Skip to main content

View Diary: Defending a System that Has Long Since Collapsed: The Electoral College (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am actually a fan of the EV and here is why (0+ / 0-)

    It disconnects the person who will have their trigger on the military from the populace. In short, in a world gone to hell it could prevent specific people from taking office that have no business taking office.

    Just saying

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 01:45:08 PM PDT

    •  Your point is more theoretical than real (4+ / 0-)

      Electors are partisans chosen solely to do what they are told. Most don't realize they have a choice. Besides, in a truly off the wall scenario Congress can impeach.

      Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity. Notes on a Theory

      by David Kaib on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 02:19:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think its that is the point though (0+ / 0-)

        The founders looked at what could be theoretical and took things to the extreme, then placed safety locks to guard against those theoretical moments.

        No one can predict the trajectory of the world or a nation with near 100% certainty, so this is why we have various checks and balances in place.

        --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

        by idbecrazyif on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:16:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Framers didn't put this safety lock on (0+ / 0-)

          Because their system was completely different than ours. That's the point. That said, letting a small minority of nameless partisans overrule an election would also be risky.

          Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity. Notes on a Theory

          by David Kaib on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 09:43:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I am too, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      idbecrazyif

      as a federation, each state has its own election for president. A voter in one state shouldn't cancel out a voter in another.

      At least in this country, every voter gets to cast a vote by name for the person they want as their head of government. In the parliamentary system, only the voters of one riding ever get to cast a vote by name for the person who runs their federal government.

      "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

      by JackND on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 03:37:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly, its a corner stone of our "Federal" self (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JackND

        To go to a straight popular vote would undermine one of the key points of why states exist.

        --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

        by idbecrazyif on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:19:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But that only works if states are homogeneous. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ConfusedSkyes

          If I live in Texas, my concerns are guaranteed not to matter.  
          The only minorities that are protected by the EC are those which are a national minority but a state-wide majority (or sizable plurality).

          Gaining 10,000 more Latino votes in Texas is worthless with the EC.  Minorities within their own states are totally marginalized, since even in a close national election (in terms of the national popular vote) their votes are completely squashed by the majority in their state.  Filtered out, before they get to the EC.

        •  Powers of State Govts Not Changed by NPV (0+ / 0-)

          With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

          The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

          The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.  It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.  

          The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

          80% of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That's more than 85 million voters.

          Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

          States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

          Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."   The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

          Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government.  The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government.  The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site