What to do about the election of the President?

In Federalist No. 68 Hamilton praises the convention's scheme for electing the executive, which we call the electoral college. He claims that even the proposed constitution's enemies admitted the process was "pretty well guarded" and that it was the only part of the constitution which escaped severe censure of its opponents. If you take the constitution in a vacuum, it was a pretty ingenious idea. There would have been no way to do a nationwide direct popular vote with America's lack of technology and infrastructure in 1789. There are other reasons, I won't get into, as to why they wouldn't have even considered such a thing at the time, and the associated reasons for its then impossibility.

But today, we have modern communications and infrastructure. It is actually possible (once the telegraph was invented) to run such a national popular vote for President in 2020. Clearly the electoral college, however clever it was at the time, has outlived its cleverness. Three times in our history (I don't count 1876 and 1824 for good reasons) the result of the nationwide popular vote has been at odds with the candidate chosen by the electoral college. In a modern democracy, it's rather silly.

My position, however, is that for now, we need to retain it--but with a reformed PRIMARY process ahead of it. Yes, Donald Trump won the presidency with less popular votes than his opponent (over two million more). But what's more surprising is that Donald Trump actually got as far as the general election in the first place, and the likes of Hillary Clinton along with him.

How would we go about doing this? Any ideas?

Closed primaries will help. A certain flavor of Independent and a certain flavor of Democrat won the primary for Trump.

SDET said:

Closed primaries will help. A certain flavor of Independent and a certain flavor of Democrat won the primary for Trump.

Click to expand...

It should never be done. Without the Connecticut Compromise, there would never have been a Constitution or country. The primarily reason why a popular vote is irrelevant lies in Article II.

What should "never be done", Tennyson? Closed primaries? or the abolition of the electoral college?

JimHackerMP said:

What should "never be done", Tennyson? Closed primaries? or the abolition of the electoral college?

Click to expand...

A popular vote for president.

Making sure not to lose solidly blue states to an obvious con man promising crazy crap that we all know he can't possibly deliver would be a good start.

SDET said:

Closed primaries will help. A certain flavor of Independent and a certain flavor of Democrat won the primary for Trump.

Click to expand...

Not a fan of closed primaries, nor do I see the advantage in strictly limiting the vote to members of the club. Trump won the primaries because he got more votes. I don't think it matters who cast them, just that they did.

My preference is admittedly partly personal. In this area, I know the GOP nominee will win most races, but not all races. So in 2016 I voted in the Democratic primary so I could express a preference for POTUS at that point. This week I'll vote in the GOP primary for Governor, an open House seat and the seat Corker is leaving in the Senate, and it's because the GOP nominee WILL WIN the Governor's race and the House seat and I have a strong preference which Republican wins those races and represents my area and is Governor. In the Senate, Bredesen will win that primary easily, and so I don't need to cast a vote until the general.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? More importantly, how does that improve elections if only (e.g.) registered Republicans get to express preferences about GOP nominees? If you live in a blue state, why shouldn't registered republicans be allowed to express preferences on which Democrat will win? You're demanding, effectively, that we register with a party that we might not/do not align with, or give up our right to cast MEANINGFUL votes in a lot of primaries.

As to solutions, what I'd like to see either in primaries or the general is some kind of ranked choice vote (RCV) system, instant runoff, whatever. You talked about Trump - the problem with him and others in a lot of primaries is most people don't show up, and those that do are often the true believers, the activists, and the person who motivates the activists gets the win. Trump is and was also really polarizing - you had people who loved him or hated him. At least with ranked choice voting in the early going, some Cruz voter, for example, who was a neverTrumper could rank Kasich second, Bush third, etc. and that effectively pushes Trump down the list to the bottom in the second 'round.' As is, with plurality takes all, you might 'win' a primary with 24% of the vote if there are lots of people running. Ranked choice voting would, IMO, result in a better process, no matter who the candidate or the race because it better reflects all our ACTUAL PREFERENCES.

It also will encourage more people to run, or reduce the huge pressure on some candidates who aren't doing well early to drop out. Say you have 4 "conservatives" running in a primary, and one 'moderate.' The danger is the conservatives split the far right vote, and the moderate might win the primary with 30%, even if 70% of the voters preferred someone more conservative. In the current system, the party will put a HUGE amount of pressure on the conservative losing early polls to drop out and endorse someone else to make sure a 'true' conservative wins the primary. With RCV that guy can tell the party to shove it - let the voters rank them and it will work out fine.

It also allows for third parties to run and get more votes. I NEVER vote 3rd party, because they will lose, and I always have a preference between which major party candidate is least horrible. With RCV I'd have voted 3rd party first ballot several times. Etc. Lots of reasons to go with RCV over our current system.

JimHackerMP said:

In Federalist No. 68 Hamilton praises the convention's scheme for electing the executive, which we call the electoral college. He claims that even the proposed constitution's enemies admitted the process was "pretty well guarded" and that it was the only part of the constitution which escaped severe censure of its opponents. If you take the constitution in a vacuum, it was a pretty ingenious idea. There would have been no way to do a nationwide direct popular vote with America's lack of technology and infrastructure in 1789. There are other reasons, I won't get into, as to why they wouldn't have even considered such a thing at the time, and the associated reasons for its then impossibility.

But today, we have modern communications and infrastructure. It is actually possible (once the telegraph was invented) to run such a national popular vote for President in 2020. Clearly the electoral college, however clever it was at the time, has outlived its cleverness. Three times in our history (I don't count 1876 and 1824 for good reasons) the result of the nationwide popular vote has been at odds with the candidate chosen by the electoral college. In a modern democracy, it's rather silly.

My position, however, is that for now, we need to retain it--but with a reformed PRIMARY process ahead of it. Yes, Donald Trump won the presidency with less popular votes than his opponent (over two million more). But what's more surprising is that Donald Trump actually got as far as the general election in the first place, and the likes of Hillary Clinton along with him.

How would we go about doing this? Any ideas?

Click to expand...

If this last Electoral College had read Federalist 68, tRump would not have been elected.

calamity said:

Making sure not to lose solidly blue states to an obvious con man promising crazy crap that we all know he can't possibly deliver would be a good start.

Click to expand...

The Electoral College was invented to preclude the possibility of a charismatic demagogue/con-man from influencing the populous and becoming President; it was "supposed" to safeguard us from the like of a tRump.

And how many Republicans actually voted for Trump? Can you find the percentage? It wasn't even close to a majority if I remember correctly.

StuPedaso said:

If this last Electoral College had read Federalist 68, tRump would not have been elected.

Click to expand...

Well, to their credit, 7 of them DID defect: 2 Republicans in TX and 5 Democrats in several other states.

The thing about RCV and other "innovations" in elections is that Americans don't do complicated. We like simple first past the post elections, preferably from single-member constituencies (for the most part). Anything above that we're just not used to.

StuPedaso said:

If this last Electoral College had read Federalist 68, tRump would not have been elected.



The Electoral College was invented to preclude the possibility of a charismatic demagogue/con-man from influencing the populous and becoming President; it was "supposed" to safeguard us from the like of a tRump.

Click to expand...

The 2016 election followed Federalist 68 to the letter.

tennyson said:

the 2016 election followed federalist 68 to the letter.

Click to expand...

nope, n o t … a t … a l l.

Tennyson said:

The 2016 election followed Federalist 68 to the letter.

Click to expand...

Really? in what way?

But please, let's remember my question was about reforming presidential elections.

JimHackerMP said:

And how many Republicans actually voted for Trump? Can you find the percentage? It wasn't even close to a majority if I remember correctly.

Click to expand...

It was 45% according to wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

StuPedaso said:

nope, n o t … a t … a l l.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. Read it.

JasperL said:

It was 45% according to wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that doesn't take into account the fact that the primary process makes some states more important than others. By the time you get to the Potomac Primaries (DC, MD, VA), which I think is the last rung in the electoral ladder, most of the other candidates you might have wanted to vote for, have already dropped out. You see my point now? Some Republicans may have wanted to vote for one of the candidates who had dropped out two months previously, and can't by that time.

JimHackerMP said:

Well, to their credit, 7 of them DID defect: 2 Republicans in TX and 5 Democrats in several other states.

The thing about RCV and other "innovations" in elections is that Americans don't do complicated. We like simple first past the post elections, preferably from single-member constituencies (for the most part). Anything above that we're just not used to.

Click to expand...

RCV is simple - you rank your choices. There may be good reasons to oppose RCV but 'complicated' is a poor one. After all, if the process of ranking something is too hard, or voters REALLY don't care if their top person loses who gets the nomination, voters don't have to do it. They can just list one candidate. BERNIE OR BUST!! etc.

JimHackerMP said:

In Federalist No. 68 Hamilton praises the convention's scheme for electing the executive, which we call the electoral college. He claims that even the proposed constitution's enemies admitted the process was "pretty well guarded" and that it was the only part of the constitution which escaped severe censure of its opponents. If you take the constitution in a vacuum, it was a pretty ingenious idea. There would have been no way to do a nationwide direct popular vote with America's lack of technology and infrastructure in 1789. There are other reasons, I won't get into, as to why they wouldn't have even considered such a thing at the time, and the associated reasons for its then impossibility.

But today, we have modern communications and infrastructure. It is actually possible (once the telegraph was invented) to run such a national popular vote for President in 2020. Clearly the electoral college, however clever it was at the time, has outlived its cleverness. Three times in our history (I don't count 1876 and 1824 for good reasons) the result of the nationwide popular vote has been at odds with the candidate chosen by the electoral college. In a modern democracy, it's rather silly.

My position, however, is that for now, we need to retain it--but with a reformed PRIMARY process ahead of it. Yes, Donald Trump won the presidency with less popular votes than his opponent (over two million more). But what's more surprising is that Donald Trump actually got as far as the general election in the first place, and the likes of Hillary Clinton along with him.
st
How would we go about doing this? Any ideas?

Click to expand...

If you're happy with a small group of large population states choosing presidents from now on the a nation wide popular election is fine. I think there was a little more to creating the electoral college than what you're suggesting. Part of the design was to somewhat mollify the domination of large states. They still have more power because they have more electors, of course, but the effective keeps small states in the game.

JimHackerMP said:

... Clearly the electoral college, however clever it was at the time, has outlived its cleverness. Three times in our history (I don't count 1876 and 1824 for good reasons) the result of the nationwide popular vote has been at odds with the candidate chosen by the electoral college. In a modern democracy, it's rather silly.

My position, however, is that for now, we need to retain it--but with a reformed PRIMARY process ahead of it. Yes, Donald Trump won the presidency with less popular votes than his opponent (over two million more). But what's more surprising is that Donald Trump actually got as far as the general election in the first place, and the likes of Hillary Clinton along with him.

How would we go about doing this? Any ideas?

Click to expand...

What to do about the election of President?

Nothing when it comes to the existence of the Electoral College. :no:

When I was young and innocent, I too thought our President was elected by popular vote as per the term "Democracy."

I then learned we are not really a Democracy, but rather a Federal Republic.

A federation (also known as a federal state) is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing provinces, states, or other regions under a central (federal) government.

Click to expand...

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

That's why our country's official name is the United STATES of America.

At the Founding we had large population/area, medium population/area, and small population/area States. The fear of having the President elected by a simple majority of all citizens was that the larger populated States would dominate the government to the detriment of small and medium states.

This is clearly evident in our last election where it was the votes of New York and California which gave Hillary that majority of the popular vote people keep mentioning.

The Electoral College serves a useful purpose, in that it ensures small and medium States have an important role in selecting the Chief Executive of the Union, and that they can only be ignored (as Hillary did in this last election) at the peril of losing.

As for your idea of modifying the Primaries? That is a political Party issue, and Party's should be free to do whatever they wish when it comes to choosing their candidates.

However, I'd support States being required to award electoral college votes proportionally, as opposed to winner-take-all.

That would be a reasonable way to deal with concerns about popular vote distributions.

JimHackerMP said:

Yeah, but that doesn't take into account the fact that the primary process makes some states more important than others. By the time you get to the Potomac Primaries (DC, MD, VA), which I think is the last rung in the electoral ladder, most of the other candidates you might have wanted to vote for, have already dropped out. You see my point now?

Click to expand...

You don't need to explain it to me - above that I posted a long defense of RCV in support of your point. :roll:

JimHackerMP said:

Really? in what way?

But please, let's remember my question was about reforming presidential elections.

Click to expand...

It relies on the Electoral College and the states controll their elections.

The only difference is that that the popular vote in a state was not a concept as the intention was to rely on a state's legislature.

A good reform would be to limit a state's electoral votes to the same average percentage spread in the first three presidential elections.

calamity said:

Making sure not to lose solidly blue states to an obvious con man promising crazy crap that we all know he can't possibly deliver would be a good start.

Click to expand...

You mean "she" don't you?

Tennyson said:

Sure it does. Read it.

Click to expand...

I have.

Excerpt from Yale Law Schools analysis of Fed 68 which uncannily applies to the last election:

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Click to expand...

Full analysis here: The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

StuPedaso said:

I have.

Excerpt from Yale Law Schools analysis of Fed 68 which uncannily applies to the last election:



Full analysis here: The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

Click to expand...

That does not negate Hamilton's lauding the Electoral College, which is how Trump was elected.

Bullseye said:

You mean "she" don't you?

Click to expand...

Sarah Palin wasn't running in 2016.