What is the best reason for keeping the Electoral College?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of this get rid of the electoral college assumes that two party rule will continue. But what if it doesn't? What if you have 10 candidates? Or 4 like the 1860 election where Lincoln got less than 40% of the popular vote yet crushed the electoral. Then there is the danger of regionalism. If it came to multi-candidate races, California could present a candidate that advocates California and west coast interests. Bye bye east coast.

There are lots of dangers in getting rid of it. Present a plan to replace it and show how it doesn't create new dangers.

How many elections in America did we have 10 candidates? The system is setup to be bi-party. This is not a parliamentary system. The very fact the president absolutely needs 270(or 269) rules out multiple candidate because then no candidate can get to 269. There is no provision for multiple candidates or multi-party in USA.

Your logic is so stupid and you have no clue how the EC evolved. The EC as an institution is rooted in racism since the southern politicians found a way(via EC) to compensate for a higher population in the north by counting the blacks without giving them a vote. The northern politicians went along with it because it gives them a way to control the outcome if a southern politician or a dangerous man was elected by the stupid mass. Hamilton has mentioned that the EC is to avoid someone like TRUMP from becoming the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have the Electoral College for the same reason we have a bi-cameral Congress: balance.

That may or may not be why it was set up that way--but it is the result.

The senate was explicitly setup for acting as the voice for the small states. Why should the Presidency be decided by the small states as well Disenfranchising OVER A MILLION VOTERS? For those who say EC was setup for the purpose of smaller states having a say, they are wrong, thats the role of the senate. EC was setup to prevent a dangerous, unqualified man from becoming a president, YET the EC has enabled just that. So the EC has failed in its moral duty.

Exactly right and I would take it further -- it's constitutional duty. Depending on what happens on December 19 and how Trumpolini comports himself over these next few weeks, this could be very interesting.

[Anonymous]

If you abandoned the electoral college, you are effectively saying that the only opinion that matters is the high density urban areas


This system is well over 200 years old. I think we will be OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you abandoned the electoral college, you are effectively saying that the only opinion that matters is the high density urban areas


This system is well over 200 years old. I think we will be OK.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. The Electoral College is not about equalizing urban and rural areas. It's about keeping an unqualified idiot out of the White House. We should keep the Electoral College and make the electors do their JOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you abandoned the electoral college, you are effectively saying that the only opinion that matters is the high density urban areas


This system is well over 200 years old. I think we will be OK.

That the system is well over 200 years old is EXACTLY THE REASON to update it to post slavery, post civil rights world with a modern democracy where no one is disenfranchised. Thats why no democracy but for the USA elects the loser of a popular vote by over 1 Million votes as president. The rest of the world is laughing at the USA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we are not a mob-rule "democracy" where literally every person gets a voice. We are a Republic. That means that we elect others (representatives, electoral college representatives) to speak for us.

Sure. And the electors are there to prevent a situation when the mob makes a bad choice, electing a completely unqualified candidate with no knowledge and no respect for the Constitution.

Oh. It didn't prevent that. Nor does it seem likely the electors will correct it.

So what's the point?

Not necessarily true. The electors are there to represent the will of the people in that state, much like the role the Hof Reps plays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something better than "this is how our founding fathers wanted it."

We are in the end ONE COUNTRY. Presidential campaigns should be nation-wide, not focused on a few key states and writing off large swaths of the country.

All votes should matter equally.

Okay - It requires that candidates pay attention to wider geographical areas of the country (city, suburb, and rural). The only reason it focuses on a few key states is that we've isolated ourselves geographically from each other into coastal and interior

+1.

OP, the onus is on you. Why should we change, and precisely now, what has been working well for 200+ years?

You wouldnt try to change the fabric of our country for partisan reasons, would you?

Of course. It's part of the "fundamental transformation of America" that O'bama and the Dems want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you abandoned the electoral college, you are effectively saying that the only opinion that matters is the high density urban areas


This system is well over 200 years old. I think we will be OK.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. The Electoral College is not about equalizing urban and rural areas. It's about keeping an unqualified idiot out of the White House. We should keep the Electoral College and make the electors do their JOB.

Oh, so like George Bush, you "trust the people?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you abandoned the electoral college, you are effectively saying that the only opinion that matters is the high density urban areas

This system is well over 200 years old. I think we will be OK.

This isn't true. There is a way the EC could fail to elect Trump and still kick the vote to the House. The House could choose Pence, and it wouldn't be so bad since all those voters have already indicated they think he's a reasonable replacement if something happened to Trump.

Your second statement indicates you don't know much about American history:

http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/01/eternal-vigilance-is-price-of-liberty.html

[Anonymous]

We are 50 states with a federal and limited union. The states have general sovereignty and the federal government has limited sovereignty.

[Anonymous]

The vote is essentially a snapshot of the changing views of the electorate, and an imperfect snapshot at that, given the effect of weather and other irrelevancies. In an election this close, the result is really a coin-toss, where a puff of wind, like Comey's letters for example, can change outcome.

So, whatever method we choose, in a close election the losing side will feel that the rules are unfair.

[Anonymous]

Honestly? The reason to keep it is that we have no choice. The last 4 presidents would have all been democrats if it was decided by popular vote. That means the red states will never sign off on the amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly? The reason to keep it is that we have no choice. The last 4 presidents would have all been democrats if it was decided by popular vote. That means the red states will never sign off on the amendment.

Had Gore won, it would have been super difficult for Obama to win. But it would have made it much easier for Hillary.

[Anonymous]

The Whining from the left is starting to get annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The vote is essentially a snapshot of the changing views of the electorate, and an imperfect snapshot at that, given the effect of weather and other irrelevancies. In an election this close, the result is really a coin-toss, where a puff of wind, like Comey's letters for example, can change outcome.

So, whatever method we choose, in a close election the losing side will feel that the rules are unfair.

I disagree with this. This was a good description of what happened in 2000, but not this year.

Clinton's popular vote lead is substantial, but given the existence of the EC you can't just take it at face value. That being said, given the fact that the comfortably blue states are also more populous, it's reasonable to assume she would have gotten more votes if people in blue states thought their vote mattered. Rather oddly, Trump's EC margin is substantial, though it was won via three states whose collective margin was around 100,000. So basically, 1 million more people voted for Clinton than Trump, but 1/10th as many Trump voters just happened to live in the right states to matter.