What is the best reason for keeping the Electoral College?

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[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?

Exactly right. This is exactly the type of situation it was created for -- to prevent mob rule from picking an unqualified demagogue propped up by a foreign (enemy) power. The rural areas have representation through their congresspeople and by having two senators from each state (regardless of that state's population size). Hillary really should have taken this up to the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Exactly right. This is exactly the type of situation it was created for -- to prevent mob rule from picking an unqualified demagogue propped up by a foreign (enemy) power. The rural areas have representation through their congresspeople and by having two senators from each state (regardless of that state's population size). Hillary really should have taken this up to the Supreme Court.

On what basis?

And Feinstein did introduce legislation to eliminate it yesterday. Constitutional amendments take a long time though.

[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.

No we are an idiocracy. People like you have no clue what a democracy means and what a republic means. Go get some basic civics course before you talk the same old tired crap. Hint: A Democracy and a Republic are not mutually exclusive.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Because it was proposed by that guy celebrated in that woke musical?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Exactly right. This is exactly the type of situation it was created for -- to prevent mob rule from picking an unqualified demagogue propped up by a foreign (enemy) power. The rural areas have representation through their congresspeople and by having two senators from each state (regardless of that state's population size). Hillary really should have taken this up to the Supreme Court.

Oh my gosh, I know. It's just so UNFAIR that she lost.

[Anonymous]

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.

Constitutional interpretation requires you to look at the why and -- if you read the Federalist papers -- you will learn that the electoral college was NOT created not for "balance" but to as a "check" so that the popular vote does not result in the election of a demagogic, unqualified person.

[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?

The fault does not lie with the Electoral College but with the Electors who vote in lockstep with the popular vote in their state. Forget Bush/Gore --- it would have been hard to argue that Bush was unqualified in the same sense that Trump is. The Electors need to do their constitutionally mandated duty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Exactly right. This is exactly the type of situation it was created for -- to prevent mob rule from picking an unqualified demagogue propped up by a foreign (enemy) power. The rural areas have representation through their congresspeople and by having two senators from each state (regardless of that state's population size). Hillary really should have taken this up to the Supreme Court.

Oh my gosh, I know. It's just so UNFAIR that she lost.

I would take it further -- it's actually unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

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.