The Electoral College

[gotribego26]

This went long. My apologies.

Well stated and no need to apologize.

[kayrharris]

Our election process does need to be fixed. I seldom admit it,
but I almost agree with lb!!

If you admitted you agree with me more often, I wouldn't be so upset that you post so much......

lb13

Why is it I'm having trouble believing this statement??

[andrewjackson]

1825- John Quincy Adams won the popular vote AND the electoral vote, but not a majority of electoral votes, so the election went to the House.

Excuse me?

Election of 1824
Candidate, Party, Popular Vote, Electoral College

Code: Select all

Andrew Jackson 	         Democratic-Republican		  151,271 		99
John Quincy Adams 	      Democratic-Republican 	 	113,122 		84
William Harris Crawford 	Democratic-Republican 	 	 40,856 	   41
Henry Clay 	             Democratic-Republican 	 	 47,531 	   37

Where are my dueling pistols?

[Bob78164]

Our election process does need to be fixed. I seldom admit it,
but I almost agree with lb!!

I'm still reeling from the shock of finding out he was registered to vote! He'll get bounced from the NAP fer sure!

No he won't. No one cares enough to bother. --Bob

[Bob78164]

I wouldn't mind the EC id it weren't "winner take all", but in its present form it's another reason I tend towards apathy....
lb13

So, would you prefer that the electoral college functioned more like the way that Nebraska and Maine do it? (Each Congressional District has a winner, and then overall state winner gets two votes)

Granted, it looks good for small states like NE and ME, but it loses its appeal if the loser of the overall state vote in CA, TX, or NY can get more total EC votes based on narrowly winning several districts.

Small states will never allow the Electoral College to disappear, as we do not want the President to be chosen by voters in California and New York. There is the fear of what type of candidates might arise if they do not have to care what the people in the Midwest think, for example.

They may not get a choice. A number of states have passed laws that when states comprising a majority of the electoral college are in agreement to this effect, all of their electoral votes will go to the winner of the national popular vote. I believe such laws would be constitutional -- the Constitution gives State Legislatures plenary authority to determine the allocation of electors. --Bob

[andrewjackson]

I wouldn't mind the EC id it weren't "winner take all", but in its present form it's another reason I tend towards apathy....
lb13

So, would you prefer that the electoral college functioned more like the way that Nebraska and Maine do it? (Each Congressional District has a winner, and then overall state winner gets two votes)

Granted, it looks good for small states like NE and ME, but it loses its appeal if the loser of the overall state vote in CA, TX, or NY can get more total EC votes based on narrowly winning several districts.

Small states will never allow the Electoral College to disappear, as we do not want the President to be chosen by voters in California and New York. There is the fear of what type of candidates might arise if they do not have to care what the people in the Midwest think, for example.

They may not get a choice. A number of states have passed laws that when states comprising a majority of the electoral college are in agreement to this effect, all of their electoral votes will go to the winner of the national popular vote. I believe such laws would be constitutional -- the Constitution gives State Legislatures plenary authority to determine the allocation of electors. --Bob

In that case the Electoral College would still exist but it would have been effectively removed from having any real part in the process.

The National Popular Vote bill has only passed in four states so far; Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. Those states have 50 electoral votes. Although several other state legislatures are considering the bill they are still a long way away from getting states with 270 electoral votes to pass it. I suppose another split vote might speed passage but it doesn't look like this election will provide any ammunition.

[BackInTex]

They may not get a choice. A number of states have passed laws that when states comprising a majority of the electoral college are in agreement to this effect, all of their electoral votes will go to the winner of the national popular vote. I believe such laws would be constitutional -- the Constitution gives State Legislatures plenary authority to determine the allocation of electors. --Bob

At that point, all the other states pass laws having their votes go to the other guy or gal. It would be just as constitutional.

Then I guess Iowa decides to export all of its produce and meat overseas to starve the New Yorkers.

Then the pissing match begins.

[andrewjackson]

It would also be interesting to see how long the National Popular Vote bill would last when a state has to switch its vote. I know Texans would be very unhappy if Texas had a majority vote for one candidate and then its Electors voted for the other. I think you would have some Electors afraid to return home and the state reps who voted for the NPV would probably soon be out of a job.

I could be wrong but that's how it would play out in my view. Either you switch to to a direct national election or you follow the current system. Trying to subvert the Electoral College would quickly backfire if an election was actually that close.

[BackInTex]

The founding fathers were way smarter and wiser than anybody we now have in Washington. I wouldn't want any of the current folks to touch it.