Where does the Electoral College lead?

[Crosscheck]

Before they were restricted by law. But now they pledge to vote for a certain candidate and in most cases are legally bound. Thus they are just middle men.

Then why have them? Totally ridiculous ceremony then.

 

[jonny5]

Then why have them? Totally ridiculous ceremony then.

Its legally required. No reason the constitution cant be changed to just have the state submit their results though.

 

[maquiscat]

The electoral college was meant to save the republic from a person who is extremely unfit for the office of the presidency, and has somehow won the election. Now is the time for the EC to fulfill it's duty and elect someone other than Trump. He is a danger to the nation and the world.

If such is the case of danger to the nation and the world, then the EC needs to elect either Gary or Jill. Neither major party candidate is fit to lead.

 

[maquiscat]

Did Fox vet this guy?

You mean like CBS vetted the source for Dan Rather's story on Bush that turned out fake? Have a nice day.

 

[Visbek]

Heard an Electoral College delegate interviewed by Fox News in a diner in a Florida. He said he'd received 2,000 contacts-emails-physical threats-lawsuit threats to cast his vote for Hillary Clinton.

It's 2016. Almost anyone who gets identified in a major media outlet gets death threats. Seriously.

They argued she'd won the popular vote, so the EC was bound to vote for her. He said...

"The Electoral College is a pathway to the presidency. Not a pathway to the popular vote."

Yes!

sigh

Thoughts?

The Electoral College was specifically set up as an anti-democratic measure, in part to ensure that an incompetent autocrat does not become President.

Apparently, it is not working as planned. Instead, it twists our Presidential system into a Gordian knot, and subverts the fundamental concept of "one person, one vote."

Sounds like it is overdue to be scrapped. Of course, that won't happen until a Democrat loses the popular vote, but still wins the Presidency. At which time, the people who currently exult in the Electoral College will be lining up to kill it, and use the concept to delegitimize the Democratic President.

 

[trouble13]

Heard an Electoral College delegate interviewed by Fox News in a diner in a Florida. He said he'd received 2,000 contacts-emails-physical threats-lawsuit threats to cast his vote for Hillary Clinton. They argued she'd won the popular vote, so the EC was bound to vote for her. He said...

"The Electoral College is a pathway to the presidency. Not a pathway to the popular vote."

Yes!

Thoughts?

I think people making death threats should be prosecuted

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

The electoral college was meant to save the republic from a person who is extremely unfit for the office of the presidency, and has somehow won the election. Now is the time for the EC to fulfill it's duty and elect someone other than Trump. He is a danger to the nation and the world.

What do you base that on?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Master PO]

Heard an Electoral College delegate interviewed by Fox News in a diner in a Florida. He said he'd received 2,000 contacts-emails-physical threats-lawsuit threats to cast his vote for Hillary Clinton. They argued she'd won the popular vote, so the EC was bound to vote for her. He said...

"The Electoral College is a pathway to the presidency. Not a pathway to the popular vote."

Yes!

Thoughts?

that Florida elector is supposed to vote for the popular vote, but its the popular vote of the people from the state of Florida.

the EC is combination vote of the states and the people, not just about the people.

 

[Master PO]

The electoral college. If we're gonna have this system, they have the right to exercise this part of the system. Read Federalist 68. It explains the concept pretty well.

somewhere on the internet some liberal is trying to make a pitch using federalist 68 , because several liberals on this forum have posted it many times, what is funny is if they wish to use the federalist.

if you wish to use the federalist then you better use this to:

federalist 45 - The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

so if we go by the federalist then the federal government has no powers concerning the people or their property at all!


this is a real GEM, liberals using the federalist, I THOUGHT I WOULD NEVER SEE THIS DAY!

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I agree with this : "The Electoral College is a pathway to the presidency. Not a pathway to the popular vote."

If we are going to have an EC then I think it should be able to provide the safety valve that seems to have been the original intent behind its creation. That does mean electors should have discretion and are not necessarily bound by the will of the voters in a state. In a healthy system, that discretion should almost never be needed.

 

[Master PO]

I agree with this : "The Electoral College is a pathway to the presidency. Not a pathway to the popular vote."

If we are going to have an EC then I think it should be able to provide the safety valve that seems to have been the original intent behind its creation. That does mean electors should have discretion and are not necessarily bound by the will of the voters in a state. In a healthy system, that discretion should almost never be needed.

then you have denied people their representation.

 

[Geoist]

Of course not. But just because a bunch of people choose to huddle up in a major city, does not give them power over me. Which is the point of the EC to begin with.

I am aware of the purpose of the EC. I still disagree with it as it gives some votes more power than others.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

then you have denied people their representation.

If the EC only exists to rubber stamp the popular vote of a state then it serves what purpose. Your statement is correct, but it seems that the EC was designed with the idea that it might sometimes be necessary to override the popular vote of a state.

NOTE : I am in no way advocating that the EC overturn Trump's win. However, if they did I would accept it, just like I accept that Trump won. It's the American system.

 

[Master PO]

if the ec only exists to rubber stamp the popular vote of a state then it serves what purpose. Your statement is correct, but it seems that the ec was designed with the idea that it might sometimes be necessary to override the popular vote of a state.

Note : I am in no way advocating that the ec overturn trump's win. However, if they did i would accept it, just like i accept that trump won. It's the american system.

the EC is a combination vote of the states and the people.

The electors are elected by the people, so who are they supposed to represent?.......the people who voted for them

 

[jonny5]

I am aware of the purpose of the EC. I still disagree with it as it gives some votes more power than others.

Its a valid opinion even if its wrong. Populism is a path to tyranny as much as dictatorship. 51% of the people can vote you a slave. Which is why we have a system with diversified decision making. Populism balanced by minority protection.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

The electors are elected by the people, so who are they supposed to represent?.......the people who voted for them

Yes, but the Constitution does not require them to follow the will of the masses. However, some states have laws which DO require that. Rubber stamps serve no purpose. If that is what the EC is, I think it should be abolished. Allocating electors in proportion to the popular vote is another alternative used by at least 2 states, I believe.

 

[Master PO]

Yes, but the Constitution does not require them to follow the will of the masses. However, some states have laws which DO require that. Rubber stamps serve no purpose. If that is what the EC is, I think it should be abolished. Allocating electors in proportion to the popular vote is another alternative used by at least 2 states, I believe.

while there is law in some states and no law in others but only a pledge.

however by not voting for the candidate the voters have chosen, the electors would be denying the people their representation.

so if say CA 75 % voted for a canidate A ,but the electors chose candidate B then the people are denied the choice of their vote.

when you direct vote for someone, that person is your representative

 

[Geoist]

Its a valid opinion even if its wrong. Populism is a path to tyranny as much as dictatorship. 51% of the people can vote you a slave. Which is why we have a system with diversified decision making. Populism balanced by minority protection.

Here's the thing, though. It was the most dominant social group in the country who voted for Trump: Protestant white males.

Trump failed to garner a higher percent of votes from women, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, voters 18-44, union members, incomes < $50K, college grads, postgrads, Jews, liberals, moderates, urbanites, and those living in the East and the West.

So if the purpose of the EC is to give power to the minority, then it utterly failed.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Its a valid opinion even if its wrong. Populism is a path to tyranny as much as dictatorship. 51% of the people can vote you a slave. Which is why we have a system with diversified decision making. Populism balanced by minority protection.

That is ironic to me, because Trump did not run and win as a Republican or a conservative in any sense of the word. Seems to me that Trump ran and won as a angry, raving populist. Sure, he used a lot of standard issue right wing dog whistles, but that doesn't make him a conservative.

This is from wiki. If you disagree and have a different definition, you can share it.

"Populism is a political doctrine that stems from a viewpoint of struggle between the populace and a ruling faction.[1]

Populism is most common in democratic nations. Political scientist Cas Mudde wrote that, "Many observers have noted that populism is inherent to representative democracy; after all, do populists not juxtapose 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'?"[2]"

 

[Crosscheck]

.

The electors are elected by the people, so who are they supposed to represent?.......the people who voted for them

How these people who have made death threats got a hold of the names of electors is a mystery to me. I don't have a clue who my electors are that I am voting for. At least we should be able to see their faces when we vote. Perhaps at least reveal their past voting records.
Trump is right though, this election is rigged.

 

[Master PO]

How these people who have made death threats got a hold of the names of electors is a mystery to me. I don't have a clue who my electors are that I am voting for. At least we should be able to see their faces when we vote. Perhaps at least reveal their past voting records.
Trump is right though, this election is rigged.

well the electors are people chosen by the parties TODAY, but not in early America

so if your state say had 6 electors, the democrats pick 6 and the republicans pick 6, these people are supposed to be so high up in the party and party loyalist which is how they are picked.

 

[jonny5]

Here's the thing, though. It was the most dominant social group in the country who voted for Trump: Protestant white males.

Trump failed to garner a higher percent of votes from women, African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, voters 18-44, union members, incomes < $50K, college grads, postgrads, Jews, liberals, moderates, urbanites, and those living in the East and the West.

So if the purpose of the EC is to give power to the minority, then it utterly failed.

They are part of the majority urban population which as you say overwhelmingly vote for D. But in this case the minority rural populations beat them out. And the EC is just one tool. The populist won, but hes balanced by the congress made up of both factions, and the court, made up of only a few people. And the state and local govts. And then we have term limits to make sure the populist cant stay forever.

 

[VanceMack]

The electoral college was meant to save the republic from a person who is extremely unfit for the office of the presidency, and has somehow won the election. Now is the time for the EC to fulfill it's duty and elect someone other than Trump. He is a danger to the nation and the world.

Are you really a big fan of the popular vote? I mean...I hear a lot of people saying that. I hear them talking about the will of the people and the majority...so...is majority rule REALLY what you want to see implemented?

 

[VanceMack]

I am aware of the purpose of the EC. I still disagree with it as it gives some votes more power than others.

25% of ALL of HRCs support came from ONE state. That state now has its version of radicals (California/radicals is sort of a redundant statement) discussing secession because the rest of the country doesnt reflect California values. And THAT is precisely why there is an electoral college.