The insanity and stupidity of the undemocratic Electoral College explained

[Adolf_Twitler]

MYTH: The Founding Fathers designed and favored our nation’s current system of electing the President.


The Founding Fathers never decided how presidential electors should be chosen. Instead, they left the matter to the states.

The Founding Fathers expected that the Electoral College would be a deliberative body. However, presidential electors became a rubber-stamp for the candidates nominated by their parties by the time of the nation’s first competitive presidential election in 1796.

The Electoral College further deviated from the Founders’ vision when state winner-take-all statutes became prevalent (long after the Founders were dead).

The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes was not debated (much less voted upon or adopted) at the 1787 Constitutional Convention.

The winner-take-all rule is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

The winner-take-all method was not the choice of the Founders and was, in fact, used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800).

The electoral system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. Instead, it is the result of decades of evolutionary change driven primarily by the emergence of political parties and the desire of each state’s ruling party not to give any of the state’s electoral votes to the minority party.

The winner-take-all rule came into widespread use because of the pressure created by its use in other states.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

MYTH: The small states would be disadvantaged by a national popular vote.

The small states (the 13 states with only three or four electoral votes) are the most disadvantaged and ignored group of states under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes. The reason is that political power in presidential elections comes from being a closely divided battleground state, and almost all of the small states are noncompetitive states in presidential elections.

The small states are not ignored because of their low population, but because they are not closely divided battleground states. The 12 small non-battleground states have about the same population (12 million) as the closely divided battleground state of Ohio. The 12 small states have 40 electoral votes—more than twice Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. However, Ohio received 73 of 253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system actually shifts power from voters in the small and medium-sized states to voters in a handful of big states that happen to be closely divided battleground states in presidential elections.

The fact that the small states are disadvantaged by the current state-by-state winner-take-all system has long been recognized by prominent officials from those states. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly small states in suing New York (then a closely divided battleground state) in the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to get state winner-take-all statutes declared unconstitutional.

Under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system, a vote for President in Wyoming is equal to a vote in California—both are politically irrelevant.

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

MYTH: Big cities, such as Los Angeles, would control a nationwide popular vote for President.

Under a national popular vote, every vote would be equal throughout the United States. A vote cast in a big city would be no more (or less) valuable or controlling than a vote cast anywhere else.

Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in California and therefore is hardly in a position to dominate a nationwide election. The fact that Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in its own state is evidenced by the fact that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected Governor in recent years without ever winning Los Angeles.

The origins of the myth about big cities may stem from the misconceptions that big cities are bigger than they actually are, and that big cities account for a greater fraction of the nation’s population than they actually do. In fact, 85% of the population of the United States lives in places with a population of fewer than 365,000 (the population of Arlington, Texas—the nation’s 50th biggest city).

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

MYTH: A major reason for establishing the Electoral College was to prevent elections from becoming contests where presidential candidates would simply campaign in big cities.

Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places with fewer than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates campaigning only in big cities.

 

[TrippyHippy]

So the minority rules the majority? Oh that make sense...NOT...Exactly the point the video makes. You probably should have watched the video before posting.

No. Balance between the minority and the majority. Congress is popular vote, President is not. Each checks the other.

 

[Earl]

I did learn in Civics class and was never satisfied with the explanation of why my vote counts less than others. You still have not adequately explained it either. Why are some people’s interest more important than mine? Why are we not equal? One person, one vote.

It was enacted because their Founders considered the masses too ignorant to vote in their best interest. It’s time to get rid of the EC, it was never in the voters best interest.

Your vote counts less than others due to the fact that you are a dumb, uneducated JPP hack moderator, Snowflake.

 

[Bigdog]

MYTH: A major reason for establishing the Electoral College was to prevent elections from becoming contests where presidential candidates would simply campaign in big cities.

Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places with fewer than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates campaigning only in big cities.

All your posts on this topic are stupid as fuck, Hitler.

 

[Phantasmal]

No. Balance between the minority and the majority. Congress is popular vote, President is not. Each checks the other.

Antiquated, just like women or slave not having the vote.

 

[Flash]

OK, the Electoral process is a delegation process! So I am not sure why that seems to be hanging you up! Are you playing semantics with me?

And the truth is, our electoral process has never been a democratic process! And that is what is hanging me up! Because our electoral process should be a democratic process!

Saying the EC is a "delegation process"does not explain what that means? I understand how the EC operates, but have never heard it referred to as "delegation process."

What is being delegated and who is delegating it. Simple question....

 

[TrippyHippy]

Antiquated, just like women or slave not having the vote.

Are you comparing checks and balances to disenfranchisement?

 

[Earl]

Different regions tend to have different interests. Urban areas tend to have different priorities from rural areas etc. etc. Whether you like it or not, humans are social creatures. There are personal interests (the issues that affect you) and there are collective interests (the issues that affect your region as a whole). The original intention was checks and balances on that. That's why the original intention was congress elected by popular vote, senate was elected by state legislature, president was elected by delegates. Nowadays, senate is elected by popular vote as well. So, 2/3rds of the federal government favors urban agendas. The last remaining check on that was the executive branch and now you want that to. This is not how our government was supposed to be run, and for good reason. We were not designed as a pure democracy, and nor should we have.

All this should have been taught to you in high school civics for the record...guess I'm playing teacher today.

Excellent summation but you are casting your pearls before swine.

The Super Moderator (lol) wants a democratic election process at all levels of government. Would he want this if the urban population happened to be predominantly conservative? I don't think so.

Thanks for attempting to educate these far left loons that slept through high school Civics.

 

[Flash]

MYTH: A major reason for establishing the Electoral College was to prevent elections from becoming contests where presidential candidates would simply campaign in big cities.

Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places with fewer than 2,500 people, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates campaigning only in big cities.

A major reason for establishing the EC was a compromise between those wanting Congress to elect the president which was the most popular view and I think actually voted on and approved once or twice and those wanting a stronger chief executive not dependent on Congress.

 

[Phantasmal]

Are you comparing checks and balances to disenfranchisement?

No, and the electoral college really doesn’t check or balance the system, Trump
was elected. He is both demagogue and bully. The system has failed us. One person, one vote.

 

[Earl]

Are you comparing checks and balances to disenfranchisement?

Yes, he is.

As I said, pearls before swine.

 

[Earl]

If the Republicans get a majority popular vote in 2020 and the Democrats the majority vote in the Electoral College, does anyone on the planet believe that the Democrats will scream that the Electoral vote is evil?

Anyone?

 

[Earl]

No, and the electoral college really doesn’t check or balance the system, Trump
was elected. He is both demagogue and bully. The system has failed us. One person, one vote.

So, Super Moderator, if the winner of the electoral college vote is a mean person, he still doesn't win?

Really?

 

[Wolverine]

Not if I could convince people like you to appreciate what a true Democracy can do for us as a nation, and what we could do to set the best example of Democracy for the rest of the world.

What I don't get is the fact that Republicans have lost all faith in Democracy, and are showing little respect for it because they now fear Democracy.

Let's get back to Democracy pal! We may not always get our way individually. Our guy may not always win. But we can rest assured that the one in charge is who the majority of us want as a leader, and we may just have to work in the confines of that.

And we will never ever again have a president that is unpopular from the moment he steps into office and leaving the majority of the country in discontent.

B.S. We can't get back to what we weren't, get over it clown!

 

[Flash]

I want a fair system that gives my vote equal value in all elections. One person, one vote.

Your vote counts the same as all the other votes in your state toward choosing the electors.

 

[TrippyHippy]

No,

Sure looked like that was what you were doing. Why even bring up disenfranchisement in a discussion that's not about disenfranchisement?

and the electoral college really doesn’t check or balance the system,

That's literally what it was designed to do. To act as balance with the popular vote and check mob rule.

Trump was elected. He is both demagogue and bully. The system has failed us.

That's your opinion. One I actually happen to agree with for the most part, but just because you don't like him does not mean the system has failed. The system worked exactly the way it was supposed to, you just don't like the results.

One person, one vote.

Repeating the same populist talking point over and over again doesn't make your point any better.

 

[MAGA MAN]

Antiquated, just like women or slave not having the vote.

It's the law. Get over it.