Poll: most people who voted in 2016 want to abolish the Electoral College

MaggieD said:

OK. But you don't seriously think that a Constitutional amendment gets voted on in a vacuum, do you? The public will have PLENTY of time to learn how three or four states' population is going to control the entire country from then on. And each state will vote individually...

It may not be mission impossible, but I'd say it would be close to it.

Click to expand...

Aint gonna happin, Maggie.

When it comes to the separation of powers, it is fundamentally NOT the right of states to determine either the timing or pattern of voting. (And I mean by the latter "who votes where").

Fundamental to any democracy is that "all citizens have the right (and duty) to vote and no state-rendered qualification will obviate that right.

That only four states determine who wins is certainly a statistical probability, but there is no reason to believe that it is an unavoidable consequence. Because it isn't statistically probable when the national vote is distributed across the county.

If the Electoral College vote is warped today the reason is specifically because the voter-numbers in the college was tampered with in order to give supposedly "lesser populated, weaker states" more votes. Where in the Constitution is that tampering permitted and on what grounds?!? By what right does your vote in your state (in a national election) have more weight than mine in some other state?

Sorry but this sort of tampering with the national voting process is quite simply UNACCEPTABLE in any real democracy.

Which means that we must stop "tinkering" with the voting circumstances in each state. If states want to tamper with the way Governors are elected, that's their business (and perhaps eventually of the Supreme Court). But national elections should be conducted according to a Federal Law - and the constitution be damned if employed to hinder "fair voting" fundamental to any True Democracy!

NB: And I would be arguing the very same were EC-voting to have favored Hillary over the Dork. Dubya won his seat in the Oval Office in exactly the same manner - he lost the popular vote against Gore. Enough IS enough!

Lafayette said:

From here: (Vox) Poll: most people who voted in 2016 want to abolish the Electoral College





'Nuff said ... ?

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see the results of a follow-up question to the 62%. Please tell us what the electoral college is.

RetiredUSN said:

Calling out ignorance is ad hominen to you? Most American voters don't have a clue about the federation of states..

Click to expand...

I went to High-School and took a very comprehensive course in Civics. That was a long, long time ago.

Some secondary education got off track. I've been absent from the US a long, long time - so I don't know how it happened that Civics was no longer taught in many schools.

I trust something is being done about that fundamental question - which is of key importance to any functional democracy.

From the Atlantic: Why Civics Is About More Than Citizenship - excerpt:

Even though all 50 states and the District of Columbia technically require some civic education, advocates say many districts don’t take those policies very seriously, and few states actually hold schools accountable for students’ civics’ outcomes. Just about a fourth of high-school seniors in 2014 scored “proficient” on the federal-government’s civics exam. Proficiency levels were equally lousy for eighth-graders. “U.S. performance has stayed the same.

Or should I say: Scores have stayed every bit as bad as the last time the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) took the pulse of history, civics, and geography in public and private schools,” wrote the Washington Post Writers Group columnist Esther Cepeda, who hosted the aforementioned seminar with reporters, earlier this year. As with standardized tests in general, the NAEP exam certainly isn’t the ideal way to gauge proficiency but it’s the only source of nationwide data. And ultimately, surveys of American youth suggest that these test scores paint a pretty accurate picture of their civic literacy: A 2010 Pew Research study found that the vast majority of young adults struggle with basic questions about politics—who the next House speaker would be, for example. On a day like today—national Constitution and Citizenship Day—that makes for an especially discouraging reality.

Tufts University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, or CIRCLE, suggests that these low proficiency levels correlate with turnout stats. According to a 2013 CIRCLE survey of young adults, about 60 percent of the respondents who said they’d studied voting in high school cast ballots in the 2012 election, compared to only 43 percent of those who said they hadn’t; just 21 percent of the respondents said they knew their state’s voter-registration deadline.

Click to expand...

Lafayette said:

DYSFUNCTIONAL DEMOCRACY
You need a rudimentary lesson in democracies and how they function.

Ever take a course in Civics? Ever graduate by taking a course in Civics? From what you write, apparently not.

it is the will-of-the-people as expressed in a Popular Vote that reigns in a Functional Democracy. It is a Dysfunctional Democracy that inserts itself between the will-of-the-people to determine who "wins" a presidential election.

And that holds true for both sides of our two-party system in America where last November Hillary Clinton won the Popular Vote by a significant margin of 2.1%! As well, Donald Dork lost the Popular Vote by the largest recorded margin in the nation's recent history! (See that historical record here.)

MY POINT

A country that does not know how to count-votes in a presidential election (and report them directly to Congress) that confirms the election of a candidate has no fundamental anchoring in the meaning of the word "democracy" ...

Click to expand...

So you think that France became a democracy in 1962 when the President was elected directly by the people? And Canada is not a democracy since their Prime Minister is elected by the Parliament (i.e. Electoral College) and in 1979 the loser of the popular vote was elected Prime Minister?
France has what seems to me to be a goofy system but maybe it works for you. Like us, you have a bicameral legislature, one based on population and one on territory. In the US, that was a major debate and ended with the "Great Compromise" in which some states had power based on simply being a state and some states had more power because of their population. This bicameral system that we both have is the philosophy behind the Electoral college. And in many countries the Parliament (i.e. electoral college) selects the leader and that solution may or may not have anything to do with popular votes, but simply numbers in the legislature. That is how in 1979 Canada elected the loser in the popular vote.
France is further confused by having a Prime Minister that is appointed by the President but nonetheless must have support of the parliament, i.e. electoral college. And the unelected Prime Minister has a lot of power. Yet you want to call yourself a democracy.

Hawkeye10 said:

Maybe.
Maybe Not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Click to expand...

Given that it won't go into effect until it achieves signatories totaling 270 electoral votes, it may be less likely than the amendment.

Lafayette said:

Sez you.

There is always a "first time" in a real-democracy. We shall see how "real" America's democracy is today ...

Click to expand...

(0.o)

Not sez me, sez the Constitution. Sez that this is how "real" American democracy looks like. Sez the majority of other states will refuse to move on it because they won't want this to be the United States of California.

Lafayette said:

Yes, you are right.

And for as long as the Replicants own both chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court, nothing will change.

(Last time the national emotion rose to a pitch level, however, we did summon the courage to throw out a monarch ... !)

Click to expand...

Since all the people that have their panties in a bunch over this generally doesn't like guns, and the military and those who do like guns will be on the other side, I don't think this is realistic. You can't fight a revolution with tight pants and caramel mocha frappuccinos.

Hawkeye10 said:

See Post #17

Click to expand...

Yup...that has a zero % chance of happening as well, probably less than an amendment.

Eric7216 said:

So you think that France became a democracy in 1962 when the President was elected directly by the people? And Canada is not a democracy since their Prime Minister is elected by the Parliament (i.e. Electoral College) and in 1979 the loser of the popular vote was elected Prime Minister?

Click to expand...

No, I don't. Take me for a fool at your own peril.

Eric7216 said:

France has what seems to me to be a goofy system but maybe it works for you. Like us, you have a bicameral legislature, one based on population and one on territory. In the US, that was a major debate and ended with the "Great Compromise" in which some states had power based on simply being a state and some states had more power because of their population. This bicameral system that we both have is the philosophy behind the Electoral college.

Click to expand...

It is not a "philosophy", and far from it.

The Electoral College was a "mechanism" from the very beginning consisting of a ploy to manipulate the vote and give more "say" to the smaller states. (Under the idiocy that "territory" gave more balance to a democracy than did "population").

Originally, the 12th Amendment stipulated the Electoral College voting procedure, as follows, and I quote:

But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in Amendment 12 that justifies its existence as "in the defense of democracy". The concern was simply that the American nation was peopled by immigrants, who were easily manipulable because of their lack of education.

And, thankfully, not any other "modern democracy" on earth has bothered to copy it!

Eric7216 said:

And in many countries the Parliament (i.e. electoral college) selects the leader and that solution may or may not have anything to do with popular votes, but simply numbers in the legislature. That is how in 1979 Canada elected the loser in the popular vote.

Click to expand...

The important fact is that, in the examples you give, voting is made by an elected chamber and therefor reflects the will of the people that elected that chamber because it is the Majority Party that determines the "Leader of Parliament" without which no legislation is passed.

This is NOT the case in the electoral college where voters are nominated by God knows what method in each state nor for what reason. It IS and anachronism, and with today's modern voting methods totally unnecessary.

Eric7216 said:

France is further confused by having a Prime Minister that is appointed by the President but nonetheless must have support of the parliament, i.e. electoral college. And the unelected Prime Minister has a lot of power. Yet you want to call yourself a democracy.

Click to expand...

France is "confused"? Come on, cheap shot for which there is no justification.

It's not confusing to the French. Just like any parliament, the head of the government is a member of the majority party. France has known instances where the President and First Minister (the head of government) were of different parties. No big deal, but presidents (in such situations) certainly cannot manipulate a majority party of which s/he is not a member.

Certainly, the loss of the legislature in France seriously constrains any elected president. But not any less so than in the US!

PLUTO-CATS

Fishking said:

(0.o)

Not sez me, sez the Constitution. Sez that this is how "real" American democracy looks like. Sez the majority of other states will refuse to move on it because they won't want this to be the United States of California.

Click to expand...

Balderdash.

The US electorate (one which barely ever votes) is just flailing about because a lot of people lost their jobs in the Great Recession. And many know that, even if they found or will find another job, their payscale will NOT be as good as before.

Wakey, wakey, America! What ever made you (plural) think that a job at a certain pay-level was forever! It is NOT guaranteed by the Constitution!

The past eight years triggered by the Great Recession have been called "a vicissitude of life in America". It has happened before and it will likely happen again. In a market-economy there is never a guaranty of an "easy ride" with continuous expansion of well-being, as defined by personal revenue.

Unless, of course, you are one of the "superstars" who have benefited from a very weak upper-income taxation at flat-tax rates - that is, one curiously unique to the US. The enormous sums of money (millions in fact) came piling in as Income, were taxed at ludicrously low levels of 15/20 percent (because of "heaven-sent" deductions and other such tax boondoggles) and spirited up into "Wealth". (And from there, minus Debt, into "Net Worth".)

That highly efficient "Wealth-mechanism" was detailed by economists at the UofCal by researching actual net-after-taxation revenues in the US. Which history looks like this.

Anyone of us 90Percenters in that infographic should feel rightly to have been had "royally" by a class of plutocrats. But, after all is said and done, it is we, the sheeple, like fools, we just voted into the highest office of the land the "leader" of those extremely rich PlutoCats ...

Lafayette said:

No, I don't. Take me for a fool at your own peril

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by this answer. I was honestly asking whether you consider Canada and France to be democracies. The Economist Intelligence Unit ranks Canada as a Full Democracy while France (and the US) are ranked as Flawed Democracies. The CIA World Factbook calls Canada a "Parliamentary Democracy under a Constitutional Monarchy" (which doesn't sound at all like a democracy) and France is a "semi presidential republic", whatever that means.
The US ranks ahead of France in the Economist Intelligence Unit rankings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html

Lafayette said:

The Electoral College was a "mechanism" from the very beginning consisting of a ploy to manipulate the vote and give more "say" to the smaller states.

Click to expand...

Which is the same "mechanism" of a bicameral legislature. Seems very common. I would argue that there are benefits to having a EC versus having Parliament select a Prime Minister or President. It gives more power to the person and help prevent domination by that most disgusting special interest group, the political party. If I like a person running for President I vote for him/her and if I like the Congressman I vote for him. I do not have to vote for a Congressman partly because I want his party's candidate for President. I get 2 votes-for President and for Legislature and they may be in different parties. Politicians should be themselves and not subservient to some party dictates. Ideally it gets politicians away from this party line voting. And yet this system still retains the advantages of a bicameral legislature, with power based on both territory and population.
There must be a reason why so many countries have a bicameral legislature.

Lafayette said:

There is nothing in Amendment 12 that justifies its existence as "in the defense of democracy".

Click to expand...

Right. Like so many countries, the US is not a democracy. The US is a constitutional republic.

Lafayette said:

The important fact is that, in the examples you give, voting is made by an elected chamber and therefor reflects the will of the people that elected that chamber because it is the Majority Party that determines the "Leader of Parliament" without which no legislation is passed.

Click to expand...

Well, you may have something there. It is the will of the people on who gets into the EC but apparently they are allowed to change their minds which defeats the whole purpose and adds a very undemocratic spin on things. The people should be assured that their vote for the EC is counted, in the bicameral fashion of territory and population. If the state of Oregon votes for Presidential Candidate X than X should get the 7 votes automatically. Democracy in action, as part of a constitutional republic.

Eric7216 said:

I am not sure what you mean by this answer.

Click to expand...

That's evident. You are perhaps looking for some "objective" distinction as to what is a democracy and what is not? Good luck.

I can tell you what is not a democracy. North Korea, for instance, is not a democracy. But that example is perhaps one of the last left on this planet. (With China not far behind.)

Democracy can be declined in many different ways. A parliamentary democracy in Europe instills the head of the majority party in parliament as "national leader" - very much unlike the US. The US (and more recently France) have become "tripartite democracies" with three elements of power - the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary.

The purpose of which is to establish a "balance of power" such that one never fully dominates. Seems simple doesn't it? But some so-called democracies can't seem to understand that necessity of balance-of-power. Turkey is the most recent example of unbalanced-power - with the president having obtained most delivered by a docile legislature.

However, that balance-of-power is obtained or sustained is key to real democracy in any nation. And why? Perhaps because humankind has an innate need to define "leaders". Which is still the most prominent characteristic of many businesses that are hierarchical in both form and substance.

It is also a very "male" characteristic that dates from from the dawn of time amongst human beings.

Which is a statement of historical fact and certainly no apology ...

Laughable, the Demon Craps want to ensure that California & NY decide the election every time. Pass.
How about they create their own country & fail miserably at communism instead.

Van Basten said:

I'd be cool with it being "abolished."

Not exactly something that you do with a hand wave though.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, abolishing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. I think that requires a 2/3 vote of congress.

Eliminate the Electoral College and the Democrats win.

Why should California and the illegal aliens get to decide an American election?

Vox said:

Eliminate the Electoral College and the Democrats win.

Why should California and the illegal aliens get to decide an American election?

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the alternative is misinformed kooks who actually think millions of illegal immigrants voted in the election because the Trump Boyz and Republicans told them so. :lamo

Then there's the UNinformed kooks who don't know that Jerry Brown gave the illegals driver's licenses to get out the Dems votes.

So the mob wants mob rule? So what?

Sorry, I'd rather not be ruled by them.

If abolished the entire Mid West and South would be insignificant in presidential elections. The candidates would only be concerned with California and east coast states where the most far left and most of the snowflakes are from. I was a Democrat for over 50 years but just changed to the Republican Party for a variety of reasons. I got so sick of all the moaning about the popular vote, the crybabies who still can't believe Hillary lost and especially the movie stars and celebrities who are limousine liberals. The lack of respect shown to the President is disgraceful by both the uninformed far left liberals and the media. For Gods sake give Trump a chance since he can't possibly do as bad as the last 8 mistake filled years Obama spent messing up the USA.