I was not surprised to see an opinion column in the Sunday News-Post advocating the abolishment of the Electoral College, nor was I surprised to see that it was written by Jonathan Bernstein.

Mr. Bernstein is a leftist political commentator who postulates the benefits of lowering the voting age requirement to birth. He now supports abolishing the Electoral College because at present, it would be advantageous to the Democrat party. Mr. Bernstein, to my best recollection, expressed no such advocacy when Bill Clinton won the presidential election (twice) with less than the majority vote.

There are important and practical reasons why we should keep the Electoral College. First is the question of legitimacy. Under this system, the person who receives the Electoral College majority earns the right to represent the American people. A popular vote system could not ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. Under a pure popular vote system, where any candidate just needed a plurality of votes, we would end up with a crowded field of candidates. We would have the Green Party, the LGBT Party, the Nazi Party, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party, etc., etc., all hoping their party would win a plurality of votes. We would have to adopt a parliamentary system where the party with the most votes has to form a coalition government.

Our constitutional form of government gives us a House of Representatives based on the popular vote of each state. This gives the smaller states a disadvantage, but it also gives us a Senate guaranteeing equal representation with the large states. The Electoral College is simply the total representation of the House and Senate. The system gives the smaller states importance in the election of the president of the United States.

The Electoral College is one of the more ingenious ideas of our founders, and its importance goes deeper than what I have outlined here. I would advise all Americans to learn more about it before they accept the arguments of people like Jonathan Bernstein whose ultimate motive is to promote the Democrat party.

Bernard L. Morningstar

Ijamsville

(150) comments

des21

Well said Mr. Morningstar.

rikkitikkitavvi

Simple Simon says "Stop arguing about something you can't change." Simple Simon also says "Accept the things you can not change, courage to change the things you can and the power to know the difference Hmmmm, Where have we heard that before? Anyone? It has something to do with serenity and prayer. Even though some of you hate Religion reciting that when you wake up and before you go to bed may give you some piece of mind. Just my to cents. Good night all [innocent]

jsklinelga

rttavvi

Have to agree with you. The talk of eliminating the EC is as meaningless and unrealistic as many of the newer "progressive" platforms. If a convention of 38 States is convened (as it was reasonably suggested in the last several years) elimination of the EC would be the farthermost thing from consideration.

rikkitikkitavvi

Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

rikkitikkitavvi

I don't understand why we bother arguing. It is here to stay.

threecents

Dang, for someone who wants everyone to stop talking about this issue, you sure have a lot to say about it. Too long for me to read.

FCPS-Principal

Still not a single positive benefit from having the EC over a national popular vote has been stated.

david_gaithersburg

FCPS-Principal, congratulations on being the most ignorant commentator in this thread. Given you ignorance of U.S. and Western history I hope you're just trolling with your user name.

gabrielshorn2013

d_g, ignorance assumes the ability and willingness to become educated. FAUX exhibits neither of these qualities, despite their moniker. Besides, they are not a Principal anywhere. Many of the remarks posted here would violate their FCPS employment contract. I am surprised FNP allows it.

FCPS-Principal

The FCPS has no control nor any interest in what I choose to post here or anywhere else.

phydeaux994

FCPS-Principal is absolutely correct. Only twice in modern times has the EC elected the POTUS. And those two will be remembered as the worst two Presidents in American History bar none. And that is certainly not a positive benefit for America. Ya Think???

gabrielshorn2013

That wasn't the statement FAUX. You claim, through your moniker that you are a FCPS Principal. I call BS because that would violate the terms of your employment contract by publically representing a political position.

FCPS-Principal

Thank you for confirming my statement. Not a single benefit of the EC has been posted. Lots of false history facts and stupid false statements about Obama, but not a single EC benefit has been identified, neither in the letter nor in any of the 80+ comments.

Obadiah Plainsmen

At the Constitutional convention the framers had to make a decision on what type of government they wanted to create. A National or a Federal,. At this point, the plan to choose the president by popular election was put up for a vote and soundly defeated with only the delegations from Maryland and Delaware voting yes.

“A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the ‘social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact.”

gabrielshorn2013

You are absolutely correct OP. Unfortunately, a civics class is no longer mandatory in public schools. I don't think US History classes are doing much of a job teaching about how our government was formed, or how it operates.

phydeaux994

The most boring, useless class I took in High School was American History. Covered Plymouth Rock through WWll in 1957. Listen to lecture/take notes M-T, quiz Friday, term paper at end of year.

gabrielshorn2013

You are old enough to remember when Civics was a required class. Didn't you take it? I sure did. So you had poor teachers that didn't make US History interesting? Where was that? A poor class will only teach the "whats and whens", not the "whys", or the "hows". My HS US History teacher did all that and made it interesting. Still one of my interests to this day because of him.

phydeaux994

I took civics in Jr. High School when I was 13, 66 years ago. I don’t think I learned anything about American History that I could apply today.

phydeaux994

When you are studying American History from Columbus landing to Hiroshima 1 hr a day 4 days a week for 9 months how could you possibly dwell on anything in depth? I went to Sherwood HS in MoCo, which was a small 7-12 rural School in those days.

gabrielshorn2013

And that was the last of your study on US government and history phy? The class I took in HS was the first of many through HS, and college. Been reading about it ever since.

awteam2000

My take, the definition of a government or governing body is not the definition on how to select the governing bodies... where does your comment address that? The Continental Congress Delegates decided the Constitution wasn’t written in stone but a living document that was subject to changes. And henceforth there have been amendments to the governing document. That’s something I was taught in grade school, Gabriel.

gabrielshorn2013

Agreed aw. Then if you believe this change needs to be made, get after it. Get 2/3 of each house of congress to pass a bill, and get 75 percent (38) of the states to ratify elimination of the EC. The blueprint of what you need to do is spelled out in the Constitution. Go for it! In my opinion (yes, I said opinion) the EC isn't going anywhere anytime soon. My point above is that very few anymore understand how our government was founded, or how it works. It seems they believe that a majority vote is all it takes to change anything. Not true at all.

thump1202

Hitler, Mao, and Stalen approve of you leftists. Does that put you on the right side of history, or the left side?

FCPS-Principal

What in hell are you talking about?

DickD

If you find out what Thump is trying say, please let the rest of us know.

phydeaux994

Donald Trump loves Putin, who loves Stalin, and loves Kim Jong Un, who is a Communist of the 1st Order, who are the “strong” leaders he most admires. So you thump love Trump, who loves Vladimir and Kim. So that makes you a leftist by your own definition.

rikkitikkitavvi

As opposed to the previous Presidents love for all things muslim. As long as it wasn't American that lowlife loved it. As long as it hated Americans he loved it. As long as it brought America down he loved it.

FCPS-Principal

That "low life" raised my retirement portolio nearly 150% as well as that of millions of others, saved millions of jobs, created millions more, saved millions of homeowners and dropped unemployment to record lows. We need more "low lifes" like that every year.

DickD

My portfolio fell by about 50% until the Bush Recession. It recovered good under Obama. Now the nincopoop, Trump has me worried.

phydeaux994

How much of the world population is Muslim

public-redux

Of course Obama loved muslin. It is an iconically classic fabric.

gabrielshorn2013

[beam] public [thumbup]

DickD

Except what they are calling Communism is really a Facist dictatorship, phy. And that's what Trump would like to turn the U.S. into. Now if the true conservatives, not the Trump cult, think about this, they will be as upset as the Democrats. Of course, some Democrats worry me too.

FCPS-Principal

Who is or was "Stalen"? A relative of the slug in the Oval Office maybe?

public-redux

Hitler was on the right and disapproved of leftists (hint; he attacked the USSR). Stalin and Mao were on the left.

olefool

The GOP has a great plan for winning the election... if they can't win it fair and square, they'll just cheat, lie and fabricate an "alternate universe".... It may take a hundred years to repair the damage this slug in the WH is causing to the world order and our democracy. We shall overcome.

rikkitikkitavvi

Project much fool? Oh yes you do.

DickD

Yeah but Moscow Mitch is taking a great chance because the Chinese have plenty of reasons to do to Trump what the Russians did to Hillary.

phydeaux994

Explain how the EC works.....The EC, along with the 3/5 Compromise, was a negotiated deal between James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and the 7 Southern “slave” States to preserve slavery as the Law of the Land in perpetuity a.k.a. forever. Madison and Hamilton were forced to agree with this convoluted way, by allowing the 7 Southern States to count their slaves as “population” that could be used to gain EC votes, that gave the 7 Southern “slave” States an advantage as a way to gain Representatives and elect the President in order to get the 9 of the 13 States in 1787 that were needed to ratify the new Constitution. In 1787 the population of the U.S. was 4 million or so, with 13 “small” rural States. No California/LA/West Coast or New York/Big City/East Coast or Middle America States, no 325 Million “diverse” population demographics. How could our Founding Fathers consider things that didn’t even exist in 1787 to come up with the EC??? Rediculous. Peace.

gabrielshorn2013

Nonsense phy. That is your opinion, albeit shared by others. I would like to see evidence leading to the original documents that support this.

phydeaux994

Read these and get back to me, we’ll continue the debate. And point me to the documents that define the EC your way. https://columbiaandslavery.columbia.edu/content/ambition-bondage-inquiry-alexander-hamilton-and-slavery



https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madison-wanted-to-change-the-way-we-vote-for-president



https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution



https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/12/13598316/donald-trump-electoral-college-slavery-akhil-reed-amar

jagman

Once again, PD994 proves to be not a "moderate republican" as claimed in previous posts but rather just another garden variety lefty.

And for others on here, the EC is obviously needed to avoid big city tyranny. It's not at all about states, rather large cities packed with arrogant entitlement-minded types feeding from the public trough.

Do any of you want LA, NYC and Chicago deciding who our president will be? I certainly don't.

public-redux

The population of the 100 largest cities in the country is 65 million people. Spokane is number 100 on that list with 219,000 folk. There are an addition 214 cities with 100,000 or more residents that have fewer than 3 million people. How are these 68 million Americans going to outvote the other 235 million Americans?

jagman

Voter turnout is never anywhere near all those eligible. When you factor in all the dead voters, double voters, illegals and just plain manufactured ballots from the democrats, the net number is low.

It is also obvious that campaign activity would change dramatically. Candidates would spend all their resources in California, NYS, maybe Chicago and Philly.

Sates like Iowa and New Hampshire, now considered major wins for candidates, would become utterly unknown.

hayduke2

Spin it Jag.

DickD

Where do you get all of that nonsense from, jag.

public-redux

jag, it sounds like you've abandoned your argument that a few large cities would outvote the majority of the citizens of the US. I am glad that I persuaded you that you were mistaken.

jagman

Not at all p-d. How you came to that decision is probably rooted in the same belief that you are a "moderate republican" when you are clearly a leftist.

public-redux

If I’m “p-d”, I have never once claimed to be a moderate Republican. I’m a conservative Republican. If you think otherwise, be specific.



You still haven’t addressed how a fairly small minority of voters is going to out vote a fairly large majority. The county map you mentioned below doesn’t account for population.

jagman

You are correct redux. I got you mixed up with pd994. Sorry about that! However, you need to understand how easy that is to do. Note: You have somewhat similar screen names, you both claim to be republicans, you're both rabid Trump haters and you both seem to spend a lot of time defending leftist ideas on these forums. The latter is probably due to the Trump hatred you both exhibit.

Now, for the "moderate", that person is likely a democrat in disguise anyway. For you, a claimed "conservative', I find it odd you are making a claim that the popular vote cannot be hijacked by densely packed urban areas. Most definitely not a "conservative" position and not true.

In fact, that is exactly what happened in the 2016 election. A simple review of the electoral map by county shows the whole election was between those dense urban areas and the entire rest of the country. So how can you attempt to make an argument that it could not happen? It did.

If you want an even more startling look at the divide, pull up a map of the election by precinct. Then you will see the blue areas are even more densely packed and isolated. Look at a random red county and note that the whole county is red except for the "city". Then, look at a random blue county and note the whole county is red except for the city. The difference is the size of the city, of course.

Bottom line here is that anyone not living under a rock knows full well that our "divide" is between those dense urban areas and the entire rest of the country.

And yes, Frederick county is divided the same way. For that matter, so is the state of Maryland.

I will recall a discussion we had on another tread sometime back and remind you that you will have a very difficult time in next years election. You will have a choice between a far-left radicalized democrat with a long list of stuff they want to "ban" and Donald Trump, who you hate.

For me, as long as Trump remains on a pro-America agenda, the choice will be easy.

FCPS-Principal

I certainly do. Much better than the southern reddie neckies deciding who the president should be. Much better.

jagman

So you're perfectly OK with abdicating your voting rights to some wackos in LA?

public-redux

How are a fewer than 2 million potential voters in LA going to outvote the rest of the US?

jagman

Take a look at an electoral map by county of the 2016 election. It is very clear that the country is divided by densely packed feral urban areas vs. the entire rest of the country. Voting practices in those urban areas are largely responsible for the results.

And yes, they almost succeeded in 2016.

gabrielshorn2013

Jagman, Chuck Todd showed the 2016 and 2018 maps on Meet the Press this morning. It showed how divided the country has become, with a few splotches of blue from highly populated areas swimming in a sea of red. Granted, those areas are less populated, but his intent was to demonstrate that if you get out of the coastal urban areas, the country is significantly more conservative from our northern border with Canada, south to our border with Mexico.

FCPS-Principal

In hind sight that was clearly the wrong choice. The union should have been formed without the slave states. Should have let Britain keep them. Ever since the Civil War the North has poured much much money into the South in hopes of buying their friendship. Hasn't worked in 150 years. Time to cut them loose.

FCPS-Principal

So far not a single positive attribute of the EC has been stated.

BunnyLou

The LTE writer did just that, but I guess you only read the title and then wrote your comment.

FCPS-Principal

No he did not. He only said the EC is needed because it chooses the president.

awteam2000

To replace the EC requires amending the Constitution and that requires 2 thirds of the states to ratify the change. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

So dealing with reality, Trump won the last presidential election by winning by a narrow margin Pa, Wis, and Mich. It’s not likely he’ll pull that off again. Nor are there states in play to replace those states’ electoral. Just the opposite, there are now 9 states that went to Trump in the last race now in-play for the Democratic Candidate to win.

awteam2000

Correction to my last comment - three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States) to ratify an amendment. Even harder. 🤷‍♂️

david_gaithersburg

Trump won 2/3rds of the electoral votes, that's a landslide.

DickD

Yeah and lost the popular vote by 3 million which shows you how bad the EC is.

awteam2000

Gaithersburg, Trump got 304 electoral votes and Clinton garnered 227.

The election was decided by the result of three 3 states, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan by less than 77,000 votes out of 16 million casted in those 3 states, accounting for 66 electoral votes.

Btw, 304 is not 2/3rds of a possible 531 electoral votes.

And Trump lost the popular vote in Maryland by 735,000 votes out of the 2.6 million cast for the two. That’s a landslide.

awteam2000

Gaithersburg, correction to my last comment: Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania accounted for 56 electoral votes. I guess neither one of use ‘do math good’.🤷‍♂️

hayduke2

Well, 56% is not 2/3rds...

jagman

I find in amusing that leftists now hate the EC because their horrible candidate lost in 2016. However, what lefty doesn't seem to remember is that the democrat party has an automatic advantage with the EC. Given that California and New York are guaranteed leftist sewers and Illinois is almost impossible to flip, the dems automatically have 104 votes right out of the gate. Every time.

But, I encourage you people to waste your time crying about eliminating the EC. It would take a constitutional amendment to make that happen. That process would require 3/4 of the states to approve.

Considering that the EC is the only thing that gives states any voice in a presidential election, it's quite unlikely to happen.

If dems want to win they need to come up with policies that appeal to vast middle America. Since Trump already owns that space and is succeeding with it, dems have no choice but to campaign against regular Americans.

FCPS-Principal

What? No mention of the treasonous South giving the wingnut Republicans 120 votes out of the gate?

phydeaux994

jagman, if the Democratic Party had an automatic advantage with the EC it would be gone in a California/New York minute. BTW, could you explain how the EC gave small States the power to elect George W. and Donald J.?? You can’t. You don’t have a clue why the EC helps small States. Because it doesn’t. Name the men from any small State elected as President. Take your time. 😂

jagman

The EC is not about picking a guy from a small state. It's about picking a guy that the most states want (large and small). It is you (not a moderate republican) that doesn't understand the point of the EC.

By the way, eight presidents have come from Ohio, eight from Virginia. Small states for sure.



Study a little history:



https://www.history.com/news/which-u-s-states-have-produced-the-most-presidents

FCPS-Principal

Correction: Its about picking a person that the most people in a state chose through a biased and nonsensical voting process.

jagman

Provide some proof that people showing up at their polling station and casting a ballot for their choice is somehow a "biased and nonsensical voting process".

How would you do it lefty? Have a team of elites make those choices for the people?

phydeaux994

jagman, Ohio is the 8th largest State, Virginia the 13th. In 1787, Virginia was a large Southern State that became the largest when 3/5 of their 200,000 slaves became “population” and were counted toward the EC vote total. Virginia men were elected 4 of the 1st 5 Presidents, and Virginians were President for 32 of the 1st 36 years of the Country. The EC worked exactly the way it was designed in 1787. The Emancipation Proclamation messed up the plan. So your numbers aren’t surprising. They’re large States. There’s History and Fake History, yours is the latter. Peace.

BunnyLou

It is ironic, the party of inclusion and love hates everything that does not fit nicely into their swim lane.

DickD

Bernard, you might think a popular vote is bad I don't. What can be more democratic than a popular vote. If you are worried about pluralism, have a run off. But why would we want another repeat of Donald Trump and why are not all votes equal in electing the POTUS. They are in electing members of Congress.

jagman

A democracy can be defined as two foxes and a hen voting on what to have for dinner.

Not what we want in our country.

FCPS-Principal

So you're ok with one fox eating two hens?

jagman

It's a good thing for you that you're a government employee. I suspect you'd fail quite spectacularly in the dreaded private sector.

DickD

And what we have is a Republic deciding our fate by a chosen few.

Oligarchy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning 'few', and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning 'to rule or to command') is a form of power structure in which power rests with a small number of people. These people may be distinguished by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control.

jagman

America IS a representative republic. It is NOT a democracy.

How you fail to understand the democrat party more resembles your definition here of Oligarchy is a mystery. It was millions of regular Joes who elected Trump, not the elites. In fact, millions of democrats voted for Trump because the democrat party abandoned regular people in favor of coastal elites who think they are our betters.

gabrielshorn2013

No Dick, we have a democratic republic. We vote for representatives in the House and Senate who represent their constituents in Congerss and make decisions on our behalf. Do you believe that your representatives Trone, Cardin, and van Hollen, do not represent your interests in Congress?

DickD

Gabe, Congress is elected by popular vote. Of course they represent us - up to a point.

threecents

How about keeping the EC, but have each EC member represent a certain number of national votes within his party. That way you could still not have the plurality issue AND you could have every vote count equally. Cause I want all Marylanders votes to count as much as all Floridians. As it is, we almost might as well not vote in the general election, as it is almost a forgone conclusion that the Democratic candidate will win.

hayduke2

Agree three. You won 51% of PA or wherever, you get 51% of their electoral votes. The "loser" gets 49%. Then ALL votes will count.

gabrielshorn2013

The states already have the option to delegate their electors proportionately hay, even heavily Democrat states. Yet they chose to not exercise that option. Why is that?

hayduke2

Because of gerrymandered districts.

gabrielshorn2013

Gerrymandered districts have nothing to do with how a state distributes its electors hay. There are two states that distribute them according to the state's popular vote, Maine and Nebraska. Everyone else, including Maryland, is winner take all. There is a movement to change the EC via the NPVIC, but that has many Constitutional issues, including violations of the Interstate Compacts clause of the Constitution. If you wish to banish the EC, get a bill through both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority, and get 38 states to ratify it. You can also follow the Constitution and call a Constitutional Convention. Should be easy. To learn more about the EE, please see:

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

hayduke2

So a state like MD , Wisconsin or North Carolina be heavily gerrymandered has no impact on the EC???

hayduke2

Here's a link for you gabe- https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/the-electoral-college-is-not-what-its-defenders-say-it-is/amp/

hayduke2

So,if the district is gerrymandered to favor a party and the electoral votes are determined by the total number of representatives, you think it had no impact on the EC votes?

gabrielshorn2013

Hay, the electors are determined by the winner of the popular vote in a state. The elector slate is then assigned on a winner take all basis. All ten of Maryland's electors were assigned to HRC. Did she win 100% of the popular vote in Maryland? No. That is what I meant by Gerrymandered districts have nothing to do with the electors assigned. Didn't you see the list of erector candidates on the 2016 ballot?

gabrielshorn2013

Hay, you seem to be struggling with this concept. Here is a description by the National Archives on what the Electors are, and how they are chose. Like I said, the electors are selected in the popular vote results in a state, and it is winner take all. Gerrymandered districts have no effect on how a State's electors are distributed for Presidential candidates.



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

threecents

Of course each state wants to maximize its power. It should not be up to the individual states.

gabrielshorn2013

I have no problem with how our representative Federal government was set up. If you wish to change our Constitution, three, follow the directions given therein, and get a bill passed by 2/3 of both Houses of Congress, then ratified by 38 states. As it stands now, we select the State Electors by the popular vote in any given state, then the State Electors cast their ballots for President, under the.constraints of their state law. All but two states are winner take all.

sevenstones1000

Why should a state with a population of half a million be “equal” in the Senate to a state with a population of 40 million? That makes zero sense.



One person, one vote.

hayduke2

Gives those small states outsized power - part of the current problem.

gabrielshorn2013

No hay, it does not. The house is purposely a proportional representative body, thus she small states are at a decidedly disadvantaged position. The Senate gives all states PARITY in that body. Please see the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, and the Connecticut Compromise. Why would a small state ever want to join such a union, where their political will is meaningless?

hayduke2

So North Dakota senators represent the same number of folks as California?? Does that not provide outsized influence for their two senators?

jagman

Senators are supposed to represent the states interest. Until the 17th amendment changed it...which was a huge mistake.

gabrielshorn2013

Hay, what do you know about the VA plan, the NJ plan, and the CT compromise? Please read up. The Senate was never meant to be a branch established by population. It was meant to give all states PARITY (meaning equality, regardless of power or size). It gives small states equality in the Senate. Should large states have final say in every issue? If so, you will agree with the Virginia plan for our government. If you agree with that, I will ask you again, why would a small state ever join such a union?

Here, I'll give you a few helpful links to get you started.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Plan



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

hayduke2

Supposed is the operative word

hayduke2

Here's a link for you Gabe, et al. https://www.rawstory.com/2019/09/the-electoral-college-is-not-what-its-defenders-say-it-is/amp/

gabrielshorn2013

hay, please see my 7:58 pm response above.

hayduke2

I have and to me, the key phrase in the entire article is " Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party."

gabrielshorn2013

@hayduke Sep 8, 2019 10:16am

You are still confused hay, which indicates to me that you did not see the National Archives link on how Electors are chosen. I will try again. The population of a state determines how many Representatives a state gets. For Maryland, that is eight. Then add in two Senators, bringing the total number of Electors to ten. Now, regarding Representatives, Maryland is highly Gerrymandered, so all but one Representative is a Democrat. However, those Repersentatives are NOT ELECTORS. Are you with me so far? During a Presidential election, all states are assigned the number of Electors as described above. The winner of the popular vote in a state will determine who 100% of that states Electors will go to, so winner take all. Had Donald Trump won Maryland in the popular vote, 100% of the ELECTORS from Maryland would have gone to him. As it was, HRC won the popular vote in Maryland, so 100% of the ELECTORS went to her. This is clearly explained in the National Archives web page I provided you the link to. That was an official, non-partisan government source. You keep conflating the EC with how Electors are chosen, and the link you provided has nothing to do with the selection of ELECTORS. Yes, the available seats are given to party patrons, but they already have a legal mandate to cast their votes for the party that won the popular vote in that state. If that and the official government doesn't make that crystal clear for you, nothing will.

hayduke2

Gabe - we are talking about two different things- I understand how electors are appointed. But when districts are gerrymandered to give one political party the advantage, that in essence provides a bully pulpit for those legislators to push for and endorse a president that represents their party. That , under the current method, provides an advantage to said party. That said, the EC no longer functions. Do I believe it will change in the next two decades, nope.

gabrielshorn2013

Hay, if that is your position, it was not evident in your previous posts in this thread. We now agree that we are talking about two different things. I am discussing how the EC is chosen and functions, and you are talking about the effects of a dominant party in a state. Fair enough. There is definitely the incumbency effect, and gerrymandered districts amplify that effect to the detriment of the opposition. While those representatives in such gerrymandered districts hold the advantage in any given state, they certainly do not represent the political beliefs of the entire state, or their individual district. I have my doubts whether a representative from the opposing party will hold sway over a constituent’s vote, unless that constituent originally voted for that representative. As for the functionality of the EC, I do not agree. As previously posted, we have a Federal government, meaning a confederation of sovereign states, each with their own governments. That is the form that was chosen when our government was established via the Constitution. We do not have a monolithic single country. The Representatives to that government are chosen by the popular vote within the established districts (which you have agreed are subject to mischief) within a given state. The two Senators from each state were originally elected by the State governments within that state. The 17th amendment changed that to have Senators elected by the popular vote within that state. The Executive is not elected by the popular vote of the entire country, but rather by the individual states themselves (as being a Federal government of sovereign states). And here is where we join back into the discussion of how that is done. It is the Federal style of government that gives us the Electoral College, thus providing for the election of the Executive by the states. Is that fair? It all depends whether or not you understand the type of government we have, and how it came about. I am absolutely fine with what we have. I just wish Civics was still a mandatory class for schoolkids so they too would understand.

Comment deleted.
threecents

We are talking about what we think should happen - not what does happen. Stop with the insults.

Russian

We need a vehicle to undermine democracy

tonyc51

The electoral college accomplishes exactly what the framers of the constitution intended. It keeps the majority from running roughshod over the minority. I would have thought the liberals would appreciate that as much as they cry about minority rights. But that's right, it is only important to protect these rights when it affects the selected minorities that they support.

ragramm

That is not exactly what they intended, yes they were worried about factions developing. However Alexander Hamilton wrote in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “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.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “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.” It is highly debatable whether the EC accomplished this goal in 2016.

tonyc51

" lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" There were a lot of people who felt the same about the previous president.

hayduke2

So why was his favorable rating so high? And he was elected twice and probably could have served s third term if legal.

awteam2000

Tony, with all respect, you think Trump meets that threshold?

“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.”

‘Come on man’, Trump is still lying about hurricanes in Alabama. 🤦‍♂️

hayduke2

Tony - substitute conservative in your statement and you have what currently is happening.

tonyc51

So is your complaint that it is the liberals are being beaten at their own game?

hayduke2

Not at all but the tribalism that is currently on display in both parties is a problem. You typify that tribalism.

FCPS-Principal

So you're ok with the minority running roughshod over the majority?

threecents

Wait, in a democracy don't we want the majority choice to be president? I am not saying Trump did not win according to the rules, but, ideally, shouldn't the presidential candidate with the majority win?

jagman

America is not a democracy.

threecents

It's a yes or no question.

gabrielshorn2013

Three, that is a common misconception of how our government works. We are a Federal Ropublic, hence the term Federal government. We are a federation of sovereign states, not a monolithic country. The Chief Executive (a.k.a. President) is elected by popular vote in each State, and the States then cast their votes, via their Electors, for the Executive.

threecents

Gabe, Please stop hijacking my question: "...ideally, shouldn't the presidential candidate with the majority win?"

gabrielshorn2013

Three, if that is what you want, amend the Constitution. To answer your question, no, that is not what it should be. The President is chosen by the States, not the popular vote. This is the lack of knowledge regarding our Federal government system that I have been discussing here.

gabrielshorn2013

BTW Three, as jagman said above, America is not a democracy. We are a Republic.

elmerchismo1

You're right about Bill Clinton not winning a majority of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996. In both elections 3rd party candidate Ross Perot attracted enough votes so that neither major-party candidate could claim a majority. HOWEVER: in 1992 Clinton amassed almost 6 million more votes that his Republican opponent, and in 1996 he did even better, getting over 8 million more votes than the Repub. Compare this to the don, who trailed Ms. Clinton by 3+ million votes and still won office because of the electoral college setup.

FCPS-Principal

Yet another pot smoker chimes in on the EC. This one as silly as ever. The EC is good because whoever it votes for gets to be president. That is the extent of the argument. Probably the extent of the writer's ability to think logically, too. "Mr. Bernstein expressed no such advocacy when Bill Clinton won the presidential election (twice) with less than the majority vote." Hahaha!! Can the writer say what baboon won the presidency with less that the majority vote in 2016? Hahahaha!!

naturegirl

With all due respect, Mr. Morningstar, you are incorrect about Bill Clinton loosing the popular vote. He won both the popular and electoral vote in 1992 and 1996. The only party to benefit from the Electoral College when loosing the popular vote is the Republican Party. The majority opinion SHOULD ALWAYS rule, not the minority opinion...but then the conservatives would lose everything they love from a racist, ever-lying, overcompensating, arrogant president to their beloved guns.


secpol1970

naturegirlneeds to go back to school in regards to the Constitution. clinton won the plurality of the vote not....you might want google that. And the electoral college was created so that mob rule of the majority wouldn't completely rule of the minority. Its clear a whiny liberal like you fails to see why the Constitution was created. If leftists like you were in charge we would all be under the thumb of big government.

FCPS-Principal

Of course he won the plurality. That's why he won the EC. Go google that, wingnut.

secpol1970

Tell that to naturegirl....mister fake principal.

marinick1

[thumbup][thumbup]

marinick1

[thumbup]

sevenstones1000

One person, one vote. “Mob rule”? You have a low opinion of your fellow citizens.

hayduke2

secpool - Nonsense...

FCPS-Principal

So you're ok with the mob rule of the minority?

rikkitikkitavvi

Funny how your party cries foul every time you lose an election but the status quo is just fine when you win.

marinick1

[thumbup][thumbup]

DickD

Marnick,do you ever offer a comment of your own or can you just use sign language.

hayduke2

What two parties have recently won the WH without the majority of popular vote? Hmmm....

threecents

Funny how your eyes see only in one plane: us vs them.

rikkitikkitavvi

Only since the mask was torn off after the last Presidential election and I have seen the true intentions of the democrat party. It has indeed come to that cents.

threecents

And how does it differ from the Republican party - other than being better educated? I don't see the GOP encouraging primary election debates. I see them silencing any primary opponents against our corrupt and incompetent president.

jagman

You really want to go there, three? Look back at the 2016 primary for the RNC. That organization never cut any candidate out of the process. Instead, all candidates ran until they made their own decision to stop. As it should be.

Compare that to the way the DNC operates. In 2016 the DNC cooked the delegates to shut out Bernie Sanders because the elites had already decided the hildabeast would be the candidate.

This time around we see how the DNC is cooking up all sorts of rules to shut out candidates they don't want in the race. Tulsi Gabbard is a great example. They don't want her and they are doing everything possible to shut her out. Same with Marianne Williamson.



So,three, which party is more honest and open about the process?

threecents

Jagman, You cannot be serious. Sure, there is a Democratic conspiracy against Marianne Williamson. LoL. Why?? But even it there was, that would not make her a good choice for president. The fact is that Trump has proven throughout his life to be a terrible choice for president and the GOP is preventing Republicans from giving the other Republican candidates from having a chance. However, That is the GOP's prerogative. The thing is that you Republicans are letting it happen, but you don't have to. We all saw the mistake we made in 2016, and the leadership was changed as a result. Your party is making a mistake right now, and it can fix it before it is too late.

jagman

"My" party? I'm a libertarian, three. As such, I'm unencumbered by left or right ideology. Thus, I don't get blinded by party BS.

I support Trump because he is following a pro-America agenda. And succeeding.

Keep in mind that millions of your democrats voted for Trump (and will again in 2020) for the same reasons.

And for the record, the democrat party long ago abandoned regular traditional Americans in favor of the coastal elites who care for nothing beyond their protected communities and trust funds.

You're either one of those or your blinded by Trump hatred. Sad either way.

threecents

OK, I don't disagree with most of what you say about the Democratic party, but the Republican party is no better, and I won't go back to 2016 or even to Nixon to see that; I can see it right now, as they are silencing Republican opposition to Trump. It is in the nature of the party system. I hope we can agree to disagree about Trump.

threecents

Just a couple more things to help ease my TDS, Libertarians who hate the Democratic party are Republicans, whether they know it or not. To disagree is like saying Green Party member are not really Democrats who don't realize it. Other point: The reason Southern Democrats left the Democratic Party is because it is pro-choice and pro-civil rights. It has nothing to do with "trust funds". Wealthy people with trust funds tend to be Republicans - not Democrats - and those Republicans, including Trump, are in charge of the Republican party and making sure the wealthy stay in power. Follow the numbers.

jagman

Three, you're showing you blind partisanship again. First, the GOP is not "silencing" any potential primary candidate. There are several now claiming they are running. I haven't seen them silenced. They won't succeed because Trump is keeping campaign promises and clearly is positioned to win in 2020. But they aren't being silenced.

Compare that to the dem party primary rules. It was proven they shut down Sanders in 2016. They are doing the same this time by shutting out candidates they don't want. Looks like "silencing" to me. Of course, these tactics by the dems are exactly how the left has operated for as long as I've been observing.

It was obvious from one of your comments that you don't think much of Marianne Williamson. Yes, she is obviously a loon. However, she is very typical of most liberals I've known over the years and she's no more of a loon than Sanders, Warren, Harris, etc. Just watch some of the outtakes from the CNN climate townhall last week. There wasn't a sane thought put forth all night. That kind of nonsense is what ought to keep you up at night.

gabrielshorn2013

Three, you clearly do not understand what a Libertarian is. We share political beliefs that overlap both parties. We are financially conservative, yet support the liberties fought for by the ACLU. We espouse self-reliance, and personal responsibility, and justice for all regardless of socio-economic status. As for trust funds being a Republican trait, oh come on now. There are just as many Democrat trust fund babies as there are Republican. Think Kennedy, and Rockefeller.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.