Electoral College Appeal

[xxlt]

Sorry for the ambiguous title, but a movement with a goal of getting EC electors to install Hillary as president seems to be getting legs.

Reasons it could be a good thing:

The presidency was already given to the wrong person once in very recent history (Bush president, Gore won election.) This would avoid that happening a second time.

The winner of the popular vote would be president.

The president would not be a naive lunatic.

Reasons it could be a bad thing:

Feeds into the "the system is rigged" narrative, even though the winner of the popular vote not being president feels sort of rigged too.

Second amendment rights enthusiasts who supported Trump are given an excuse to "fight for their rights."

The Doomsday Machine occupies the oval office.


Final thought (is Springer still on tv and does he still do this, lol?):

I've always hated the EC, even though usually the popular vote winner is elected president. Part of the reason is I think it distorts the will of the people when the electoral college numbers are the focus and not the p.v. The last president who could really claim a "mandate" was probably Nixon in 1972. Usually the popular vote is very close, which indicates there should be more compromise and less partisanship in DC.

Do you feel a case can be made for electors in any state to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, or alternately to vote their conscience if their state was very close and not an overwhelming win?

[Belsnickel]

I have no ethical issue with the idea of it. I don't see the good in a President that did not garner the plurality of the votes. On a pragmatic level I take issue with the idea because it will spark the next civil war in this country.

[CKwi88]

(11-11-2016, 06:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have no ethical issue with the idea of it. I don't see the good in a President that did not garner the plurality of the votes. On a pragmatic level I take issue with the idea because it will spark the next civil war in this country.

This. It would be dangerous on so many levels. 

We heard before the election how Trump needed to accept the result of the election, whatever it was. It's time for the democrats to do the same. 

[6andcounting]

The electoral college exists for the same reason the House of Representatives exists. For that reason I'm guessing it's here to stay. As long as electoral votes are proportional to population and electorates vote on behalf of what their constituents wanted, then it's not a corrupt system.

[Goalpost]

EC is going to end up more than likely 306-232 Trump. I could see if it is tie then popular votes wins, but even that is not the rule, and this one is not even close.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I'm asking this because I don't know the answer.

Didn't Hillary already officially concede the race making it where she has dropped out?

[SunsetBengal]

(11-11-2016, 07:25 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I'm asking this because I don't know the answer.

Didn't Hillary already officially concede the race making it where she has dropped out?

That is a very valid point.  For example, here in NC, we have a Governors race separated by less than 5K votes.  They are waiting for all of the provisional and absentee ballots to be collected, before declaring a winner.  Cooper has claimed victory, but McCrory had not yet made a concession.

[*bfine32*]

The most absurd thing is to try to change the rules after the game is over to determine a different winner. When Hills and Donald campaigned they were both well aware of the Constitution and what it takes to win the Presidency. Trump most likely did not care if California (the only reason this is a topic) voted for Hills 10,000,000 to 0. He had already conceded the 55 EC votes.

The issue is many of the folks that supported the losing candidate (aka the wrong one) have never been told they cannot have what they want. Now that they cannot have the President they want they will look to have their way even if it means tearing up to Constitution and the way our Nation has conducted business for centuries.

Any sense of fair play that I thought the left may have had, has been destroyed by this election and their reaction to it. You lost; try again in 4 years

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-11-2016, 06:10 PM)xxlt Wrote: Sorry for the ambiguous title, but a movement with a goal of getting EC electors to install Hillary as president seems to be getting legs.

Reasons it could be a good thing:

You should have written "none" and ended your post there.  Absolutely nothing good would come of this.

Quote:The presidency was already given to the wrong person once in very recent history (Bush president, Gore won election.) This would avoid that happening a second time.

Incorrect.  Florida vote shenanigans aside the correct person won the presidency under the rules that have existed since our constitution was written.  You don't get to cry foul over these rules when you don't like the result.

Quote:The winner of the popular vote would be president.

The president would not be a naive lunatic.

No, they'd be a wholly different kind of bad.

Quote:Reasons it could be a bad thing:

Feeds into the "the system is rigged" narrative, even though the winner of the popular vote not being president feels sort of rigged too.

Except it's not rigged because it's been this way since the beginning.  If Hillary won the EC and lost the popular this exact same argument would be made by a right leaning person and you would, rightfully, sneer at them.

Quote:Second amendment rights enthusiasts who supported Trump are given an excuse to "fight for their rights."

Or anyone who swore to protect and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Quote:Final thought (is Springer still on tv and does he still do this, lol?):

I've always hated the EC, even though usually the popular vote winner is elected president. Part of the reason is I think it distorts the will of the people when the electoral college numbers are the focus and not the p.v. The last president who could really claim a "mandate" was probably Nixon in 1972. Usually the popular vote is very close, which indicates there should be more compromise and less partisanship in DC.

Do you feel a case can be made for electors in any state to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, or alternately to vote their conscience if their state was very close and not an overwhelming win?

No, not at all.  If you don't like the EC there is a mechanism for changing it, it's called an amendment.  The framers designed our government the way they did for a reason.  People need to stop trying to circumvent or ignore that system when they don't get the results they want.

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2016, 01:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You should have written "none" and ended your post there.  Absolutely nothing good would come of this.

It's like your favorite football team losing the game and then crying they should have won because they gained more yards; even though every rule states the team that scores the most points wins. Regardless how they are earned. 

[treee]

At the very least, the system needs to be reevaluated going forward. It is disheartening to see such a large apparent disparity between the popular vote and the EC vote.

[NATI BENGALS]

I didnt like it in 2000 and I dont like it now.

In my view a democracy means the majority wins.

We are united states. Every person voting is a citizen of this nation. But for some reason the majority of the nation is getting a Trump sized loogie spit in their face.

When all is said and done I read Hillary may end up with a 2% point win in the popular vote.

Repubs can boast all they want. But the majority voted for Trump because the system was rigged and he was going to fix our broke government. Now that it has come to this they say the system is perfect. Funny stuff. The system is rigged folks and the majority of Americans just had their vote silenced.

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2016, 04:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I didnt like it in 2000 and I dont like it now.

In my view a democracy means the majority wins.

Except no candidate received a majority.

This is why we need ranked voting.

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2016, 04:29 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I didnt like it in 2000 and I dont like it now.

In my view a democracy means the majority wins.

We are united states. Every person voting is a citizen of this nation. But for some reason the majority of the nation is getting a Trump sized loogie spit in their face.

When all is said and done I read Hillary may end up with a 2% point win in the popular vote.

Repubs can boast all they want. But the majority voted for Trump because the system was rigged and he was going to fix our broke government. Now that it has come to this they say the system is perfect. Funny stuff. The system is rigged folks and the majority of Americans just had their vote silenced.

Wipe your tears and answer this:

Would the outcome have been the same if the candidates had went into the election knowing popular vote is how you become President and not the way we have been doing it for over two centuries?  

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2016, 04:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except no candidate received a majority.

This is why we need ranked voting.

I have zero problem with relooking how we elect a President. I just think we should make it known before the election. Nor wait until after the results then scream "no fair". Remember how petty many thought Trump was when he stated he might not agree with the results of the election? 

[CageTheBengal]

I disagree with the electoral college and wish it was changed. I don't think it will be under serious consideration for change though until both sides lose a presidential election while having the popular vote. Until then the side it hasn't happened to will just call the other a bunch of sore losers.

[treee]

(11-12-2016, 06:24 PM)CageTheBengal Wrote: I disagree with the electoral college and wish it was changed. I don't think it will be under serious consideration for change though until both sides lose a presidential election while having the popular vote. Until then the side it hasn't happened to will just call the other a bunch of sore losers.

As it stands now, there is a very low chance that the Dems ever win while losing the popular vote. The EC gives a huge boost rural communities, which we all know tend to lean right in general. Therefor the EC will continue to favor Republicans until a different system is in place or the rural voter preference changes.

[Belsnickel]

(11-12-2016, 06:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have zero problem with relooking how we elect a President. I just think we should make it known before the election. Nor wait until after the results then scream "no fair". Remember how petty many thought Trump was when he stated he might not agree with the results of the election? 

Well, based on his statements in the past he doesn't agree with the results of this election, still.

In all seriousness, though, I advocate for change from the EC because I find it antiquated. I don't think this result should be changed, it happened, it was the law, end of story. I say I have no problem with the electors doing something ethically because, in truth, we don't directly elect the POTUS in the country. We elect electors to make that decision for us. If they choose to do whatever, that is their choice. I am not advocating for it though because it would be a very bad move. The way people have come to expect the process to work should be carried out.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-12-2016, 08:13 PM)treee Wrote: As it stands now, there is a very low chance that the Dems ever win while losing the popular vote. The EC gives a huge boost rural communities, which we all know tend to lean right in general. Therefor the EC will continue to favor Republicans until a different system is in place or the rural voter preference changes.

But the popular vote is hugely boosted by urban communities, that tend to lean left in general.  People are influenced by their environment, their political views are shaped by the people around them.

So I don't see how popular vote is better than the EC - if you're a Democrat, you think the popular vote is fair, and if you're a Republican you think the EC is more fair.  If the demographics were reversed, you can bet what is "fair" would reverse as well.

Both systems are problematic as the federal govt encroaches more and more on state and local govt.  I do not think it is fair for a handful of large cities to effectively dictate how the rest of the country lives.

I think the system is pretty darn good, and I appreciate the brilliance of it to anticipate these issues and address it fairly.  You have the House, which is specific representation while being based on population.  Then you have the Senate, which is less specific representation while being based on geography.  And the POTUS is in between.  I truly think the system sets a pretty good balance for considering both population and geography.

Plus, when you're talking less than 1-2% of a difference in voting, in general and state by state and sometimes even on the local level....not sure that is significant, and until one of the parties starts doing something good consistently I think we'll continue to see the country alternate between who has the chance to prove they can do good things consistently.

Maybe the bigger problem is 80% of your voters are lazy and/or ignorant.  They reliably vote for the R or D, and the only choice they're really making is whether or not to vote.  I'd rather see a system that doesn't reward whichever party has brainwashed more people to blindly vote for it.

[treee]

(11-12-2016, 08:45 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But the popular vote is hugely boosted by urban communities, that tend to lean left in general.  

I think you're using the term boosted differently than me. When I say boosted, I mean an advantage given other than 1 person, 1 vote. With the EC some people's votes are more important than others and it favors Republicans.

I agree that going by the popular vote would be problematic, but a disparity between actual votes and the results is also problematic. 

Apparently the census doesn't happen often enough for the EC to be more accurate.