It is that time of the season…..we have been through the caucuses and primaries the determining the electoral votes for candidates….and then in November the presidential candidates will be assigned votes by the EC to help determine who will win the presidential contest.
Personally this system is a bag of cons that stretches back for over 200 years. I have let my feelings known on several occasions during the many election cycles I have written about….
What Do You Know About The Electoral College?
I want to be fair so I include a post I wrote that is pro electoral college….
Electoral College: Reasons Not To Abolish
This is for those too lazy to read the previous posts…..
Established by Article II, Section I of the Constitution, the Electoral College calls for the creation every four years of a temporary group of electors equal to the total number of representatives in Congress.
Electors, often chosen for their service to and support of a political party, are typically nominated at state party conventions and then voted on by the delegates. After this initial phase of the process, each party’s presidential candidate emerges with their own slate of potential electors. When Americans cast their ballot for president and vice president on the first Tuesday in November, they are technically casting a ballot for the slate of electors who have pledged to cast their votes for that party.
It is this group of 538 people – the formula is the same that gives us 100 senators and 435 representatives (plus three electors representing Washington D.C.) who meet in their respective states and cast their official votes for president and vice president on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.
Not that I am in favor of keeping this albatross…..
I agree that the system has outlived its usefulness and only strengthens the two party dictatorship…..
The Electoral College tie break has been the Achilles heel of America’s electoral process since the beginning. (And it’s one of the many reasons George Washington warned against the formation of political parties in the first place. C’est la vie.) Here’s how it works: In the event that no presidential candidate wins over the magical majority vote of 270 electors, the decision is sent to Congress where each state delegation gets one vote. Whoever receives a majority of the states is elected president. Simple enough?
Here’s the catch: Even before there was a two-party system, the one-state-one-vote method quickly devolved into a duel.
…
There’s one simple alternative to forcing people to pick between a nursing home resident-in-training and a spray-tanned cult leader: Pass a Constitutional amendment changing the Electoral College tie break from a congressional vote to a run-off election between the top two candidates. This would not only give independents a fighting chance, but it would also promote the emergence of third-party congressional candidates campaigning behind the element they currently lack: a realistic presidential hopeful.
Time to think about changing a lot of things in the government….like simplified tax code, a national primary, easier to actually vote and dumping the electoral college.
This is our country….time that those we send to Congress listen to the people and their concerns and wishes…..lobbyists have had their run….shut down “K” Street.
This idea is why I said what I said…..
Arizona bill recently introduced by a GOP state legislator.
State Sen. Anthony Kern (R-27) is spearheading Senate Concurrent Resolution 1014, which says that “the Legislature, and no other official, shall appoint presidential electors.” If it passes both chambers, the measure could appear on the November ballot.
As Arizona Republic columnist EJ Montini wrote earlier this month, “In other words, if such a law had existed when Biden beat Trump, the majority MAGA Legislature could have ignored the will of Arizona voters and appointed like-minded electors of their choosing who, in turn, could have installed Dear Leader as the victor.”
Someone other than the voter picks who gets the electoral votes…..now do you see why I say what I say?
The electoral college (to be redundant) has long out lived it’s usefulness….many times over….
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-electoral-college_n_66ba3471e4b0f1d23236c143
Any thoughts?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
It has a similar effect to our traditional first past the post system. The amount of votes is actually meaningless, as a party with less votes than its main rivals can still win an election on seats, not votes. The Labour Party here only polled one third of the votes, yet has a huge majority in parliament.
Best wishes, Pete.
It is a stupid practice and not very democratic IMO. chuq
Every election brings this subject up.
Yes indeed and it needs to be written about more often. chuq
Is it less about the electoral college concept nationally or far more about the hodge-podge ways states select delegates and assign votes?
Without the EC that problem would be solved. chuq
What we need is “One Person/One Vote and we need all the votes to be hand-counted and tallied so that the results of the elections can be announced with certainty no later than a day following the balloting. We also need to station armed forces at each polling place to observe the proceedings and to keep order.
Troops sound like a Trumpism….that could be intimidation….chuq
The troops would be there to prevent the right wing from intimidating the voters.
Who would keep the troops from intimidating the voters?
Then the right wing could say they were intimidated….chuq
It was a compromise in order to get enough small population states to vote to ratify the constitution. The large states should not have made the compromise. They should have held out and found a way to create the country with a national popular vote.
I agree and I like Hamilton’s idea. chuq
They did not do that because they did not want the mob rule occuring in France to contaminate our system. .
True. They did not want all laws and issues decided by a mere majority vote. They thought that was mob rule. We have a federal constitutional republic.
I don’t want huge majorities in the 10 largest cities electing the president.
I don’t want 270 votes electing our president either, carl.
It’s not just 270. Think of the 270 as points. It takes some 85 million votes to get the 270 so the people actually do elect the president not the mere 270. Do you want east and west coast elites and their policies and values to command the nation ? That’s the near complete power California and New York have now using the present system of compound electoral college and popular votes anyway. That advantage with “popular vote only” would guarantee a presidential election would be completely in their control. What frightens me most is the coastal eite policies of no cash bail for criminals, immediate release and little if any prosecution and the criminals remain free on the streets forever. Why would a sensible person certify this criminal immunity to destroy the nation ? Such is certainly leaving victims with no justice and no protection. I take it personally. My son and daughter have survived 5 drive-by shootings. I want the thugs off the street forever. Wouldn’t you ? .
Carl….national violent crime is down 20% over last year that was also down…..chuq
I do not think the party system does this country any good….we see what damage it has done. chuq
Changing the Electoral College will be virtually impossible under the procedures under Article Five of the Constitution for making amendments or calling a Constitutional convention. Proposing an amendment or calling a convention requires two thirds of members of Congress of both houses or two thirds of state legislatures. Ratification requires three quarters of state legislatures or state conventions. The Electoral College may not benefit a majority of the population, but it does benefit a majority of the states. Therefore they won’t vote to abolish it.
The way for the Democrats or reformers to win in the Electoral College is to propose and enact policies that are of material benefit to everyone, including people in small population states, as was done in New Deal days and before
I know how difficult it would be…..and the New Deal thoughts were great. chuq
UI don’t believe crime down 20 %.
Crime down 20 % ? Huh ? Damages your credibility to present that. Another big lie to give people a false sense of secirity. Do you think credit card fraud and ID theft are reported ? They are violent crime in the victim’s mind. The cities police forces are down 10 to 30 percent in unfilled positions. People can’t get assistance and the FBI insists crime is down ? Disgraceful fraud. It seems a big chunk of crime esp in big cities doesn’t even get reported by the victims. ICE has been nuetralized , cooperation between state and federal law enforcement has been disallowed, there is no cash bail and the DA’s are not even prosecuting . People in the troubled cities don’t even call the cops anymore. Crime has become the daily (normal) terror Yes, I heared the interviewer tell Trump in the debate that crime was down 20% according to FBI stats (which is not an interview protocol but a hostile contradiction attempt). Do you think 150,000 fentynal are part of the data ? Arrestees simply get a notice to appear and are never heard from until their next arrest and nothing happens. Shoplifting , carjacks, and assaults are never part of the national stats. Tell the people in Chicago violent crime is down when 50 people get shot every weekend and a dozen or so don’t survice. Tell the parents of murdered children is down 20%. For the FBI to assert such nonsense represents a disgraceful crime and negligence Our police and feds couldn’t even exercise control in the two Trump assasination attempts. My own two adult children survived 5 drive-by shootings when they were teenagers. Never reported. Drive-bys were so frequent in Miami many don’t even make the evening or morning news.
I just report on what I read….you can believe or make reasons not to….but if you want the truth then Google can help. chuq
I haven’t created reasons just touched the realities. I agree there is no better option (and responsibility) than to research a matter as best we can, ya know like “the border is secure” for almost 4 years and there are “sources” that report that as fact. My word, I feel so much better knowing this “truth”. If the administration has fed us this tripe for years it certainly must be fact. .
But do we truly want to know the ‘truth’? chuq
Know the truth ? Perhaps not. It’s so slippery it may be impossible to grasp at all. It’s certainly elusive. It seems to recreate itself from day to day. Even moment to moment.
It is what keeps us tied to the 2 party system chuq