What is the purpose of the electoral college, and should it be abolished?

[msc545]

The Electoral College is a system used in the United States to determine the winner of the presidential election. It is made up of a group of electors who are chosen by the states and who cast votes to elect the President and Vice President of the United States. The number of electors for each state is equal to the number of members of Congress (senators and representatives) that the state has.

The purpose of the Electoral College is to ensure that the president is elected by a broad coalition of support from across the country, rather than simply being chosen by the most populous states. It also helps to ensure that the president is chosen by a majority of the voters, rather than simply being the candidate who gets the most votes overall.

There has been much debate over whether the Electoral College should be abolished. Some argue that it is an outdated system that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters, and that it should be replaced with a national popular vote. Others argue that the Electoral College serves an important function in the presidential election process and should be preserved. Ultimately, the decision to abolish the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment, which is a lengthy and difficult process.

[OlderAndWiser]

The Electoral College gives disproportionate power to smaller states, enhancing the sense of "union" and reducing incentives for states to secede from the union.

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for MHO!

[KrakenAttackin]

Pure democracy is three wolves and two sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

[goaded]

It's a good job nobody is suggesting that for the US, then, isn't it?

[KrakenAttackin]

@goaded Eliminating the electoral system would be pure democracy and would quickly lead to civil war.

[goaded]

No it wouldn't. The Electoral College is not the same as the electoral system, and it's only relevant to the presidency and vice presidency. Since those positions represent all the people of the USA, it makes far more sense for them to be chosen by popular vote.

[monorprise]

@goaded Unless @KrakenAttackin is referring to the Constitution we still would not be a pure democracy without the Electoral collage. That said @KrakenAttackin is probably right about the long term outcome being Civil war either way. It just happens a lot faster if you get rid of the rest of the Federal Constitution.

[WindAtMyBack]

The United States is a federation of states. The government exists at a number of levels, with various methods of selecting the members. We have people representing us directly or indirectly at town, city, county, state, federal and international levels. Some represent the people, some represent the state, and some represent the country as a whole. Some are elected by the people, some are elected by the state, some are appointed with approval, and some are simply hired.

So the way we are represented in government is very broad. The US president is elected by the states, with each state weighted by population. There is no Constitutional requirement, nor is there a right of the people to vote for the president.

The country was almost a hundred years old before every state allowed the people to vote for president. This means that the founders of the country, and writers/signers of the Constitution did NOT intend on the people voting for president. They intended for the member states to select the president. If they intended on the people voting for president, then that's how they would have done it, but they didn't.

The states select the president, not the people. If the states choose to allow people to vote which way their state will vote, that is entirely up to the states.

Some people confuse the electoral college with "winner takes all". That is NOT the electoral college. That is only the way the states have chosen to do it. They are allowed to do it that way if they want, but there is no requirement for it. There is no requirement at all for how the state decide to do it, only that they pick their electors in some way.

The electoral college is more representative. It means that not just people in densely populated areas have a say. It means that all the minority people with completely different lifestyles have some say. It forces any candidate to consider ALL states and the people living in those states, not just a few of the most populated states.

Consider parliamentary countries like Canada and many others. The people don't vote for their PM at all. Why all the controversy in the US but not in all the parliamentary countries where people have less say in it?

I sometimes compare it to the Olympic Games. Image if it was done entirely by population. That means a country like Norway would have one downhill skier, and Saudi Arabia would have seven. But it's not done that way. Each state has the same representation.

The US president could be elected by popular vote, with a handful of big cities carrying the vote. Or each state could have equal representation like the Olympics or United Nations. Or it could be a compromise between the two, which is what the electoral college is.

Just imagine if representation in the United Nations was by population alone. The vast majority of countries would have virtually no say. There would be no reason for most of them to even be members. But it's not done that way for a good reason. It's so all countries, both big and small, are represented and have a say.

[goaded]

"The US president is elected by the states, with each state weighted by population."
Not equally, though. Every state gets three EC votes independent of their population, one for each Senate place and a minimum of one Representative.

That means Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Delaware, with a combined population of well under 5 million have 18 EC votes, one more than Pennsylvania or Illinois, which have populations of over 12 million.

[monorprise]

@goaded Your right a more appropriate and just system would probably given all states regardless of size a single vote. The presidency does not exist to execute the policy platform of the people but to execute the laws of the FEDERAL Goverment of these united States which exist for no other reason than to protect said states ability to govern themselfs.

To that end Pennsylvania and Illinois are over-represented to the point of abusing said power over people in distant lands for their own benefit.

[goaded]

@monorprise Or you could reduce the electoral college to one vote per representative, without the two for senate seats. The system is bad enough as it is, the country wouldn't have lasted two decades if what you suggest had been implemented.

Land does not vote, people do.

[WindAtMyBack]

@goaded
No, it's not equal but it's pretty close. I think it's a good thing that each state has a minimum number of votes.

If you look at it geographically and culturally it's not as lopsided as it may appear. So the greater Los Angeles area has 26 votes instead of 27. That's not really hurting anything. They still have very strong representation. I'm not sure if those are the exact numbers, but it's pretty close.

It doesn't matter that Wyoming is the least populated state. It's still a state and a member of the union. As such it gets representation, just like the smallest countries get representation in the UN.

You can break it up all kinds of ways. For example it might seem like California is over-represented. But visualize California overlaid over the northeast coast. It will cover a bunch of NE coast states that collectively have WAY more representation than California, especially in the senate.

Is the system perfect? Hell no. But it's a good system that provides a good compromise.

I think states should quit letting people vote for president. And they have the power to do it. Presidential elections and everything that goes with it are chaos. It's divisive as hell. It's expensive to the extreme. And it draws WAY too much attention away from things that are more important. Each election gets worse and worse. We don't even have a breather any more. As soon as one election is over, the next election starts immediately. It's just crazy. There used to be a good two years between elections, when we weren't subjected to all the craziness. Now it's continuous. Get rid of the damn elections and things will be way less chaotic and divisive.

[goaded]

"No, it's not equal but it's pretty close." Some voters have twice the effect on the presidential election as others.

And that's just for president, votes for Senate are even more extreme. A vote for Senate in Alaska is 39 times as powerful as a vote in California. But that case at least makes some sense, since they're representatives of your state, not the representative of your country on the world stage.

"Get rid of the damn elections and things will be way less chaotic and divisive."
That's called installing a dictatorship. It's not a good idea.

[monorprise]

@goaded Your right people vote to govern themself in every area in which there are interactions that must be so governed.

To be a State the area of self-government must be large and diverse in resources enough as to not require interactions in the area of self-government outside its domain with defensible boarders.

This is why places like D. C. are too tiny to be practical states. They cannot govern themselfs independent of their neighbors within borders soo small and poor in natural resources.

A far larger state like Wyoming could have far fewer people and still said people would be able to govern themselfs independent of their neighbors in all areas expected of a state.

This is a far more ideal system of goverment because the needs and circumstances of places like Wyoming are soo vastly different than places like Delaware or Rode Island as to make a common set of leaders and policies for both would greatly diminish both with incompatible policies.

No land doesn't vote, land enables you to vote.

[monorprise]

@WindAtMyBack Remember the issue of a state is not the number of its inhabitants but their independent ability to govern themselfs.

Wyoming is geographically huge and rich in resources, even if it had only a 30 thousand residents said residents would be so self-sufficient and defensible in such a land that that they could govern themselfs independently of their neighbors.

Likewise their land is soo distant and different from said neighbors that sharing a common set of policies and leaders would invariably be disconnected from the reality of its very different regions. Thus being harmful to all regions.

As such a State very much is about land and resources more than people of which a state needs very few.

[goaded]

@monorprise "To be a State the area of self-government must be large and diverse in resources enough as to not require interactions in the area of self-government outside its domain with defensible boarders. "

I think you just made that up. A state is an area that other states and the federal government that they make up allow to be a state.

"Defensible". Pfft.

[monorprise]

@goaded Other states did not allow any of the 13 original states, nor Texas, nor Hawaii, nor California to be states.

Their people made themselfs as such based upon their ability to operate independently in the domain they claimed. As such in said domain they required no recondition nor cooperation of any other state to be a state. This is a natural right, a right we Americans in our deceleration recognizes as both essential and inalienable for a free people.

Land and the natural resources that it offers is what makes this right possible not really the number humans upon it. That is why land and resources presupposes a State Not number of inhabitants.

For without said land there is no possibility of practical independent self-government as to not require the cooperation of others.

Hence why in our foundation the Union is built around equal representation of the States NOT their people.

[goaded]

@monorprise You're making stuff up again. The original 13 colonies agreed to be states, none of the others would have become states within the United States without the approval of the existing states.

"Land and the natural resources that it offers is what makes this right possible not really the number humans upon it. That is why land and resources presupposes a State Not number of inhabitants."
Rubbish. Without people, it would just be land. Why is there a North and South Dakota? There's no mountain range or massive river between the two, they're states just because they wanted to be two separate states, in order to have 4 senators between them.

[monorprise]

@goaded said: "You're making stuff up again. The original 13 colonies agreed to be states, none of the others would have become states within the United States without the approval of the existing states."
On the contrary the States I listed all made themselfs independent countries prior to being accepted by congress into the union. An act they voted for. A State is not nessarly a member of any union.

Today we call said states Nation-States to denote their independence. Althou the exact definition of those terms are debatable particularly across time.

@goaded said: " "Rubbish. Without people, it would just be land."
I did not suggest they didn't need populations, only that they didn't need any particular big number of people. To put this into context there were probably only about 4 million people between all of the 13 colonies at the time of union. The smallest of which Delaware a state of just around ~2,000 square miles had only 59,096 people.

North Dakota today by contrast is 70,705 square miles of land & resources to draw upon and has 779,261 citizens with which to independently exist with it. I'm not sure Delaware could do anywhere near as well if it didn't have the cooperation of its neighbors.

en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_historical_population

As such North Dakota is very much a state and would easily exist as such regardless of the opinion of any other state.

[goaded]

@monorprise Those states, after the 13th, had to apply to join the USA. The only reason North and South Dakota are separate states is politics. The border between them is literally a line on a map. There has never in history been any need to defend that border from either side.

[monorprise]

@goaded That fact hardly separate them from almost any other American State, nor many nations of the world. One might just as well argue the same is the difference between theses united States and Canada.

[goaded]

@monorprise War of 1812.

[monorprise]

@goaded The war of 1812 is regarded as a draw between the U. S. and the United Kingdom. Canada no more existed than the U. S. did in the French Indian war in 1754. Canada would not enter the seen as an organization for anther 55 years.

[Chazmatazz269]

The purpose of the electoral college is to override voters and keep in power those already in power. It was formed at a time when the vast majority of the people were entirely ignorant of “democracy”, too spread out to be effectively reached during campaigns, and frankly too busy just surviving to invest time, energy and money on politics. The electoral college ensured that only the educated and knowledgeable had a say in the end result. There is no requirement whatsoever for electors to respond to their electorate, particularly with widespread gerrymandering. However, it’s only one facet of an entire system that is completely ineffective for the majority of voters almost all of the time. The system itself is rife with corruption at every level, and the majority of US citizens are either too stoopid to realize how they’re being manipulated, too lazy to do anything about it, or too comfortable with the status quo to challenge it. We are in a race to the bottom and we have a commanding lead.
I’m looking forward to helping to burn it all to the ground.

[monorprise]

The founding generation was remarkably well read and verse in not only history of democracy but goverment as well. Much more so than even our present generation which unlike them is in fact both too soiled by relatively good goverment and too distracted with every other matter on earth to bother learning.

They had been engaged in democracy in various forms for over 150+ years. As for their distance and relatively independence from each-other, its true most were farmers, that does not mean they did not get together to learn things and decide issue of public concern. Nor does it mean they spent all day working to survive or lacked information. They had libraries filled with history books, competitive news papers and word of mouth.
More importantly they had the time and interest given bad goverment to actually learn said history unlike our current population.

Today we are far less free, and frankly if you account for the changes in tecnoligy likely less prosperous than they were because of that lack of freedom.
We have many more voters, but the lack of self-reliance of said voters has made far too many of them slaves to the abuses of political factions which strip them of their freedom.

[Chazmatazz269]

You are mistaken, or possibly lying. The “founding fathers” and ruling class were well read. More than half of eligible voters in the US couldn’t read at all. The electoral college was designed to make sure those dummies couldn’t overthrow the existing authority, even through “democracy”.
Keep moving with your nonsense. I’ll have none of it here.

[goaded]

The Electoral College has been amusingly described as the only part that no other country US democracy was exported to wanted.

There is an alternative way to avoid the effects of the EC without an amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Personally, I'd recommend instant-runoff voting for president (like Alaska uses for governor, iirc) - no more extreme candidates winning, fewer attack ads (having to attack more people makes them less effective), and no "wasted" votes on third party candidates.

But that would definitely require a constitutional amendment.

[monorprise]

You have completely missed point of the electoral college.
The point is not to establish any electoral system at all but to allocate power to the States to establish their own electoral systems for all offices which are thanks to said cottage isolated to them.

As such we so have
* Instant-runoff states,
* Just as we have mail in voting states,
* rank choice states
* states with many election qualifications.
* states with view if any enforceable election qualifications.

In every case despite complaints to the country every state election is really isolated in its effects to that state, and thus We Americans can not only experiment with new forms of Democracy but vote among them with our feet. All thanks to the electoral collage.

As for other countries Ignoring this system, there are only a few countries even close to the size and diversity of the USA.

[goaded]

@monorprise I haven't missed the point at all. I just think it results in unjust results.

The Electoral College doesn't have any effect on any elections other than those for the president and vice president, who are supposed to represent all of the people, so most of what you wrote is irrelevant.

It means that you get presidents who won a minority of the national vote because a party has concentrated on smaller states, and the two-party system allows them to be extreme. Having a choice of, say, Trump, Clinton, Kasich, Cruz, Sanders, O'Malley, Johnson and Stein in 2016 instead of effectively just two of them would have found a far more representative POTUS.

The Senate should be enough to ensure low population states' opinions are not ignored.

Instant-runoff is just another name for ranked choice, by the way.

[monorprise]

@goaded The president was suppose to be just a chief executive, NOT a representative of the people in anyway. His job was to carry out the laws of the union in a way that respects the Federal Constitution and the interest of the States thereof.
That's why presidents are elected by the States, not the people, originally via state legislator vote, and failing a majority by the State's representatives in congress equally.

There is no part of the presidency that is suppose to represent the people of all States as if they were an arrogant whole.

People didn't begin voting on who their state cast their electors for president for many decades after the union formed.

If you want a more just system abolished the cottage and go back to electing the president by State in the house.

[goaded]

@monorprise "The president was suppose to be just a chief executive, NOT a representative of the people in anyway."
So not on the same level as kings and queens, then, just some minor functionary?

Do you want to go back to state's legislatures choosing who their electoral votes should go to, ignoring the people's wishes?

What were the first three words of the constitution again?

You seem to have either forgotten or have a burning desire to regress the country to the 18th century.

[monorprise]

No the president is not the same as a King or Queen, although his power over the federal goverment might be comparable to the constitutional monarch in England of his day.

How the states choose to cast their electors is their business.

@goaded asked: "What were the first three words of the constitution again?"

The first 3 words of the Federal Constitution are "All legislative Powers" as the start of Article 1 Section 1. Of course you were thinking of the preamble which is a statement of propose of a document not the terms of the document itself.

@goaded said "You seem to have either forgotten or have a burning desire to regress the country to the 18th century. "

Assuming your not ignorant of history you seem to have a burning desire to regress the country to the 3rd century Roman empire.

Centralization is decay as a country falls ever more to the power lust and corruption of its leaders until such time that it's people and economy are unable to support it. It is NOT modernization by any streach of the imagination. Nor is it unfortunately anymore uncommon than the power lust which drives it.

[goaded]

@monorprise I did not say the president is the same as a king or queen, I said they're the head of state, like kings, queens, or other presidents. They represent the whole country, and therefore should be elected by the whole country.

You really think that the country will fail because of the limited centralisation there has been and not because one of only two major political parties is willing to end democracy?

[monorprise]

@goaded The president is elected by the whole "country", we just don't define that "country" as a union of 330 million people but rather 50 states for the reasons I enumerated.
As such the propose of the FEDERAL goverment the president runs as King George one did the unitary British Goverment is as different as both the subject (states) and Nature (limited Federal) of goverment.

Yes it will fall, and the fact that the democratic party is trying end Democracy is very much a direct result of said centralization making the idea of sharing soo much power with people with soo a set of needs intolerable.

Unions can only endure so long as they are compatible and beneficial to sufficiently powerful majority of its constitutions parts. Thus overtime as its power hungry leaders centralize more an more power to themselfs said unions inevitably fall apart for want of enough of its parts finding said union agreeable.

The end of Democracy is simply one of the steps in the process, as it enables a minority in control of key military resources to continue to rule as an oligarchy by force.

In America it won't be that easy as it was in Rome by design our constitutions parts are very well armed and able to rebel. So there is a very good chance if said designs work out the end of democracy will also be the end of the union.

[goaded]

@monorprise "The president is elected by the whole "country", we just don't define that "country" as a union of 330 million people but rather 50 states..."
Is that the royal "we"? I'm certain most Americans don't make such a distinction.

Blah blah, Democrats trying to end democracy by making sure people can vote, blah...

"Unions can only endure so long as they are compatible and beneficial to sufficiently powerful majority of its constitutions parts."
Guess what, it is. Take away federal redistribution and half the Republican states would be bankrupt in a week.

"The end of Democracy is simply one of the steps in the process, as it enables a minority in control of key military resources to continue to rule as an oligarchy by force."
Trump literally wanted the National Guard to march with and protect (who from?) his protesters on Jan 6.

[monorprise]

@goaded The key to democracy is making sure people's vote counts not that said vote is actually cast. Much if not most of any given population is too preoccupy to bother to show up to vote much-less inform themselfs enough to do so non-randomly.

The most offices, issues you ask them to vote on the higher that bar and thus the smaller that number, and the larger who are simply forced to commit themselfs to faction. This is why you don't want to force people to vote nor do you want to make it easier for them to do so.

Voting like using a any other weapon is exercising force over your neighbor you want them to think about it or you will get progressively worse results.

As it happens if you want to end democracy you undermine the integrity of the system of voting so that it is impossible to verify that the ballots counted are those cast by the people in a 1 to 1 ratio is the only way to do so without inspiring a revolt.

As for the fact that many republican states have to be bribed to tolerate the present goverment at great expense of many democratic states.
This really illustrates why thing are going to fall apart. The people of those states were never onboard with such programs in the first place as they didn't justify the expense.

They may have tolerated them when they ended up getting more money out of them that they received but when that fact changes their attitudes and opinion on money they would rather not be spent become ever more resentful.

Regarding January 6 Trump Offered the support of National guard to provide security. National guard do this task rather than the regular army because the regular army is neither experienced, equip, nor legally allowed to engage in such domestic policing operations.

[goaded]

@monorprise "The key to democracy is making sure people's vote counts not that said vote is actually cast."
You're making things up again, aren't you? Are you upset that uninformed people don't turn up to vote or that they do?

"... you don't want to force people to vote nor do you want to make it easier for them to do so."
Somehow I thought that might be your opinion. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the more people who do vote, the more likely people with your opinions are to lose.

Blah, blah, blah... lies about the voting process... repeating Trump lies about the National Guard...

"Unprompted, President Trump then said, “You’re going to need 10,000
people” the following day, as in troops.281 An email sent by Chief of Staff
Meadows on January 5th explicitly noted that the DC Guard would be on
hand to “protect pro Trump people.” 282 The President and his staff
appeared to be aware of the likelihood of violence on the day the election
certification of his loss was slated to transpire. This communication from
President Trump contemplated that the Guard could ***support and secure the
safety of Trump supporters, not protect the Capitol***. At that time, Secretary
Miller apparently had no information on what President Trump planned for
January 6th."

[monorprise]

@goaded asked: "Are you upset that uninformed people don't turn up to vote or that they do?"

Would you prefer an election dominated by the roll of the dice or the considered judgement of the people who actually care enough to know what their voting for?

The more you push people into voting the more people who will vote with the roll of the dice or worse for the generic party line having no idea how the people being elected actually preformed.

That is at best mob rule not democracy.

@goaded said: "I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the more people who do vote, the more likely people with your opinions are to lose."

I am glad to hear you think the people who put the least amount of effort into the political process are most likely to disagree with me. Althou I am puzzled how you can overlook the clear implications of that association on the better quality of my political judgement

Particular knowing you are yourself as a foreigner soo ignorant of the full story regarding American politics.

I do not disagree with said observation as it is quite clear the more experienced (older) and informed (involved) the voter the more likely they are to favor republicans.

The democratic domination of media and schools has created a large but shallow base.

@goaded I do of course agree that given what was known the guard would have been more prudent to deploy the guard to protect Trump Supporters from local antifa than trying to protect anything from them. This is the same local left who had in the prior year assaulted thousands of people and done billions of dollars in damages.

At the same time simply respecting Trump supporters 2nd amendment rights might have been enough to insure said leftist stay at bay nonetheless there were many assaults against them.

[goaded]

@monorprise I'd prefer the considered judgement of an educated people, one that has been taught how to critically examine assertions that are put before them.

That's something the Republican party is working hard to avoid. Do you really think old people are better informed, or are they just stuck thinking the Republican party is the same as it was 30 years ago? Before Gingrich broke the system by stopping bipartisanship.

Young people are better informed (they're not tuned to Fox News) and have far more to lose (and have already lost the right to an abortion, thanks to Republicans). If people are convinced that their vote matters, they're more likely to turn out. If they're going to turn out, they're more likely to look at the options. There are no universally popular Republicans policies.

In fact, when they write them down honestly, they're remarkably unpopular (cutting social security, raising taxes on the poor and middle class - see Rick Scott's 11 point plan (since deleted for obvious reasons) web.archive.org/.../

As to Trump wanting the National Guard to protect his protesters as they marched to steal the presidency, there were no AntiFa there. Why would there be? Their side had won, fair and square. The final substantive count had been made weeks previously.

[monorprise]

@goaded Althou we agree on both preferring the considered judgement of people. We do not agree that judgement must or nessarly should be "educated" by select individuals rather than by experience.

As for that which is taught by people, this of course is no different than ignorance as said people are themselfs either ignorant or deliberately choosing to teach lies advantages to their own agenda.

Both of which we know to be true of the overwhelming (80%+) share of most goverment backed "Education" institutions. Whether this is by original choice of politicians who backed said institutions or by self-interest of the people who choose to work in them.

Said people regardless lack experience to prove their 'knowledge' and a large number of them have spin without challenge some of the most self-destructive ideas in human history.

So it is in fact experience which we want most among voters not "education" for experience is honest education of the world not mere self-serving men.

[goaded]

@monorprise I'm sorry, but I have to point it out, you mean themselves, not themselfs.

It's an education thing.

Experience is no substitute for education and critical thinking (a phrase notably lacking from your response). You experience the people and environment around you, you gain understanding from more broad knowledge.

[monorprise]

@goaded You can learn many things from other people but the truth you learn from experience with your own eyes on your own.
That is why experience is better than any 1 source of information.

This is not to say that many different competing sources of information cannot provide great value if you really have it. We simply can't trust them more than your own eyes and we know for a fact they are being used to manipulate us.

You blame Conservative news like Fox Conservatives created by mostly republicans, Conservatives blame liberal news and 'education' provided by 90% democrats.
Both are pushing an agenda nether are telling the whole story. We can know the truth only thou experience of what we see as working in the real world.

[goaded]

@monorprise That's why teaching critical thinking is so important. Learning how to learn. Learning how to spot deceit (which is also very useful when viewing adverts).

"You blame Conservative news like Fox Conservatives created by mostly republicans, Conservatives blame liberal news and 'education' provided by 90% democrats. "
Yes, but only one side is actually lying about the other.



No, neither side is telling the whole truth, they're all owned by rich people and corporations so are never going to talk positively about anti-trust legislation. That doesn't mean that some are lying about more things than others.

[monorprise]

@goaded There is no method to reliably detect deception beyond knowing from experience with your own eyes what the truth is or at least what you cannot trust to be true.

You can learn the tools of learning, and to question everything but not what the truth is on any subject with any greater reliability than what would come from any other person.

Ultimately the only thing you can trust is what you see with your own eyes both in how things work and the reliably of the source.

This is why raising the voting age is the most advantageous way to improving the outcome of elections by limiting those who cast such votes to those who have actually had the chance to see the past results of them.

[goaded]

@monorprise Why am I not surprised that you want to raise the voting age to benfit your side? I think you'll find that the methods to reliably detect deception are called science or critical thinking. Every voter has had at least 18 years to see the past results of elections, isn't that enough?

[AviatorTom]

It's important to remember that the United States of America is a nation of several individual states. Therefore, it's important that each state has a say in how the federal (i. e.-national) government works, and the Electoral College does just that. It ensures that every state, whether large or small, has an input in choosing the President. The largest US state, population-wise, is California, and the smallest is Wyoming. If only the popular vote were used to determine the President, only 6 of the 50 states could decide the Presidential election, and that would not be fair to the other 44 states.

The Electoral College is an important part of US Presidential elections and has been for more than 200 years. It should remain.

Those who want to abolish it don't understand that the US is a nation of states, and that every state is important.

[goaded]

"Those who want to abolish it don't understand that the US is a nation of states, and that every state is important."
I think they do understand that, but don't believe a person in one state should be twice as important as a person in another.

[monorprise]

@goaded That is only true if you presume a president can be in charge of everything. Otherwise we are not equal in judgement in a modern civilization to everyone else.
Judgement must be based upon interest and experience relevant to the issue being judged. If you don't agree with that fact then I trust you take a vote between a mechanic, a doctor and a barber how to fix you car.

A president is SUPPOSE to have only a very limited and spesfic set of responsibilities in a particular area of equal application to all States. As such the equality of States in judging said behavior is paramount.

Hence why what was suppose to be the normal way of electing presidents (without anyone winning a majority of the Electoral cottage) treated states as equals.

If we were to improve the system at all in abolishing the Cottage it would be to return to that method of election which best reflects the interest of a president's legitimate area of responsibility

In a modern civilization every sane person accepts that we are NOT equal in the relevance to every area of judgement.

[goaded]

@monorprise " In a modern civilization every sane person accepts that we are NOT equal in the relevance to every area of judgement. " Actually, I think you'll find most modern civilisations are based on the idea of pretty much every adult having an equal vote. Even some dictatorships pay lip service to the idea.

It's a vast improvement over two centuries ago.

[monorprise]

@goaded So you give equal vote over how to handle your house taxis to your car mechanic as you do to your Public Accountant?

The more advanced a culture the more specialized its population and the less equal their vote on any given issue as a direct result of the body of knowledge and experience needed to have good judgement.

We accept the idea of Equal rights but not the idea that everyone's opinion on everything is equally merited. In fact we are going in the opposite direction on that issue as our tecnoligy and the issues there of become ever more complicated.

[goaded]

@monorprise What does who I employ for a certain task have to do with one person one vote?

You seem to be arguing voting should be restricted to an elite like back in the 18th century when it was male landowners. Who should the elite be today, then?

Practically everyone in better educated than in the 18th century, and we have access to undreamt-of amounts information (and misinformation).

What does seem to be lacking is a sense of shame or honour. Watch how the Republican House seats a representative who lied about everything in order to get elected next week.

[monorprise]

@goaded Your choice of employment is your vote for a particular service.
The only difference with that of your ballot vote for all the services of goverment is the degree to which you are forced to share that choice with others.

Hence why limited goverment maximizes freedom, prosperity and happiness as it decentralizes to the individual as many choices to suit their particular needs as possible.

I am not arguing for any voting restriction beyond those who are a party to said choice in the capacity in which they are a party. When it comes to the Federal goverment we are only a party to its few legitimate choices in our capacity as states.

[goaded]

@monorprise "limited goverment maximizes freedom, prosperity and happiness" No, it doesn't, it concentrates all those things in a minority's hands. People, I suspect, who look and think like you. The freedom to work for someone who might provide enough keep you alive for as long as you are useful to them is not freedom.

"I am not arguing for any voting restriction beyond those who are a party to said choice in the capacity in which they are a party. When it comes to the Federal goverment we are only a party to its few legitimate choices in our capacity as states."
You'll have to re-phrase that a little more clearly, it makes no sense to me.

I'll repeat my question, which seemed fairly clear to me:

"You seem to be arguing voting should be restricted to an elite like back in the 18th century when it was male landowners. Who should the elite be today, then?"

[monorprise]

@goaded You seem to subscribe to the communist beleive that people are incapable of doing anything for themselfs and the only ones who can do anything are somehow a "special few" of a master class and thus they either get said from them or not at all.

This is compete nonsense as demonstrated again and again where governments have NOT been used to use force to secure monopoly control of said industries. people have alterntives.

I will try to restate it:
I am not arguing for any voting restriction beyond restricting voting to those who are a party to said choices being voted on in the capacity in which they are a party.

When it comes to the Federal goverment we are only a party to its few legitimate choices in our capacity as states.

[monorprise]

I do agree with the electoral college, as a wonderful system that not only insures the federal executive must have broader support but that his election does not require any kind of electoral uniformity among the States.

Because of the electoral cottage every state can in theory operate completely different election systems without ever really effecting any other state as there are no common elections between them.

As such we have states like Alaska doing ranked choice, Oregon experimenting with mail in systems. Most of the Southern States with verified voting, California with no real enforceable rules and thus a largely unaccountable political machine run elections. etc...

[goaded]

"California with no real enforceable rules" Oh, rubbish.

[exitseven]

If we did not have the electoral college only the people that live in California and New York would be able to pick the president. The rest of the country would be disenfranchised. It would basically be taxation without representation

[monorprise]

That is true only as popular vote is the only alternative given by the political class today.

Originally in 1787 I think it is more likely if they went with any other system at all it would have been simply electing the President by house vote as they did prime minsters in other countries.

Our modern political class in addition to offering no other options has in said 'discussion' completely overlooked the fact that the Electoral College doesn't establish a system of voting at all but rather divides power among the States to establish their own systems.

As such we Americans have the freedom to experiment in a relatively safe way with different election systems for every office.

[goaded]

Whatever happened to Texas and Florida? That's 52 million voters you say would be ignored. What you're really complaining about is that you'd lose the opportunity to lose by several million votes and still be president. (The Senate would still be representation biased towards lower population states.)

[monorprise]

@goaded
The States exist to provide almost all of Goverment functions and the federal Goverment exist to protect those States ability to do that, NOT so directly the people thereof.
As such a president is suppose to be the executive of that Federal Goverment who's job is to faithfully uphold the laws of the union of States as authorized by said constitution to protect said states.

He cannot do that if he holds policy favoritism towards any particular lot of them. Hence why he is NOT elected directly by the people but rather via a system which more equably represents the objective of his position said states ability to govern themselfs.

The number of inhabitants of said states is only consequential in measuring the amount of their contribution to that effort. In this respect they are represented differently in the house of representatives without whom laws and money no action is possible.

[goaded]

@monorprise The federal government exists for a lot more than that. But you want to go back to the 18th century, just with 50 states nationwide rather than 13 small ones all clustered down one coast.

It may be hard for you to understand, but systems that don't evolve break. The country has come a long way from colonisation, slavery, and muskets.

[monorprise]

@goaded Actually because the union has grown soo much in size and diversity we actually need to be even more decentralized than we were in 1787.

As different as the needs and interest of the 13 original states all on the east coasts and relatively homogeneous environmentally, culturally, and economically they didn't even compare to the differences between the 50 states spanning the continent.

Our system is breaking as every other one in history did because the only path of change politicians contemplate is the one that gives them more power.
Even if we were still only a small east coast federation of 13 said consolation thou it could go further and likely be better tolerated it would in its conflict with their more minor diversity inevitably break them.

Empires survive either by respecting their diversity having a large enough central block in support of an oppressive system to crush it, and then only so long as that central block remains strong enough.
Unlike Germany which from its foundation embraced this oppression in its unification war we do not wish to tolerate such oppression in our lives.

[goaded]

@monorprise You do know that Germany is a federal republic as well, don't you?

[monorprise]

@goaded Yes I also know how it came together thou war and that the Germans have no compulsions about using forced to enslave their fellow Germans to their will. Nor anyone else in Europe it seems.

[goaded]

@monorprise Oh, fuck off.

[Anonymous]

Removing the EC will make the US akin to the country in The Hunger Games. All of the rich city dwellers will get to dictate what happens to people who are too poor to live there.

The EC takes into account the opinions of every "district". The only people who has a problem with such a system are those who are afraid to lose the power they have to control the lives of others and possibly not have the rules apply to them.

[joeldalton]

The purpose of the electoral college is similar to the purpose of having a constitutional republic vs. a democracy. To prevent the tyranny of the majority. The only people who want both abolished are leftist authoritarians. Who are scumbags.

[Dargil]

To preserve democracy for minority states.

No it shouldn't.

[Anonymous]

So individual states can't be bullied by the states with more money and bigger population like Newyork, California or texas.

[goaded]

They have the Senate for that. One Alaskan vote is equivalent to 39 Californian votes when it comes to representation in the Senate, and that's *not bad*. They're there to represent their state, not the country as a whole. (The system's not perfect, senators tend to represent their party over the interests of their state, or their own interests over party, state and country.)

[monorprise]

@goaded When you elect senators from the population rather than directly from the State goverment their party affiliation becomes a far more significant issue to their reelection then whatever they did to defend the power of the people they elected to address the people's more regionally spesfic needs and desires.

This is why the Federal Constitution really fell apart quickly in the century after the 17th Amendment.

Someone has to defend the constitution and that has to be a person with a constituent interest in doing so.
The founders placed the senate in the hands of State legislators because said legislators being politicians would be expected to have a consistent interest in defending their own power.

They did not go far enough as we known in hindsight as they accepted the suggestion of the imperialist among them (Hamltion) to limit the accountability of said senators to but once every 6 years.

[goaded]

@monorprise What? "When you elect senators from the population rather than directly from the State goverment"? They're all people, from the population. You're arguing for a small elite to make decisions for the population, ignoring the whole principle of "we the people" and democracy.

"This is why the Federal Constitution really fell apart quickly in the century after the 17th Amendment. [The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years...]"

Again, you're against the whole idea of one person, one vote. Who do you think should be the elite that decides who governs the country? People like you, by any chance?

ALL elected officials swear an oath to the constitution, not to a person, for a reason.

You're all about the constitution and the founding fathers, except where they disagreed with you. Funny, that.

[monorprise]

@goaded said: "You're arguing for a small elite to make decisions for the population"

State legislators are elected directly by the people of the state to represent and govern them just like congressmen. They are hardly just any "Small elite"

U. S. Federal Constitution Article 1 Section 3: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

U. S. Federal Constitution Article 5: "The Congress, ... shall propose Amendments to this Constitution... Provided that no Amendment... that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

www.archives.gov/.../constitution-transcript

I am not against 1 man 1 vote, I am simply against redefining the terms of what we are voting on without our consent.

As mentioned the Founders had a good reason not having State legislators elect the senate and giving the senate such vast oversight over all parts of the Federal Goverment. Not just the laws but all officer and treaties too.

For the same reason they even prohibited in Article 5 amending the Constitution as to strip states of this equal representation in the senate without unanimous approval.

We are not a union of 330 million people but a union of 50 independently operating States. We have no need for Washington D. C. representing us on any domestic issues, most of us don't really even need them for "forign policy" issues anymore.

Our states are unarmed, weak, or insignificant like German states. Many of them on their own would count among the greatest nations of the world. All of them would be larger and more powerful than the worlds smallest countries.

Our need for the Federal goverment as such is on matters which are mutually advantageous

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I just answered why. If its right or wrong that's another matter. If it was maybe your way rich populous states like new York , California, Texas would be pushing through legislation that benefits them only while impoverishing other states less wealthy less populous states, kind of like those south American countries or mexico.
I mean you talk about Alaska but who would live in Alaska? We need to encourage people to live there, Montana too. If I was born and grew up in Alaska the first thing I'd have done was move to anywhere else. Perhaps states like Texas, California, Newyork and florida could be divided into two or 3 other states to make things more balanced if we went to a popular vote system.

[goaded]

@monorprise Don't all states still have 2 senators? Then they all have equal representation. Everything you're so upset about has never happened.

Is it really a surprise that people might prefer their state politics one way and the country's politics slightly different?

Yeah, California, Texas and a few others are equivalent to other serious countries, but they stay together for mutual benefit. Just like the EU, which has half as many people again as the US.

[goaded]

@OO I don't think that's right. Presidents that those less wealthy states vote for will help them, the others will be forced by the Senate to, although history shows that those states and the country as a whole does better under Democratic governance.

[monorprise]

@goaded The EU has 447 million far more than the USA at 330 million. The USA however is a far bigger and more geographically diverse federation with 3,796,742 sq mi including States in Arctic, mountains, woodlands, plains, deserts, and tropical rain forest.

Compared to the EU's mere 1,634,472 sq mi with relatively little geographic most all of which is temperate woodlands with a little mountains plans and attic.

The USA is also far more diverse ethically, but far less diverse culturally. The geographic however dictates economy and future culture so the USA is destined to become more diverse culturally than Europe, and arguably already is economically.

Also for comparisons America's smallest states are far larger than the EU's smallest states both in people and geographically.

American states are fully capable of governing themselfs. They have no practical need for anything in relations with any other states including the Federal State.

This fact makes them a State and is the reason why they are equals.

[goaded]

@monorprise "Also for comparisons America's smallest states are far larger than the EU's smallest states both in people and geographically." What are the two smallest states in the EU and US? You must know, to have made that claim, right?

[monorprise]

@goaded asked: "What are the two smallest states in the EU and US? You must know, to have made that claim, right? "

Your right I do know in terms of land the smallest states in the US is
Rhode Island at 4,001 sq km.
The Smallest state in the EU is Malta at 316 sq KM, next is Luxembourg at 2,586 sq km
Rhode Island is larger than both states combined it also has more people than both combined.

en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area
en.wikipedia.org/.../Geography_of_the_European_Union

In terms of population
Wyoming is the smallest state although it is the 10th largest in terms of land. Wyoming has only around 576,850 people.
That means Wyoming still has more people than the 2 smallest E. U. States in terms of population, which also happen to be Malta (425,384) and Luxembourg (549,680). However in terms of land and resources Wyoming is larger than Romania and smaller than Italy.

[goaded]

@monorprise So you can do research, I was beginning to wonder.

Going back to your earlier comment:
"The USA is also far more diverse ethically [than the EU]"
How? I'm certain there isn't an ethnic group that lives in one and not the other.

" far less diverse culturally."
Yes, a melting-pot, to coin a phrase.

"The geographic however dictates economy and future culture so the USA is destined to become more diverse culturally than Europe, and arguably already is economically."
I very much doubt that America is going to develop more cultures than tens of thousands of years of European history, especially in a era of instant worldwide communication. Apart from anything else, you killed off a very large part of the native culture when the country was invaded by Europeans.

"American states are fully capable of governing themselfs. They have no practical need for anything in relations with any other states including the Federal State."
Of course they do. They need free inter-state trade. Many (most?) states don't even have access to the rest of the world except through other states.

[monorprise]

@goaded asked "How? I'm certain there isn't an ethnic group that lives in one and not the other."

I have no doubt you could find an example in Europe somewhere of every generally defined ethic group you might find in the USA.
That does not mean Europe has anywhere near as many as America in terms of a share of the population. This is what makes a place ethically diverse. Ultimately humans are soo alike genetically it makes little difference. What really drives human relations is our needs which are defined by our circumstances. A direct result of our choices which as a group are limited only by our geography.

Independence of said choices for a collection of people is therefore depended upon the size and resources of our state.

@goaded said "Yes, a melting-pot, to coin a phrase."

No I mean culturally Americans are a lot more like each-other than Europeans, we mostly all speak the same language and share similar histories. That all matters a lot but it doesn't change our different circumstances.

@goaded said "develop more cultures than tens of thousands of years of European "
It depends upon what you call culture, but in general the world will become more homogeneous as all that knowledge and history is merged together.

However the underlining geographic differences in America will necessitate a greater degree of cultural diversity than Europe would have reason to retain.

[goaded]

@monorprise You really think that America will culturally diversify from its current state more than Europe where there are dozens of languages spoken by millions and far more by small minorities like the Welsh, Scottish, Basque, etc?

en.wikipedia.org/.../Languages_in_Europe

[monorprise]

@goaded Language and history are increasing no barrier at all. What remains a barrier is what you have where you are that you address in your every day life. This is what created such language and culture in the first place and what will maintain what little remains of said culture in the future.

[goaded]

@monorprise It's only going to get easier to communicate, independent of our personal languages. Why, then, would new cultures arise? In the US, of all places?

[jimmy2]

Well they sure screw up on the last election

[msc545]

Because trump lost?