The Electoral College was created to protect the South, which was afraid if everyone had equal voting, the larger population states of the North could take away their slavery.
It is NOT RIGHT that the person who got almost THREE MILLION fewer votes is sworn in as president because voters in California are not deemed equal.
It is NOT RIGHT that the vote of a person living in California is counted as having 1/4 the value of the vote of a person living in Wyoming.
Properly read, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should be seen as already having repealed the unequal distribution and allocation of the Electoral College that weighs the value of a vote in Wyoming four times that of a vote in California, every bit as much as it repealed the 3/5 clause without explicitly mentioning it.
To say that one person’s vote should count FOUR TIMES as much as someone else’s vote, just because of where they live, is ELITIST BIGOTRY — discrimination based on geography.
The Electoral College is AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for minority states populated by majority Whites so they can elect White people who then oppose Affirmative Action for minorities.
African Americans were not the moral equivalent of 3/5 of a European American, and a California voter is not the moral equivalent of 1/4 a Wyoming voter.
Not much can be done about the Electoral College: No possible way a constitutional amendment would make it. On the other hand, the way that the House seats are apportioned is NOT part of the constitution. Repeal that law, (1929, so not even a century old yet), use the “Wyoming” count: Every state gets a number of representatives that represents how many times Wyoming’s population goes into their population. That would increase the number of Representatives a lot, and it would give more populous states more Electoral College votes. There’s an argument that such a large House would be “unwieldy” but in fact many nations with bicameral representatives have 500 or more in their junior legislature, so it can be done.
The Democrats would have won the last seven presidential elections if based on the popular vote! Why is it called the Electoral COLLEGE when it hasn’t made anyone smarter?
As I type, Biden has the popular vote – and has won more of those than ever before in the history of America. The Electoral College is our Republic’s Achilles Heel. It will do us in if not dumped.
Few.. Republican presidents have represented the people’s choice. Keeping the Electoral College thing is the only way they (republicans) can get their man to the White House.
As long as Rupert Murdoch and his son are in charge of the most popular news media (aka propaganda) in this country and most of the English speaking world, there will be no changes to this ridiculous system of ensuring that republicans will stay in power. As for the next 4 years, if the orange abomination ends up stealing this one, there will be many who will not make another 4 years.
4 years? More like 12 out of the last 20. But yeah, the last 4 have been thoroughly unforgettable. I hope it doesn’t take another 20 years to convince our allies we DO have their backs.
The Electoral College will continue to be a major issue fir ther near future. As long as the country is thus divided I see no hope for getting rid of it. It’s crazy that states like Wyoming with less than 600,000 people can have so much influence. California has 66 times more people but only 18 times more electoral votes. Instead of giving electoral votes based on the total number of Congressmen, maybe they should give one additional vote for every 5 million people. People in these under populated places complain that the coastal cities have too much influence. They actually don’t have enough when it comes to picking the leader of the country. Not when you consider they have far more people and contribute the lion’s share of the economy. Much of the farm aid and other gov’t. programs wouldn’t have any money without those big, blue coastal states pumping money into the economy.
IMHO, the electoral college should be revamped. Take Texas, for example. If 60 percent of the votes were for Trump, and 40 percent were for Biden, then 60 percent of the electoral votes should go for Trump and 40 percent of the electoral votes should go to Biden, instead of 100 percent going to Trump. But then, that makes sense, so that’s why it isn’t done that way.
While I agree that an amendment to eliminate the EC has a snowball’s chance in hell of being passed, there are things that could be done about it.
The states could choose to apportion their electoral votes, in proportion to the popular vote in their state. A couple of states already do this. The Constitution does not require a “winner take all” approach.
In general, Federal law trumps (no pun intended) State law and State Constitutions, but in this case, I don’t think a Federal law would work. The Constitution specifically says that the states may choose the electors in any way they choose, so a federal law could not change that.
While this would not solve the disparity between the value of a Wyoming vote and a California vote, it would reduce the effect considerably and lessen the chance of a candidate losing the popular vote, but winning the electoral vote.
DD Wiz Premium Member over 3 years ago
The Electoral College was created to protect the South, which was afraid if everyone had equal voting, the larger population states of the North could take away their slavery.
It is NOT RIGHT that the person who got almost THREE MILLION fewer votes is sworn in as president because voters in California are not deemed equal.
It is NOT RIGHT that the vote of a person living in California is counted as having 1/4 the value of the vote of a person living in Wyoming.
Properly read, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment should be seen as already having repealed the unequal distribution and allocation of the Electoral College that weighs the value of a vote in Wyoming four times that of a vote in California, every bit as much as it repealed the 3/5 clause without explicitly mentioning it.
To say that one person’s vote should count FOUR TIMES as much as someone else’s vote, just because of where they live, is ELITIST BIGOTRY — discrimination based on geography.
The Electoral College is AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for minority states populated by majority Whites so they can elect White people who then oppose Affirmative Action for minorities.
African Americans were not the moral equivalent of 3/5 of a European American, and a California voter is not the moral equivalent of 1/4 a Wyoming voter.
Concretionist over 3 years ago
Not much can be done about the Electoral College: No possible way a constitutional amendment would make it. On the other hand, the way that the House seats are apportioned is NOT part of the constitution. Repeal that law, (1929, so not even a century old yet), use the “Wyoming” count: Every state gets a number of representatives that represents how many times Wyoming’s population goes into their population. That would increase the number of Representatives a lot, and it would give more populous states more Electoral College votes. There’s an argument that such a large House would be “unwieldy” but in fact many nations with bicameral representatives have 500 or more in their junior legislature, so it can be done.
Cpeckbourlioux over 3 years ago
If the Electoral “College” was an actual place it would have rotted away a hundred years ago.
Walrus Gumbo Premium Member over 3 years ago
The Democrats would have won the last seven presidential elections if based on the popular vote! Why is it called the Electoral COLLEGE when it hasn’t made anyone smarter?
KenseidenXL over 3 years ago
1789. The Constitution was not ratified until 1789.
pc368dude over 3 years ago
As I type, Biden has the popular vote – and has won more of those than ever before in the history of America. The Electoral College is our Republic’s Achilles Heel. It will do us in if not dumped.
mourdac Premium Member over 3 years ago
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Alberta Oil Premium Member over 3 years ago
Few.. Republican presidents have represented the people’s choice. Keeping the Electoral College thing is the only way they (republicans) can get their man to the White House.
Eddy Premium Member over 3 years ago
Damn. I am impressed by the thoughtfulness and rigor of these arguments. Thank you
Newenglandah over 3 years ago
Here is something I do know:
South Dakota had 370,093 people vote in the 2016 election, and got 3 electoral votes. That is 8.1 × 10-6 electoral votes per person.
New York had 7,721,453 people vote in the 2016 election and got 29 electoral votes. That is 3.7 × 10-6 electoral votes per person.
That gave each South Dakota voter nearly 2.2 times the voting power of each New Yorker. How is that fair?
Radish the wordsmith over 3 years ago
Us people in the NW are sick and tired of SE racists.
ForALaugh Premium Member over 3 years ago
As long as Rupert Murdoch and his son are in charge of the most popular news media (aka propaganda) in this country and most of the English speaking world, there will be no changes to this ridiculous system of ensuring that republicans will stay in power. As for the next 4 years, if the orange abomination ends up stealing this one, there will be many who will not make another 4 years.
sandflea over 3 years ago
4 years? More like 12 out of the last 20. But yeah, the last 4 have been thoroughly unforgettable. I hope it doesn’t take another 20 years to convince our allies we DO have their backs.
Andylit Premium Member over 3 years ago
If you don’t like it Amend the Constitution.
If you don’t like it lobby your State elected officials to use the split allocation method like NE and ME.
IT Sauzeech over 3 years ago
The Electoral College will continue to be a major issue fir ther near future. As long as the country is thus divided I see no hope for getting rid of it. It’s crazy that states like Wyoming with less than 600,000 people can have so much influence. California has 66 times more people but only 18 times more electoral votes. Instead of giving electoral votes based on the total number of Congressmen, maybe they should give one additional vote for every 5 million people. People in these under populated places complain that the coastal cities have too much influence. They actually don’t have enough when it comes to picking the leader of the country. Not when you consider they have far more people and contribute the lion’s share of the economy. Much of the farm aid and other gov’t. programs wouldn’t have any money without those big, blue coastal states pumping money into the economy.
Radish the wordsmith over 3 years ago
Sick and tired of being in the majority of voters only to have some god awful right wing skank win on a technicality, they always destroy everything.
Mother of Cats Premium Member over 3 years ago
IMHO, the electoral college should be revamped. Take Texas, for example. If 60 percent of the votes were for Trump, and 40 percent were for Biden, then 60 percent of the electoral votes should go for Trump and 40 percent of the electoral votes should go to Biden, instead of 100 percent going to Trump. But then, that makes sense, so that’s why it isn’t done that way.
eideard over 3 years ago
Say it, again. Then. next week, all the phony prattle about the biggest and best democracy in the world resumes in DC. Cowards all!
rionmorrison69 over 3 years ago
They already have. I don’t think we could handle 4 more years.
jimchronister2016 over 3 years ago
Why dosen’t the House Of Representatives start a petition to abolish the electoral college.
noblepa over 3 years ago
While I agree that an amendment to eliminate the EC has a snowball’s chance in hell of being passed, there are things that could be done about it.
The states could choose to apportion their electoral votes, in proportion to the popular vote in their state. A couple of states already do this. The Constitution does not require a “winner take all” approach.
In general, Federal law trumps (no pun intended) State law and State Constitutions, but in this case, I don’t think a Federal law would work. The Constitution specifically says that the states may choose the electors in any way they choose, so a federal law could not change that.
While this would not solve the disparity between the value of a Wyoming vote and a California vote, it would reduce the effect considerably and lessen the chance of a candidate losing the popular vote, but winning the electoral vote.