What is the best reason for keeping the Electoral College?

[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?

This is 100% how I feel about it. It has now had the opposite effect of what the founding fathers intended. Time for it to go.

[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.

I think our political system would be better with more parties. Plenty of other countries have figured out a democracy with multiple political parties by figuring out government coalitions

[Anonymous]

Trump was all for abolishing the Electoral College until he won the most electoral votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think our political system would be better with more parties. Plenty of other countries have figured out a democracy with multiple political parties by figuring out government coalitions

Those other countries have parliamentary systems which structured very differently. Prime Ministers are selected, by elected ministers, through coalition-building. There is no analog for selecting the American President. Multiple mainstream parties would be a disaster for Presidential politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Whining from the left is starting to get annoying.

+1

Buncha sore losers

[Anonymous]

Would this be a conversation if Hillary won?

just saying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump was all for abolishing the Electoral College until he won the most electoral votes.

No - that's not entirely the case. Trump didn't get my vote, but what's fair is fair.

his interview on 60 Mins - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

In his convoluted way, he still admitted he prefers popular vote over EC, but he also acknowledged that he won with this system in place.

Lesley Stahl: Now, for months, you were running around saying that the system is rigged, the whole thing was rigged. You tweeted once that the Electoral College is a disaster for democracy.

Donald Trump: I do.

Lesley Stahl: So do you still think it’s rigged?

Donald Trump: Well, I think the electoral ca-- look, I won with the Electoral College.

Lesley Stahl: Exactly.But do you think--

Donald Trump: You know, it’s--

Lesley Stahl: --it’s rigged?

Donald Trump: Yeah, some of the election locations are. Some of the system is. I hated--

Lesley Stahl: Even though you won you’re saying that--

Donald Trump: I hated-- well, you know, I’m not going to change my mind just because I won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win. There’s a reason for doing this because it brings all the states into play. Electoral College and there’s something very good about that. But this is a different system. But I respect it. I do respect the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

We don't need to get rid of the Electoral College or change the Constitution at all. Electors can vote for whoever they want. Take it from the man who created the system:

"most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy, and wanted an extra layer beyond the direct election of the president. As Alexander Hamilton writes 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.”

Go read a book on the evolution of the electoral college. The EC is rooted in racism and fear of the uneducated mass. The southern politicians found a way to match up with the bigger population of the north without giving the blacks their vote using the EC. The Northern politician wanted to keep the EC as a check on the southern/idiot becoming president.

But Hamilton's check on the stupid mass electing a dangerous man has failed twice in 16 years. The Electoral College is not doing its supposed job of preventing an unqualified man from becoming the president, as envisioned by Hamilton. Trump is unqualified, much more than Bush, but the EC is going to rubber stamp him as president. So the very reason for EC is questionable. EC has disenfranchised over 1 Million votes. How is this fair to the disenfranchised voters? And for what reason?

Truly, you sound as biased as anyone on this board, thinking your own views are the correct ones and questioning the EC just because your candidate didn't win. Where were all these protesting voices prior to HRC's loss? The focus was on HRC's "wide path" to the White House and Trumps "narrow one." ("stupid mass," "electing a dangerous man," "unqualified man," "rubber stamp him," "disenfranchised voters," uneducated mass," "southern politicians found a way")

[Anonymous]

Whiners..liberals are just whiners. Even if the Presidential Election were direct elections, they'd still whine. Don't believe me? Scott Walker was elected several times by direct election and liberals whined, protested and clogged the court systems and caused several recall elections. Guess what, the will of the people spoke three times and he was always elected. Didn't stop them from whining and complaining though...

So liberals only believe in democratic and republican (with a little "r") governments when their guy wins

[Anonymous]

To keep people like Hillary out of office! it worked!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

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.

But if we went by the popular vote, candidates would just focus on the most highly populated states.

[Anonymous]

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.

But if we went by the popular vote, candidates would just focus on the most highly populated states.

And there's more than a few of us who don't think the voters of New York and California should have that much power.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1

Remember, if you really want "one person--one vote" thing, you should be able to accept the majority rule on many other issues. Most of them were decided by the Supreme Court, and I'm willing to bet, you're not ready to revisit those decisions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Whining from the left is starting to get annoying.

+1

Buncha sore losers

Seriously, where were all these people for the past eight years? Respect for Constitution and all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Whining from the left is starting to get annoying.

+1

Buncha sore losers

Seriously, where were all these people for the past eight years? Respect for Constitution and all.

Here is a serious question, and be honest: where would you have been if it had been the other way around? Trump refused to promise that he would accept the results of the election, and this was back when most polls showed that Hillary would win the EC. Would you have been critical of Trump and his supporters then? I mean I know that on the internet everyone is a dog, so you can say whatever you want whether or not it's true, but I'm hoping to get an honest, self-aware answer here.