIC?

The NPVIC is an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections.

It aims to address the disparities between the number of electors won by a candidate and the actual nationwide vote count.

How Does It Work?

Once enough states join the compact (representing a total of 270 electoral votes, which is the majority needed to win the presidency), it will take effect.

Under the NPVIC, participating states pledge to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of the individual state’s outcome.

Current Status (As of March 2024):

The NPVIC has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia.

These states collectively have 205 electoral votes, which constitutes 38.1% of the Electoral College.

While it’s not yet fully in effect, the compact is gaining momentum and could significantly impact future presidential elections1 2 3.

Debate and Challenges:

The NPVIC has sparked debates over its effects, constitutionality, and potential legal challenges.

Some argue that it ensures a more direct representation of voters’ preferences, while others raise concerns about its impact on smaller states and the Electoral College’s protective function1.

In summary, the NPVIC aims to make the presidential election process more reflective of the national popular vote, but its full implementation depends on additional states joining the compact. Stay tuned for further developments!

For more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-vote-plan-replace-electoral-college-n1247159
https://www.michiganpublic.org/poli...opular-vote-pact-sent-to-michigan-house-floor

Yes, Repubs, I know you hate this compact, but, rather than try and win by gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and resting on the laurels on the designs of an antiquated system, i.e., rely on the unavoidable lack of foresight of the framers, where the only way you can win elections is by systemic advantage, may I suggest that you guys try winning by selling something that most people actually want, and win by winning the hearts and minds of the people? Sound like a reasonable idea? I do. You should, too.

In a sense, this compact will force Repubs and 'conservatives' to do just that, and we'll all be the winners, dems and repubs vying equally for the hearts and minds of the electorate, and not being propped up by artifice out of weakness, and thus the compact will result in our eventual becoming more unified.

Isn't that what we all want?
Click to expand...

I've no issue with altering or abolishing the EC so long as its done constitutionally. A compact between some states sounds more like a loophole that would likely end up at the Supreme Court. Why not just try to amend The Constitution? That's how the framers intended for such things to be done.

dadoalex · Mar 11, 2024

Darthcervantes said: ↑

That doesn't mean NY and CA decide for the entire country but with numbers like that, they would without the EC which is why the left wants it gone. (they hate to EARN their wins)
SAD
Click to expand...

So 77kK deciding for 20M is OK but 20M doing the same is not?

Your logic is like my old boat. It just doesn't hold water.

Eliminating the EC doesn't change the count in Congress.
Doesn't change SCOTUS
Doesn't change your governor or legislatures.
All it would do is ensure the person elected to execute the will of the people is actually elected by the people.

HockeyDad · Mar 11, 2024

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑

The Electoral College was a great compromise between the balance of power between large and small states. It was negotiated at the ratification convention in 1787 and is now in the constitution. So, without an amendment, we have to live with it. What the framers were unable to foresee, was the emergence of two political spectrums, how they would congregate in rural versus urban and the eventual tendency for the electoral college, with greater frequency, allow the minority vote to win the presidency. I assure you, having a minority rule was never the intent of the framers (more on this below), They believed that the vote and the EC would coincide, and in fact it did, for many years to follow and even then, only once in the 19th century was there a disparity. Given this fact, clearly majority on both sides (EC and actual vote count) was the intent. But, in the last 2 decades, it's occurred twice. Writ large, the electoral system is ripe for reform.

Wikipedia on Federalist 10:

Madison's nationalist position shifted the debate increasingly away from a position of pure state sovereignty, and toward the compromise.[8] In a debate on June 26, he said that government ought to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and that unchecked, democratic communities were subject to "the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions".[9]

"Protect against' does not equal 'minority control'. Because, if that were true, then flip argument is just as valid, 'the government ought to protect the majority of the opulent against the minority'. IF one is true, then why not the other? "Why not the other' is far more relevant and applicable today when we are talking about voting blocks of some 65 million or so, as they exist today, but did not exist in the late 18th century.

In essence, the EC was a compromise between the idea of absolute state sovereignty and overreaching federal power. Please note that there is nothing sacred nor reverent about any compromise, as they are, in a sense, necessary and inescapable undesirables where both sides widely disagree on a policy. What "Publius" feared the most were unruly factions with narrow agendas in the electorate taking control. This is the 'mob rule' Republicans famously fear. The right seems to argue that 'mob rule' equals the majority, but that idea does not actually exist anywhere in the Federalist papers. There is NO INTENT nor mention by the framers that the minority, the smaller vote, is supposed to be victorious. The opposite is actually true.

Thing is, today, given the size of the electorate, many many millions more than existed when the Constitution was ratified, each party's vote tally in the neighborhood of some 65 million or so, each, so, if one is honest and looks at the current situation as it really is, both sides, dems and repubs, are a consortium of factions, or 'mobs', if you will. In short, mobs are all we have today, they cannot be avoided, EC or otherwise, so any argument for the EC which says 'the EC solves mob rule problem' is a moot argument.

That can't be valid argument for 3 reasons: 1. The framers never claimed 'mob rule' was minority rule. 2. EC was a way to bolster the voice of smaller states. "Bolster' doesn't equal 'dominance', it just means, made stronger against the bigger states, to diminish the larger states tendency to dominate. 3. Today 'making the voice of small states stronger' is a moot point given that the larger states are 20 times the size of smaller states, who, even after 'making their voices stronger' has little effect given the disparity of size differences compared to the size differences, which were much less, at the time the constitution was ratified. Moot. Capiche? As it it no longer works the way it was intended due to the tremendous size differences and the emergence of right v left politics and the shifting demographics between large and small states comparing now to yesteryear

I think the confusion on the right stems from their misinterpreting what the framers meant by their fear of the 'tyranny of the majority'. What they never did, was seek minority rule, but what they actually did was TEMPER what they believed were the excesses of majority rule. They did this by establishing, in the constitution, a bicameral legislature--a senate and a house of representatives, the electoral college and requiring that the states model their governments similarly. Tempering, which is to say, smoothing out the excesses of majority rule does NOT equal 'favoring minority rule'. Especially when the minority and the majority are now in excess of 65 million people, which means that all we have now are factions, each side is a consortium of factions. Factions are now inescapable.

Another thing, when I make this argument, which is clear, makes sense, I'll present it to Republicans and many on the right who will, or appear to, totally ignore what I just wrote, and continue to spew their nonsense about 'mob rule'. completely misrepresenting what 'Publius' actually wrote, and they will totally ignore the point I just made, won't even comment on it. This happens every time I bring this argument up. They refuse to see what is in front of them. And if you are on the right and are about to make the same blunder, may a suggest that you either engage with me and debate the argument actually made herein, or ignore this post.

Republicans (a number of them, at least) cling to the false idea that the framers were okay with a minority winning, that the only figure that is important is the elector count, ignoring the fact that the popular vote has been tracked in every vote in history. so, if what they were saying is true, that the actual vote count (aka 'popular vote') didn't matter, why in hell has it been tracked in every election since the first election? Why in hell would Hamilton, say this in Federalist 22?

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail

Yes, of course it is a fact that only the electoral count elects the president, but that doesn't equal 'the popular vote doesn't matter'. It most certainly does not.

And when did Republicans and those on the right start making this argument, that the framers created the EC to prevent 'mob rule' as an argument to justify losing the popular vote? Interestingly enough, I started noticing it not long after a decade of them losing the popular vote for the president. Suddenly, they no longer care about the popular vote. So, they concocted this cocamamy argument so that they could feel better about losing the popular vote. But this is a specious argument, because the minority vote does not equal 'the will of the people',, and that it is a fundamental principle of a republican form of government (i.e., a representative democracy) that the sense of the majority should prevail. IF that is wrong, why in hell did Hamilton say it?

The fact that the electoral vote count occurring as a disparity of the actual vote count resulting in a situation where the elected president does not have will of the people, is occurring too often, where, historically speaking, it only occurred once in a century. It has occurred twice in a couple of decades. Clearly, the framers could not foresee the demographic shift of the nation which has occurred twe centuries later, that this has resulted in this tendency of EC v popular vote disparity, and thus the electoral college is ripe for reform, the sole point of this thread.

This takes me to discuss the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

What is the NPVIC?

The NPVIC is an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections.

It aims to address the disparities between the number of electors won by a candidate and the actual nationwide vote count.

How Does It Work?

Once enough states join the compact (representing a total of 270 electoral votes, which is the majority needed to win the presidency), it will take effect.

Under the NPVIC, participating states pledge to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of the individual state’s outcome.

Current Status (As of March 2024):

The NPVIC has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia.

These states collectively have 205 electoral votes, which constitutes 38.1% of the Electoral College.

While it’s not yet fully in effect, the compact is gaining momentum and could significantly impact future presidential elections1 2 3.

Debate and Challenges:

The NPVIC has sparked debates over its effects, constitutionality, and potential legal challenges.

Some argue that it ensures a more direct representation of voters’ preferences, while others raise concerns about its impact on smaller states and the Electoral College’s protective function1.

In summary, the NPVIC aims to make the presidential election process more reflective of the national popular vote, but its full implementation depends on additional states joining the compact. Stay tuned for further developments!

For more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-vote-plan-replace-electoral-college-n1247159
https://www.michiganpublic.org/poli...opular-vote-pact-sent-to-michigan-house-floor

Yes, Repubs, I know you hate this compact, but, rather than try and win by gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and resting on the laurels on the designs of an antiquated system, i.e., rely on the unavoidable lack of foresight of the framers, where the only way you can win elections is by systemic advantage, may I suggest that you guys try winning by selling something that most people actually want, and win by winning the hearts and minds of the people? Sound like a reasonable idea? I do. You should, too.

In a sense, this compact will force Repubs and 'conservatives' to do just that, and we'll all be the winners, dems and repubs vying equally for the hearts and minds of the electorate, and not being propped up by artifice out of weakness, and thus the compact will result in our eventual becoming more unified.

Isn't that what we all want?
Click to expand...

Eviscerate the power of the federal government. Get rid of all entitlement programs. States that want them can enact programs to take up the slack. Move the people's money much closer to the people (state and local). Do this and my degree of caring about who is elected to national office decreases substantially.

Given that there are now more net tax takers than net tax payers in America, we are doomed. We will deficit spend for a few more decades (three at most) and then the entire system will collapse and take much of the Western world with it. In 1960, the 60% number below was around 0%. The 60% number creeps up every year and is why absolute Democrat supremacy will occur within a decade. That supremacy will remain intact until the system collapses and then things will be bloodier than the Civil War. One does not need to be economist to know what the end result of this will be. The government is no longer spending other people's money, it is spending imaginary money with absolutely no hope of repayment.

Cybred · Mar 11, 2024

fmw said: ↑

Cryptic again. How can elections be on me if I don't vote?
Click to expand...

Because if you and everyone else that doesn't vote put their effort behind a third party we might get something better.

fmw · Mar 11, 2024

modernpaladin said: ↑

I've no issue with altering or abolishing the EC so long as its done constitutionally. A compact between some states sounds more like a loophole that would likely end up at the Supreme Court. Why not just try to amend The Constitution? That's how the framers intended for such things to be done.
Click to expand...

Getting 3/4 of the states to ratify a change to the electoral college simply wouldn't happen. No point in spending the time and money. Leave the constitution alone and go vote for your choice of candidates.

fmw · Mar 11, 2024

Cybred said: ↑

Because if you and everyone else that doesn't vote put their effort behind a third party we might get something better.
Click to expand...

I used to do that when I voted. Waste of time. All I want from government is less of it. Voting doesn't provide that so I leave the voting for people who want a huge, expensive incompetent government that gives them personal goodies. It is not what I want for my country. It is what voters want.

perotista · Mar 11, 2024

Lil Mike said: ↑

That seems the easiest solution, each state using the congressional districts. It's easier too since amendments are hard and this amendment would have a hard time getting through all of the states in the middle of the country who would disenfranchise themselves.

Plus it's likely that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) isn't constitutional.
Click to expand...

I agree on all counts. Yes, Article I section 9 prohibits states entering into an agreement or compact with another state. Besides, it was the state legislatures that passed a law to enter the compact, that same state legislature can pass a law withdrawing from the compact. So far it’s been just democratic states that have entered into the compact, no swing states, no red states.

Cybred · Mar 11, 2024

fmw said: ↑

I used to do that when I voted. Waste of time. All I want from government is less of it. Voting doesn't provide that so I leave the voting for people who want a huge, expensive incompetent government that gives them personal goodies. It is not what I want for my country. It is what voters want.
Click to expand...

Then stop using govt services.

perotista · Mar 11, 2024

Wild Bill Kelsoe said: ↑

That's fine in states with 2, or 3 congressional districts.
Click to expand...

It could work in all states. Do away with a plurality in winning a state getting all of that state’s electoral votes. What that means if one thinks about it, a candidate may win via a plurality, but more people in that state voted against that candidate than for that candidate.

kazenatsu · Mar 11, 2024

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑

There is no evidence of corruption in the sense of one party engaging in massive conspiracy to rig the election via internal machine tampering, ballot stuffing, and such means.
Click to expand...

That current system is set up in such a way that it would be difficult to be able to have or find evidence if that were happening.

Plus, even if there were no problem now, we should take consider the future and take precautions.

Zorro · Mar 11, 2024

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑

...the NPVIC aims to make the presidential election process more reflective of the national popular vote, but its full implementation depends on additional states joining the compact. Stay tuned for further developments!

For more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact...
Click to expand...

Oh sure, like CA, NY and the other Leftist States are going to award their ECV to Trump if he wins the popular vote.

Interstate Compacts are unconstitutional without Congressional approval. Article I, Section 10, Clause 3

Patricio Da Silva · Mar 11, 2024

Par10 said: ↑

Not true. City people don't seem to understand country people and tend to make laws that hurt country people which, down the line, hurts city people in the form of higher food prices, higher gas prices, higher raw material prices, etc.
Click to expand...

people are people a vote is a vote

People vote

One man or woman one vote

Simple.

Zorro · Mar 11, 2024

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑

...Simple.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see more states award ECV by Congressional District like Maine and Nebraska does.

Right now, non swing states don't really participate in the election. But they could, all they would have to do is award their ECV's by Congressional District and they would immediately become part of the election. And it doesn't require and unenforceable unconstitutional State Compact, as two states already award ECV's by Congressional District.

Bullseye · Mar 11, 2024

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑

The Electoral College was a great compromise between the balance of power between large and small states. It was negotiated at the ratification convention in 1787 and is now in the constitution. So, without an amendment, we have to live with it. What the framers were unable to foresee, was the emergence of two political spectrums, how they would congregate in rural versus urban and the eventual tendency for the electoral college, with greater frequency, allow the minority vote to win the presidency. I assure you, having a minority rule was never the intent of the framers (more on this below), They believed that the vote and the EC would coincide, and in fact it did, for many years to follow and even then, only once in the 19th century was there a disparity. Given this fact, clearly majority on both sides (EC and actual vote count) was the intent. But, in the last 2 decades, it's occurred twice. Writ large, the electoral system is ripe for reform.

Wikipedia on Federalist 10:

Madison's nationalist position shifted the debate increasingly away from a position of pure state sovereignty, and toward the compromise.[8] In a debate on June 26, he said that government ought to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" and that unchecked, democratic communities were subject to "the turbulency and weakness of unruly passions".[9]

"Protect against' does not equal 'minority control'. Because, if that were true, then flip argument is just as valid, 'the government ought to protect the majority of the opulent against the minority'. IF one is true, then why not the other? "Why not the other' is far more relevant and applicable today when we are talking about voting blocks of some 65 million or so, as they exist today, but did not exist in the late 18th century.

In essence, the EC was a compromise between the idea of absolute state sovereignty and overreaching federal power. Please note that there is nothing sacred nor reverent about any compromise, as they are, in a sense, necessary and inescapable undesirables where both sides widely disagree on a policy. What "Publius" feared the most were unruly factions with narrow agendas in the electorate taking control. This is the 'mob rule' Republicans famously fear. The right seems to argue that 'mob rule' equals the majority, but that idea does not actually exist anywhere in the Federalist papers. There is NO INTENT nor mention by the framers that the minority, the smaller vote, is supposed to be victorious. The opposite is actually true.

Thing is, today, given the size of the electorate, many many millions more than existed when the Constitution was ratified, each party's vote tally in the neighborhood of some 65 million or so, each, so, if one is honest and looks at the current situation as it really is, both sides, dems and repubs, are a consortium of factions, or 'mobs', if you will. In short, mobs are all we have today, they cannot be avoided, EC or otherwise, so any argument for the EC which says 'the EC solves mob rule problem' is a moot argument.

That can't be valid argument for 3 reasons: 1. The framers never claimed 'mob rule' was minority rule. 2. EC was a way to bolster the voice of smaller states. "Bolster' doesn't equal 'dominance', it just means, made stronger against the bigger states, to diminish the larger states tendency to dominate. 3. Today 'making the voice of small states stronger' is a moot point given that the larger states are 20 times the size of smaller states, who, even after 'making their voices stronger' has little effect given the disparity of size differences compared to the size differences, which were much less, at the time the constitution was ratified. Moot. Capiche? As it it no longer works the way it was intended due to the tremendous size differences and the emergence of right v left politics and the shifting demographics between large and small states comparing now to yesteryear

I think the confusion on the right stems from their misinterpreting what the framers meant by their fear of the 'tyranny of the majority'. What they never did, was seek minority rule, but what they actually did was TEMPER what they believed were the excesses of majority rule. They did this by establishing, in the constitution, a bicameral legislature--a senate and a house of representatives, the electoral college and requiring that the states model their governments similarly. Tempering, which is to say, smoothing out the excesses of majority rule does NOT equal 'favoring minority rule'. Especially when the minority and the majority are now in excess of 65 million people, which means that all we have now are factions, each side is a consortium of factions. Factions are now inescapable.

Another thing, when I make this argument, which is clear, makes sense, I'll present it to Republicans and many on the right who will, or appear to, totally ignore what I just wrote, and continue to spew their nonsense about 'mob rule'. completely misrepresenting what 'Publius' actually wrote, and they will totally ignore the point I just made, won't even comment on it. This happens every time I bring this argument up. They refuse to see what is in front of them. And if you are on the right and are about to make the same blunder, may a suggest that you either engage with me and debate the argument actually made herein, or ignore this post.

Republicans (a number of them, at least) cling to the false idea that the framers were okay with a minority winning, that the only figure that is important is the elector count, ignoring the fact that the popular vote has been tracked in every vote in history. so, if what they were saying is true, that the actual vote count (aka 'popular vote') didn't matter, why in hell has it been tracked in every election since the first election? Why in hell would Hamilton, say this in Federalist 22?

...[a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail

Yes, of course it is a fact that only the electoral count elects the president, but that doesn't equal 'the popular vote doesn't matter'. It most certainly does not.

And when did Republicans and those on the right start making this argument, that the framers created the EC to prevent 'mob rule' as an argument to justify losing the popular vote? Interestingly enough, I started noticing it not long after a decade of them losing the popular vote for the president. Suddenly, they no longer care about the popular vote. So, they concocted this cocamamy argument so that they could feel better about losing the popular vote. But this is a specious argument, because the minority vote does not equal 'the will of the people',, and that it is a fundamental principle of a republican form of government (i.e., a representative democracy) that the sense of the majority should prevail. IF that is wrong, why in hell did Hamilton say it?

The fact that the electoral vote count occurring as a disparity of the actual vote count resulting in a situation where the elected president does not have will of the people, is occurring too often, where, historically speaking, it only occurred once in a century. It has occurred twice in a couple of decades. Clearly, the framers could not foresee the demographic shift of the nation which has occurred twe centuries later, that this has resulted in this tendency of EC v popular vote disparity, and thus the electoral college is ripe for reform, the sole point of this thread.

This takes me to discuss the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).

What is the NPVIC?

The NPVIC is an agreement among states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections.

It aims to address the disparities between the number of electors won by a candidate and the actual nationwide vote count.

How Does It Work?

Once enough states join the compact (representing a total of 270 electoral votes, which is the majority needed to win the presidency), it will take effect.

Under the NPVIC, participating states pledge to allocate their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of the individual state’s outcome.

Current Status (As of March 2024):

The NPVIC has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia.

These states collectively have 205 electoral votes, which constitutes 38.1% of the Electoral College.

While it’s not yet fully in effect, the compact is gaining momentum and could significantly impact future presidential elections1 2 3.

Debate and Challenges:

The NPVIC has sparked debates over its effects, constitutionality, and potential legal challenges.

Some argue that it ensures a more direct representation of voters’ preferences, while others raise concerns about its impact on smaller states and the Electoral College’s protective function1.

In summary, the NPVIC aims to make the presidential election process more reflective of the national popular vote, but its full implementation depends on additional states joining the compact. Stay tuned for further developments!

For more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...-vote-plan-replace-electoral-college-n1247159
https://www.michiganpublic.org/poli...opular-vote-pact-sent-to-michigan-house-floor

Yes, Repubs, I know you hate this compact, but, rather than try and win by gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and resting on the laurels on the designs of an antiquated system, i.e., rely on the unavoidable lack of foresight of the framers, where the only way you can win elections is by systemic advantage, may I suggest that you guys try winning by selling something that most people actually want, and win by winning the hearts and minds of the people? Sound like a reasonable idea? I do. You should, too.

In a sense, this compact will force Repubs and 'conservatives' to do just that, and we'll all be the winners, dems and repubs vying equally for the hearts and minds of the electorate, and not being propped up by artifice out of weakness, and thus the compact will result in our eventual becoming more unified.
i
Isn't that what we all want?
Click to expand...

. Not even close. The system is design to give the states a little bid of power. By giving away their elector votes to the popular vote winner destroys that. Granted in many cases there will be little difference because most states award electoral votes in bulk. But what happens if, say and predominately blue state is forced to award the red candidate their votes? Or vice versa.

Sorry, this is just a poor attempt to remove the checks and balances of the electoral system and back door the protections the minority have.

Bullseye · Mar 11, 2024

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑

people are people a vote is a vote

People vote

One man or woman one vote

Simple.
Click to expand...

Then why did you have to drop that AI wall of words on us? You're as subtle as a fart in church.

Turtledude · Mar 11, 2024

Bullseye said: ↑

Then why did you have to drop that AI wall of words on us? You're as subtle as a fart in church.
Click to expand...

Do you remember the rock technique called the wall of sound? we get the wall of spam constantly as if it was generated by a leftist think tank or as you guess, some AI program that uses ten words when one will work

Turtledude · Mar 11, 2024

Bullseye said: ↑

. Not even close. The system is design to give the states a little bid of power. By giving away their elector votes to the popular vote winner destroys that. Granted in many cases there will be little difference because most states award electoral votes in bulk. But what happens if, say and predominately blue state is forced to award the red candidate their votes? Or vice versa.

Sorry, this is just a poor attempt to remove the checks and balances of the electoral system and back door the protections the minority have.
Click to expand...

the left figures they can outbreed or recruit illegal immigrants' spawn faster than the GOP can and the EC is a stopgap against rogue states flooding their polls with illegal votes

Turtledude · Mar 11, 2024

Cybred said: ↑

Then stop using govt services.
Click to expand...

how about your receipt of government services amounts is directly based on your income tax bill (and surcharges) just like the private sector. I pay 50K for a car I get a better car than someone who pays15K

I buy a 2M dollar home-it's much nice than one that goes for 150K

Turtledude · Mar 11, 2024

modernpaladin said: ↑

I've no issue with altering or abolishing the EC so long as its done constitutionally. A compact between some states sounds more like a loophole that would likely end up at the Supreme Court. Why not just try to amend The Constitution? That's how the framers intended for such things to be done.
Click to expand...

because he knows damn well that states like Wyoming and Idaho, and Tennessee and Kentucky, etc are not going to become irrelevant to places that continue to swell with illegal immigrants such as California. The left either deliberately rejects or is ignorant about the agreement between the several states that created the constitution. quantity over quality is the main mantra of the left

Cybred · Mar 11, 2024

Turtledude said: ↑

how about your receipt of government services amounts is directly based on your income tax bill (and surcharges) just like the private sector. I pay 50K for a car I get a better car than someone who pays15K

I buy a 2M dollar home-it's much nice than one that goes for 150K
Click to expand...

And how would that work?

Log in or Sign up

The Electoral College is ripe for reform

Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

Cybred Well-Known Member

fmw Well-Known Member

fmw Well-Known Member

modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

HockeyDad Well-Known Member Past Donor

Cybred Well-Known Member

fmw Well-Known Member

fmw Well-Known Member

perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

Cybred Well-Known Member

perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Zorro Well-Known Member

Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

Zorro Well-Known Member

Bullseye Well-Known Member

Bullseye Well-Known Member

Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

Cybred Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The Electoral College is ripe for reform

Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

Cybred Well-Known Member

fmw Well-Known Member

fmw Well-Known Member

modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

dadoalex Well-Known Member Past Donor

HockeyDad Well-Known Member Past Donor

Cybred Well-Known Member

fmw Well-Known Member

fmw Well-Known Member

perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

Cybred Well-Known Member

perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

Zorro Well-Known Member

Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

Zorro Well-Known Member

Bullseye Well-Known Member

Bullseye Well-Known Member

Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

Cybred Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches