1196 users online (210 members and 986 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 69
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    5,955

    2017.05.10 - The U.S. Electoral College

    The result of the most recent presidential election produced a popular vote in excess of the Electoral College vote, giving the outcome of the election to Donald J. Trump (306), to Hillary R. Clinton (232). 270 votes Electoral College votes are needed to win the presidential election.


    Four additional times in American history the winner of the presidential election has won the Electoral Vote, but lost the popular vote:

    1824: John Quincy Adams.
    1876: Rutherford B. Hayes.
    1888: Benjamin Harrison.
    2000: George W. Bush.

    Under the U.S. constitution, the total vote of the Electoral College determines the outcome of the election. Thus, the U.S. has a representative democratic republic, not a "pure" democracy.

    Many people currently in the "out of power" party/ parties are upset/ concerned that the Electoral College total is more important in the election of a president, than the popular vote. Much heated and emotional discussion has been devoted to opinions about keeping, or abolishing the Electoral College.

    Abolishing the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment. Here is a discussion reviewing how that process occurs:

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

    Some of the highlights (BBM):

    The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
    The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified.
    A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
    (**NOT 3/4 of the total population.)

    The irony in this process is that abolishing the Electoral College, to replace it with a popular vote, requires CONCURRENCE and CONSENT of the populations of 38 of 50 states.

    The process to amend the constitution is not "impossible", but it is exceptionally long, detailed, thorough, and necessarily involves the voter representation of the population of 38 of 50 states.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    5,955
    My personal feeling is that there is not enough elitist democrats willing to voluntarily re-distribute themselves from the "enlightened", expensive, highly populous coastal regions, to about 34- 35 of the backwards, unfashionable, prejudiced, xenophobic, racist, misogynist, homophobic, arachnophobic, agoraphobic, (etc) "flyover" states of the U.S. interior. (Lol.)

    DJT will only hold the presidency for the next 3 1/2 to 8 years. Then it's someone else's turn to be POTUS. Whether you "like" him, or "loathe" him.

    I sincerely doubt that a constitutional amendment process to abolish the electoral college could commence and be successful without 3-5 "tries", spanning 15-25 years-- JMO. And with the current balance of power R> D in the governorships, and state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress, there will be no "will" among the party IN power to seriously entertain an idea to abolish the electoral college for at least 15-25 years.

    And if/ when the balance tips back to D>R (globally, across governorships, state legislatures, and the Congress), there will be no will to change the system, then, either! (Funny how that happens!)

    So, the electoral college is a reality that we must all deal with, and accept, IMO, for the rest of our lives. Any candidates for POTUS need to study/ review/ learn about the constitution, and understand thoroughly how the process works.

    Shame that we don't seem to have the "will" teach a thorough understanding of the constitution in K-12 education anymore. WTH has happened to K-12 education, in the areas of Civics and U.S. History, and critical thinking?

    It's a disaster, IMO. An embarrassment.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Northwestern United States
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by K_Z View Post
    My personal feeling is that there is not enough elitist democrats willing to voluntarily re-distribute themselves from the "enlightened", expensive, highly populous coastal regions, to about 34- 35 of .....
    Snipped by me.

    You ensured this thread would not be one of actual discussion with the first sentence of the second thread post. Cheers, that may be a record. 🌟
    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sacramento CA
    Posts
    9,122
    It wouldn't surprise me if the next presidential election was decided by the electoral college vote and not the popular vote. It's happened twice in recent elections.

    If the democratic candidate won in that way would that damper the call for a change to the way we elect our president?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    5,955
    I made a typo error in the first post, and it's too late to correct:

    Four additional times in American history the winner of the presidential election has won the Electoral Vote, but lost the popular vote:
    Should read:

    Four additional times in American history the winner of the presidential election has lost the Popular vote, and won the Electoral College vote.
    I may have "2nd thread post superpowers" such that my tiny little obscure nobody layperson critical thinking opinion (from a nasty "flyover" state, no less), virtually shuts down all logical conversation and opposing opinions, but I'm sadly not powerful enough to prevent stupid typos.

    My critical thinking skills are having a difficult time trying to figure out why an opinion in the second post in a thread would be SOOOOO intimidating to brave and self confident WS posters, so as to completely PREVENT any conversation?? I don't begin to understand that, but I guess I should be happy with the endowment of my new superpower, lol!

    Kind of like how "some" posters can apparently see right thru my computer screen and make a determination about what race and ethnicity I am, and my parenting skills, based on that assumption, and then place me into the "identity politics" group of their choosing, just by reading my opinions! Yikes! That's an awesome superpower!

    Understanding the constitution and amendment process is an easy thing. It involves no emotion at all. It's not even a difficult logical "argument" to make.

    But I guess it's easier to wield slings and arrows, and snarky comments, than to lay out a logical response. (See how I can do that, too?)

    The democrats currently have an *extremely difficult* mountain to climb, that will literally take decades, to persuade the rest of the U.S. population that their message is the "best" one. That's harsh, but that's reality. And logical. And uses CRITICAL THINKING instead of raw emotion and histrionics.

    The popular vote simply doesn't matter, in U.S. politics and under the law and constitution. It was designed that way on purpose. It's not hard to understand WHY. Democrats would do well to work WITHIN the laws and system to make change, and develop a real message that appeals to ALL Americans, not just a tiny percentage in an echo chamber or bubble.

    The reality is that even if HRC won the popular vote by 5 or 10 million votes, it still would not have been enough for her to win the Electoral College, UNLESS the votes were distributed in ENOUGH states to CHANGE the electoral college vote tally.

    I have no idea why that very simple concept is so difficult for so many people to grasp.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Central Oregon in the foothills of the Cascade mountains.
    Posts
    200
    As one who is middle aged, I remember learning that the point of the EC was to prevent tyranny of either the masses or the elite. Before we, as a natio, start fooling around with the Constitution, it might be prudent to alter State laws as they relate to Electors.

    Before anyone starts scolding one party, perhaps we can begin by trying to unify this Country...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    4,047
    As a great man () once said:

    The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonal...494082?lang=en

    I guess just another one of those whining libs.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Coventry
    Posts
    4,047
    First, let’s look at Trump’s position in 2012, when it appeared that Mitt Romney might win the popular vote but lose the electoral college.

    Interestingly, Trump has deleted a number of tweets he sent in 2012, including:

    “He [Obama] lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!” (Nov. 6)

    “The phoney [sic] electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!” (Nov. 6)

    “More votes equals a loss…revolution!” (Nov. 7)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0ef982b5013f

    Let us not forget also Trump's call for us to march on Washington to protest the travesty of Obama's second election. Because of the shady ole EC. Even though Obama won both the EC and the popular vote. SMDH.

    I mean, this buffoon was having a tantrum on Twitter, calling for a freaking revolution because Romney lost fair and square, but if anyone questions the veracity of Trump's victory, then we are being poor losers. Okay. Good to know.

    The flip flop is strong with this one. Wonder what Trumpy would say should he run again in 2020, lose the EC but win the popular vote? My head spins to consider the possibilities. Twitter would probably implode.
    Last edited by EllieBee; 05-11-2017 at 07:03 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,657
    My quote thing is not working.

    Anyway, Elliebee I agree with your above post and tried to quote it. My point -- your operative word is "buffoon." Well said.

    Carry on.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,657
    Imo trump won't run again. He doesn't want to be president now. He wanted to run to get some attention and applause bc that's all that matters. . Why try for four more years? And frankly, he's not going to make it many more months. He's going to be toast. just wait and see.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,436
    Quote Originally Posted by K_Z View Post
    rsbm

    The reality is that even if HRC won the popular vote by 5 or 10 million votes, it still would not have been enough for her to win the Electoral College, UNLESS the votes were distributed in ENOUGH states to CHANGE the electoral college vote tally.

    I have no idea why that very simple concept is so difficult for so many people to grasp.


    They get it. Imo. But they can't degenerate DJT to the frothing, rabid (often delusional), extremes that they have, and also acknowledge that he was good enough to beat Hillary.
    (because what would that say about her?)

    So they they must find a way to declare her the winner of something.
    Last edited by Safeguard; 05-11-2017 at 10:27 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,436
    "Dear Democrats, Read This If You Do Not Understand Why Trump Won"

    "Trump Is What Happens When You Nominate A Cheater and Live In An Echo Chamber—Please Learn From This".

    " Did you read Wikileaks?
    Well, you should have.

    "The “conspiracies” were true, and the mainstream media lied to you to about everything."

    Wikileaks was not Russian propaganda, it was the news.

    "Wikileaks has a 10-year record of never releasing a single falsified document, and is not connected to Russia." Everything they released were the actual e-mails of Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff. You had the opportunity to look through a window into the Hillary Clinton campaign, but you didn’t."

    snip

    "Had Democrats taken the concerns of average American seriously, especially the concerns of Millennials, they would have quickly realized Hillary Clinton was not the right nominee for the Democratic party in 2016."

    snip

    "You also need to consider Donald Trump just overthrew a group of political elites who have been ruling this country for decades. He just beat the political establishment singlehandedly. No matter what you think about him personally, he just accomplished something historic to become our President."
    https://medium.com/@trentlapinski/de...n-5a0cdb13c597
    Last edited by Safeguard; 05-11-2017 at 12:01 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    1,600
    EC is fine, well founded, and serves its purpose.

    ~ 330,000,000 US citizens
    ~ 63,000,000 votes for DJT - only 19.1% of American citizens

    And, for those that feel the EC system doesn't represent them, hopefully they will learn from this.

    Hopefully all history learns from this.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Up North
    Posts
    5,955
    Quote Originally Posted by chloes1 View Post
    As one who is middle aged, I remember learning that the point of the EC was to prevent tyranny of either the masses or the elite. Before we, as a natio, start fooling around with the Constitution, it might be prudent to alter State laws as they relate to Electors.

    Before anyone starts scolding one party, perhaps we can begin by trying to unify this Country...
    BBM.

    Are you thinking about the issues of faithless electors? Or the National Popular Vote proposal for the EC to bypass a constitutional amendment?

    There were seven faithless electors in 2016-- five HRC electors that changed their vote, and two DJT electors.

    IMO, the National Popular Vote reform movement will never be enacted, There will be serious constitutional challenges to NPV. And as we've seen in the past several elections, it is nearly impossible to get a "real" hard number of votes that withstands the recount process, so the idea that we could ever "end" an election under the Popular Vote is not possible, IMO. Months and maybe even YEARS would go by, as legal challenges to the validity of certain votes, or categories of votes, worked their way thru the legal system. We could, in theory, never have an end to a presidential election under the myriad challenges to the popular vote tally, and the country would be in limbo, with no head of state. So, the "state compact" to award all their electoral votes to the winner of the PARTY of the national popular vote could be moot. The system we have, IMO, is much better. (edit- kz)

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...aspx#faithless

    Currently, all states select electors through a popular vote (although how that vote works can differ), but that was not always the case throughout American history. In many states, the state legislature selected electors, a practice which was common until the mid-1800s.
    Reforming the Electoral College

    In the years since the highly controversial 2000 presidential election, bills have been introduced in every state in the country to change the process for selecting electors. During the period of 2001-2006, most Electoral College reform bills proposed switching to the district system. None of these bills passed. In the years since, attention has largely shifted to the National Popular Vote (NPV). This is an idea that would allow states to bypass the Electoral College without amending the U.S. Constitution. When a state joins the NPV Compact, it promises that it will give all of its electoral votes to the party that wins the national popular vote, rather than the party that wins the state popular vote. For instance, if the Democratic candidate won the popular vote in California, but the Republican candidate won the popular vote nationwide, California would be required to send the Republican slate of electors to the meeting of the electors. The NPV has not yet taken effect; states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes must join before it can function. Read more about the National Popular Vote.
    http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...aspx#faithless

    The National Popular Vote

    State Action on National Popular Vote

    Between 2006 and 2013, every state legislature in the nation has considered a National Popular Vote bill. Ten states and the District of Columbia have enacted NPV bills, and governors in three states have vetoed NPV bills. In 12 states, an NPV bill has passed one chamber of the legislature.

    Enacted
    To date, ten states and the District of Columbia have passed NPV bills into law. Maryland and New Jersey passed laws in 2007, Hawaii and Illinois in 2008, Washington in 2009, Massachusetts and D.C. in 2010, California and Vermont in 2011, Rhode Island in 2013 and New York in 2014.

    In 2016, New York made its participation in the compact permanent (previously the state had to renew its participation in 2018).
    See NCSL's elections legislation database for more information on states currently considering NPV legislation.

    Vetoed

    The California legislature passed NPV legislation in 2006 and 2008, but it was vetoed by the governor both times. An NPV bill was finally enacted in California in 2011. An NPV bill was vetoed in Hawaii in 2007, and the veto of a second NPV bill was eventually overridden by the Hawaii Legislature in 2008. Rhode Island and Vermont also saw vetoed bills in 2008.

    Rescinding Participation

    Five of the states that have joined the NPV compact to date have seen legislation to withdraw them from the compact. Those states are Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington. To date, none of these bills has passed.
    http://www.ncsl.org/research/electio...ular-vote.aspx

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithl...election,_2016

    In the 2016 United States presidential election, seven members of the U.S. Electoral College voted for a different candidate than whom they were pledged to vote. The Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton, lost five of her pledged electors while the Republican Party nominee and then president-elect, Donald Trump, lost two. Three of the faithless electors voted for Colin Powell while John Kasich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Faith Spotted Eagle each received one vote.

    Three additional electors initially voted against their Clinton pledge but had their votes invalidated according to local statutes, so they were replaced or forced to vote again. The defections fell well short of the number needed to change the result of the election; only two of the seven defected from the presumptive winner, when 37 were needed to change the outcome.

    Although there had been a combined total of 157 instances of individual electors voting faithlessly in over two centuries of previous US presidential elections,[1] 2016 was a year in which multiple groups of electors worked to alter the result of the election in order to "vote their conscience for the good of America" in accordance with Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 68.[2] 2016 was also the first year since 1960 when one of the electors actively worked to change the election. Electors were subjected to public pressure, up to and including death threats.[3]
    This is a state by state breakdown of how electors are chosen, and their imperatives:

    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/EC-Appointed.phtml
    Last edited by K_Z; 05-11-2017 at 10:10 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Ridley, PA
    Posts
    2,001
    We don't need to change the electoral college, a system that has kept alive one of the greatest forms of government in the history of the world for the last couple hundred years. We need to respect the decision of the electorate. I always laugh at those who bring up the popular vote. What, do we change the rules after you don't like the result? Think about this. Trump campaigned in places like Maine. Do you think he might have had a different campaign strategy under the different rules? He would only have to campaign in the 5 or 10 most populous states under a popular vote rule. Do we really want that? NY, Cal, Texas, & Florida determining every election. The Founders were brilliant, and foresaw the future, and came up with a good system for your REPUBLIC.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast