End the Electoral College?

[Phil Elliott]

You cannot just flip a switch and say well if we did away with the Electoral College, then HRC would be president. This is only fodder for the politically illiterate. If we went by popular vote, both candidates would have campaigned in vastly different ways than what they did.

 

[I35]

You do remember who the Democratic nominee for President was, right? You think Wendy Davis would be more motivating to Texas Republicans than Hillary Clinton? Surely you know better than that.

Hillary will get a big turn out. Wendy would get a big turn out. Both running in the same election day would probably have every Republican that is registered.

Holding the gubernatorial and state office elections in midterm years helps Republicans, because though Republican voter turnout drops in midterm elections, Democratic voter turnout significantly more. Switching those elections to presidential years would be about the biggest favor the Texas Legislature could do for Texas Democrats. They'd still lose, but it would be less of a blowout.

This is a good point. So I guess there's a good and bad either way.

 

[I35]

Why was ISIS able to kick butt on soldiers with better numbers, more training and better weaponry?

I just thought they got a rush from seeing a head roll after they chopped it off. They seem to have a thirst for blood.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Here's another Constitution question. From a legal standpoint, isn't the mere existence and engineering of the Electoral College an implicit constitutional rejection of popular vote?

That is what this stupid confederation of liberal states is about, to default the EC to the popular vote, but forgoing the amendment process. Essentially these states would hijack the Constitution.

 

[Htown77]

A lot of people that generally vote for the republican for president, like myself, did not vote for Trump. Trump is not as popular here as he is in other states. He lost easily to Ted Cruz in the primary. If you had an election in Texas today between Trump and George W. Bush or even Trump and Ted Cruz, Trump would lose. Trump is not a Texas conservative. Yes there are Trump voters as he received 26.75% of the primary vote, BUT 73.25% OF TEXAS REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS REJECTED TRUMP.

Im not a big Abbott fan, but he won with 59% of the vote because he is an actual Texas conservative.

Trump receiving only 52% is entirely because he is not a real conservative and he sucks. Last time I checked, labor unions are not popular in Texas. Romney and McCain performed better than Trump and they were both weak conservative candidates. If there is an Abbott/W conservative running in a presidential election as a republican, they will get 60% of the vote in Texas. Trump even getting to 52% proves Texas is a one party state and most Texans will vote for the republican even if it is a potato.

Trump supporters need to understand that their champion only received 52% because he just is not as popular among conservatives in this state as previous republican candidates. Really, only 26.75% of republicans (about 800,000 people) even like him. The other 3.8 million votes he got in the general election were just people that liked the R next to his name. Texas is just as conservative as ever, which is why Trump is not as popular as others. It has nothing to do with not having a senate race. People did not turn out for Trump because they do not like him.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Hillary will get a big turn out. Wendy would get a big turn out. Both running in the same election day would probably have every Republican that is registered.

Hillary and Wendy Davis would basically turn out the same voters. The difference is that Wendy would turn out fewer of them, because she's no where near as big of a name as Hillary is. If Hillary is on the ballot, Wendy's presence isn't going to add much.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Here's another Constitution question. From a legal standpoint, isn't the mere existence and engineering of the Electoral College an implicit constitutional rejection of popular vote?

No.

That is what this stupid confederation of liberal states is about, to default the EC to the popular vote, but forgoing the amendment process. Essentially these states would hijack the Constitution.

I think what these states are doing is dumb. However, I don't see any reason why they can't do it. They can have their electoral votes cast any way they want.

 

[Joe Fan]

Liberal opinion on the electoral college changes with the wind

 

[Crockett]

I just thought they got a rush from seeing a head roll after they chopped it off. They seem to have a thirst for blood.

ISIS followers probably do. The strategic value though, is ISIS gets a place in your brain with outsize dimension to the real threat they are. More Americans will die of flu than could have been prevented with an inexpensive vaccine this year than will die at the hands of ISIS and its successor groups in the next 20-200 years. Yet many here perceive ISIS as a grave threat to our persons and our freedom yet will eschew the time and discomfort of getting a flu shot or quitting smoking which would have 10-100 times more likelihood to extend their lives.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Sorry to interject in your discussion, but sometimes I can't keep my damn mouth shut. Neither of you guys are totally wrong on sanctuary, but you're both just a little off but in important ways.

Something has been gnawing at me...how can some who profess the power of State rights over Federal take this stance on sanctuary cities?

It depends on what they mean by "taking a stance on sanctuary cities." If we're talking about a federal ban on sanctuary cities, that's not constitutional, and it's not OK. The federal government cannot force states and cities to enforce their immigration laws. However, if they want to deny federal money to cities that adopt sanctuary policies and ordinances, they certainly can do that.

Personally, I don't like that game - Congress using federal money to de facto do what the Constitution would otherwise prohibit (such as withholding federal highway money if you don't pass open container laws, etc.). However, the Supreme Court says it's OK, so if the tool is available, they can use it.

On the merits, many on the Right have a kneejerk "screw 'em" attitude toward illegal aliens. If something makes their life harder, they like it, and if it makes their life easier, they don't like it. Sanctuary policies make life easier for illegal aliens, so they don't like them, and they don't really take the analysis any further than that. Many on the Left have a "screw 'em" attitude toward the Right. Sanctuary policies piss off the Right, so they like them.

I think the sanctuary city issue is another area where we need more common sense and less ideological stupidity and rigidity. If an illegal alien witnesses a crime or is a victim of a crime, he or she should be able to call the cops, make a statement, or testify in court without fear of getting turned over to ICE. On the flip side, if an illegal alien IS the person committing the crime, he or she certainly SHOULD fear getting turned over to ICE. Any city that doesn't do this is insane and is putting its own citizens at risk.

Because it's a Federal issue ... immigration.

The States consented to that in the Constitution. Texas can't have it's own immigration policy while Caly has a different one.

The cities aren't asking to have their own immigration policies. They're asking not to be forced to enforce or assist in enforcing federal immigration laws. That's their right, and so long as they're willing to forego federal money (not likely) and so long as they aren't keeping federal ICE officials from enforcing federal immigration laws, then the Constitution is entirely on their side.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Liberal opinion on the electoral college changes with the wind

Those articles were written by 2 different writers.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Liberal opinion on the electoral college changes with the wind

Same periodical, but different authors. If anything, the only conclusion you can reach is that liberals don't all march to the beat of the same drummer.

It is also worth mentioning that one of the articles was written by Richard Posner. Judge Posner is not longer the solid conservative he used to be, but he isn't your prototypical liberal, either.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Same periodical, but different authors. If anything, the only conclusion you can reach is that liberals don't all march to the beat of the same drummer.

It is also worth mentioning that one of the articles was written by Richard Posner. Judge Posner is not longer the solid conservative he used to be, but he isn't your prototypical liberal, either.

Yep, multiple perspectives within the same publication. I can see how that might be shocking to a Brietbart consumer.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Let's also agree that this is only an topic of interest when the electoral college results don't match the popular vote. I believe that's only happened twice in more than 100 years, 2000 and now. In turn, it makes sense that this topic is garnering more discussion.

 

[Htown77]

1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016.

We have had 58 presidential elections. That is about 9% of the time the popular vote does not match the electoral college. It does not happen often, but sometimes lightning strikes twice in a short amount of time. We may never see it happen again in our lifetimes.

 

[Joe Fan]

Yep, multiple perspectives within the same publication. I can see how that might be shocking to a Brietbart consumer.

Right, had absolutely nothing to do with who won which election .....

 

[Joe Fan]

Of 3,141 counties in the United States --
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

Of 62 counties in New York --
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond). Thus, these 5 counties alone, more than account for the difference in the popular vote of the entire country. And these 5 counties comprise 319 square miles (of the US' total 3,797,000 square miles).

With a country of ~ 4M square miles of territory, should the vote of those living in just 319 square miles control the outcome of a national election?

There is no legitimate reason large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA ...) should get to speak for the entire country.

 

[Crockett]

So Joe Fan, you are saying individual voters in Dallas, New York and Los Angeles should have much less say in national issues than somebody in Coleman Texas or Laramie Wyoming?

 

[NJlonghorn]

So Joe Fan, you are saying individual voters in Dallas, New York and Los Angeles should have much less say in national issues than somebody in Coleman Texas or Laramie Wyoming?

I think that is what Joe Fan is saying, and if so I agree. The electoral college was designed to prevent the small number of urban states from dominating at the expense of the larger number of rural states, and to prevent the large number of rural states from dominating at the expense of the smaller number of urban states. It works quite well.

 

[mchammer]

Of 3,141 counties in the United States --
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

Of 62 counties in New York --
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond). Thus, these 5 counties alone, more than account for the the popular vote of the entire country. And these 5 counties comprise 319 square miles (of the US' 3, 797,000 square miles).

With a country of ~ 4M square miles of territory, should the vote of those living in just 319 square miles control the outcome of a national election?

There is no legitimate reason large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA ...) should get to speak speak for the entire country.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.inqu...-500-winning-83-of-the-geographic-nation/amp/

 

[Joe Fan]

So Joe Fan, you are saying individual voters in Dallas, New York and Los Angeles should have much less say in national issues than somebody in Coleman Texas or Laramie Wyoming?

I am saying the original design of the Electoral College was brilliant
Sorry if that was unclear

 

[NJlonghorn]

Of 3,141 counties in the United States --
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

I'd love to know where you get your "facts".

Clinton carried 25 states in Texas alone, with two counties still too close to call as of the time this map was published. The last count I saw was that Clinton carried 500+ counties nationally.

 

[Joe Fan]

Plus, I contend the argument that claim that swing states have oversized power is incorrect --

10.14% of the 2016 popular vote was in CA which has 10.28% of nation's electoral votes

5.26% of popular vote was in NY which has 5.39% of electoral votes

PA has 4.48% of 2016's popular vote but only 3.71% of the electoral votes

WI has 2.20% of the popular vote but only 1.86% of the electoral vote

MI has 3.54% of the popular vote but only 2.97% of the electoral vote

 

[Joe Fan]

I'd love to know where you get your "facts".
Clinton carried 25 states in Texas alone, ....

those arent facts, unless you mean state of minds?

 

[Joe Fan]

By county, I had already posted this --

 

[Joe Fan]

and here is last three elections worth, although 2016 was incomplete when that map was drawn
county + electoral
clock once to enlarge

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Playing devils advocate, big blue and red states are being disenfranchised in favor of the swing states

I don't think they're being disenfranchised as much as they're being taken for granted.

With a popular vote, wouldn't prez behavior (especially by career politicians) be greatly influenced by how it best serves those in big population centers?

It would make campaigning as a liberal much easier than for a conservative, and it would also encourage even more polarized campaign positions. Imagine if you were a campaigner who only had to go to about 5 or 6 cities in a campaign, and you could lock up a huge advantage there because there aren't a lot of people in NYC who will ever vote republican no matter what. So you save all that money for advertising. The conservative then has to scramble around the country to try and scrape up enough votes to stay competitive.

Let's also agree that this is only an topic of interest when the electoral college results don't match the popular vote. I believe that's only happened twice in more than 100 years, 2000 and now. In turn, it makes sense that this topic is garnering more discussion.

And that's going to happen a lot more as the country gets more polarized. It's been a really interesting thing living in the Northeast and seeing what it's like living near an urban center like NYC. Walking down the street at any given time, I'd wager that 75 percent of the people I see are probably under 30. They've moved here because they love the idea of living in the city - the urban social appeal and the cache is a big deal, and they're willing to live on peanut butter, pizza and happy hour snacks to do it. This is not a group that values independence from government regulation, in fact they depend on it. They are surrounded by homeless people and they want someone (usually not themselves) to fix it, so they will almost always want government to be heavily involved in a welfare state. Combine that with the fact that young people are generally more liberal anyway, and now you have a giant echo chamber of progressivism that is completely out of line with other parts of the country.

And yeah, they believe they should be calling the shots for the rest of the country.

Plus, I contend the argument that claim that swing states have oversized power is incorrect

It's like the argument about swing plays in a football game. Everyone microanalyzes the ref's spot on third and short, but no one cared the previous down when he ran up and casually put the ball down give or take a few inches. That spot was just as important, it just didn't seem that way at the time. A guy misses a free throw in the last minute and everyone freaks out, but a guy missed one 10 minutes before that and it wasn't that big a deal.

Swing states only have power in the context of the other states weighing in and casting their votes.

 

[ShAArk92]

This is not a group that values independence from government regulation, in fact they depend on it. They are surrounded by homeless people and they want someone (usually not themselves) to fix it, so they will almost always want government to be heavily involved in a welfare state.

Prodigal ... your post is FULL of wisdom, but this one here is at the top of the list.

Thank you.

 

[texas_ex2000]

A popular vote in lieu of the Electoral College makes less sense given that it's The United STATES of America. If we were the People's Republic of America, then it might make more sense. What are y'all's thoughts on countries that call themselves People's Republic?

No officer and judge of the Federal Government, President or otherwise, is elected directly from a popular vote. They're elected/appointed/affirmed by representatives from the States.

Hillary also won 21 (including DC), or 41%, states of The United States of America. She won, however, 43% of the electoral college vote.

 

[Joe Fan]

Not a single Op-Ed board of a major publication called for this ..... until Hillary lost