Most Americans want to eliminate the Electoral College

  • Thread starter Thread starter heelinhell
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 27
  • Views: 482
  • Politics 
Agreed it needs to be changed or simply abolished - it should have happened long ago - but in our current political climate there's no way that Republicans will ever agree to it, and they'll fight to keep it with everything they have. They're about to lose the national popular vote for the 8th time in the last 9 presidential elections, and they know that if the electoral college is abolished they may never win another presidential election. So currently it's a nonstarter.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Agreed it needs to be changed or simply abolished - it should have happened long ago - but in our current political climate there's no way that Republicans will ever agree to it, and they'll fight to keep it with everything they have. They're about to lose the national popular vote for the 8th time in the last 9 presidential elections, and they know that if the electoral college is abolished they may never win another presidential election. So currently it's a nonstarter.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately you are right Mulberry.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Agreed it needs to be changed or simply abolished - it should have happened long ago - but in our current political climate there's no way that Republicans will ever agree to it, and they'll fight to keep it with everything they have. They're about to lose the national popular vote for the 8th time in the last 9 presidential elections, and they know that if the electoral college is abolished they may never win another presidential election. So currently it's a nonstarter.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I would say the GOP would never agree to it. If (or when?) Texas turns blue, you could have a situation where the GOP would face an almost insurmountable climb in the electoral college. Lose enough of those elections by blow outs and they could change their tune.

For example, take the 2016 election. Trump won 306 to 232. If Clinton wins Texas she hits 270 on the nose, while losing Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nebraska, North Carolina, Georgia.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
It would have to be done with a constitutional amendment, right?
Click to expand...
Or an agreement among the states.

There are zero decent arguments in its favor. There are few things in politics that are so cut-and-dry. The EC is one of them. It is a weird artefact that basically helps nobody on a consistent basis, hurts most Americans, leads to stupid and skewed policies that hurt the country and most of its residents, deprives our elections of democratic legitimacy, gives political power to those among us who deserve it least, and opens the door for fraud.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Agreed it needs to be changed or simply abolished - it should have happened long ago - but in our current political climate there's no way that Republicans will ever agree to it, and they'll fight to keep it with everything they have. They're about to lose the national popular vote for the 8th time in the last 9 presidential elections, and they know that if the electoral college is abolished they may never win another presidential election. So currently it's a nonstarter.
Click to expand...
I agree with all you say, but would revise the last part of your penultimate sentence to say, "and they know that if the electoral college is abolished they may never win another presidential election without significant changes in what and how they advocate."
 
Milk and Cookies said:
I'm not sure I would say the GOP would never agree to it. If (or when?) Texas turns blue, you could have a situation where the GOP would face an almost insurmountable climb in the electoral college. Lose enough of those elections by blow outs and they could change their tune.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but as they are already losing the national popular vote on a regular basis they'll likely stick with the EC for as long as possible. Right now it's their only chance to win elections, barring a major shift in their policies and behavior, which they are likely loathe to do.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
It would have to be done with a constitutional amendment, right?
Click to expand...
Maybe. There is a popular vote interstate compact that goes into effect if enough states join to guarantee an EC victory. They are basically state laws that say the winner of the state’s electors is the winner of the national popular vote. The argument for constitutionality of this is the constitution allows state legislatures to determine the manner of selecting electors.
 
05C40 said:
I agree with all you say, but would revise the last part of your penultimate sentence to say, "and they know that if the electoral college is abolished they may never win another presidential election without significant changes in what and how they advocate."
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I don't see the GOP changing for a good while, even if Trump loses. Electing Trump opened a pandora's box for them, and they've become a political party where the tail is now wagging the dog - the base is running the party, and most GOP politicians are frightened of their own base. Eventually they may change, but their base is going to have to be willing to change, and that doesn't seem likely, at least not until some of their older members die off, to be blunt.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Maybe, but as they are already losing the national popular vote on a regular basis they'll likely stick with the EC for as long as possible. Right now it's their only chance to win elections, barring a major shift in their policies and behavior, which they are likely loathe to do.
Click to expand...
Take a look at my hypothetical of 2016 I added above. Even in a future situation where they would start to be more competitive in the popular vote straight up they could win all of the swing states but still lose the EC -- kind of an inverse of today's situation. So I agree with you that right now its their best move. I was simply suggesting that saying they would never agree to it is maybe not as airtight as most would think. They could definitely change their stance if things play out as expected in Texas.
 
If we really want to 'fix' our political system to better represent the actual will of the people it will require 3 things.

1. Popular vote for president- every vote should count the same and candidates should have to compete for them not just Pennsylvania, Michigan etc
2. Senate has to be reconfigured to better represent the populations of the state. The largest 10 states should have 3 senators and the smallest 10 states should have 1. That still gives tremendous advantage to the smaller states but would no longer hold the rest of the country hostage
3. The state House delegation has to be within a specific percentage of the total votes cast in that state to put a brake on gerrymandering. No more near 50/50 states with an 11-4 house contingent

This assumes we want to value the will of the people and not the will of corporation and special interest.
 
Last edited:
I have posted repeatedly on various message boards how the anti-democratic Electoral College system is causing a tyranny of the minority, and with the situation in recent decades a tyranny of the far less educated over the rest of us. I've often linked this video, which if you've not seen, you should certainly take the time for it (and please share it). As you'll see, even worse still, it could mean 22 percent of voters could choose the president.

 
UNCBAdookJD said:
Maybe. There is a popular vote interstate compact that goes into effect if enough states join to guarantee an EC victory. They are basically state laws that say the winner of the state’s electors is the winner of the national popular vote. The argument for constitutionality of this is the constitution allows state legislatures to determine the manner of selecting electors.
Click to expand...
But as you know, there are folks who doubt that the compact is lawful. It can't be a "compact" per se because Article I says they must have congressional approval (and my understanding of the popular vote compact is that it's not intending to look to Congress for ratification). There are good legal arguments for why it is legal. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court no longer cares for good legal arguments.

It also lacks an enforcement mechanism. Suppose Georgia is a party to the compact and Kamala wins the popular vote but would lose the EC, except that GA has pledged to assign electors to the popular vote winner. Now the GOP will be out hunting for voter fraud everywhere in the country. They will make a list of 2000 voting "irregularities" (the vast majority of which will be bogus and none will be consequential), and then Georgia's legislature will be under hydraulic pressure to assign GOP electors in accordance with the state's preferences.

I thought of a different problem with it a couple of weeks ago. I'm not sure it's been addressed. The constitution says that the day for choosing the electors has to be the same day in all states -- i.e. Election Day. So everyone votes at the same time, right? Not all the votes have to be counted same day, though (and we know they are not). That's OK; the electors were determined when the votes were cast, and it's just a question of counting. But under the compact, the electors in a state wouldn't be chosen until all the votes were counted everywhere, which would be later than Election Day. You could say this is meaningless; the electors in Georgia under the compact would be chosen on election day the same way California's electors are. But you could say there's a difference between a state counting its votes, and a state expressly waiting for another state to count its votes. Is that a good argument? I don't think so, but it's not trivial. It's exactly the sort of thing that the Supreme Court would seize on to reverse the election.
 
uncgriff said:
And the supreme court
Click to expand...
Or term limits. And I don’t know what the magic number is, but it needs to be whatever would get Thomas & Alito off the bench ASAP.

It doesn’t solve the EC problem but we also need to look at statehood at least for Puerto Rico and preferably D.C. as well. Would give Dems more Senate seats, House seats and EC votes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top