Active Now

Danilo_G
Malizz
Element 99
Discussion » Questions » Politics » Should the Electoral College be revised or eliminated?
OldSchoolTheSKOSlives

Should the Electoral College be revised or eliminated?

.
Media reports suggest the final tally will end up with HRC receiving about 2 million more votes than Donald Trump, and this will be the second time in 16 years (Gore beat Bush in the popular vote in 2000) the EC result goes contrary to the popular vote result.

In no other American electoral domain is this situation allowed to occur. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld "one person, one vote" rules for election to all other offices (since Senators became elected by direct popular vote after the passage of the 17th Amendment), but the Electoral College is in constitutional language and would require amending the Constitution to modify or eliminate. Should that be done and, if so, what should replace it?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/clintons-popular-vote-lead-will-grow-and-grow/507455/

Posted - November 14, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 691
    Maybe?
    First I will say that if the motivation for doing such is that trump won the election then I am almost tempted to say no because it such a ridiculous thing to say that because trump won by the rules we must change the rules. At least wait until he proves himself a disaster or not before rushing to judge the system a failure because someone won. This really is as foolish as crying over the result of a sports event.
    If the US was more like many other countries we could give the presidency to the party with the most seats in congress. That would not change the outcome this time of course.  It could simply be popular vote as well. I know some countries do this.
    I do not have a strong opinion because I see no real advantage.  Yes it is possible to win the most states without winning the most votes but I believe the disparity is likely a consequence of people knowing that is the rules before they vote. I voted for trump in a dark blue state because I wanted my vote counted and not because I felt it would make a difference. I know many others did not do this. In fact the two states with lowest turnout were dark blue and I believe part of this is because anyone who may have voted trump that evening already knew he going to win and it made no sense to go out and vote in a dark blue state knowing it was not needed. We also have the situation that most states are red states and it may not have seemed important in many of these states to go vote. Some were declared for trump when 1% of the votes were counted. So if every vote did count directly towards president then perhaps we would not see trump lose the popular vote. Or perhaps the opposite and hillary would have won by a huge margin.  It is not knowable.
    If there is real value in changing this system then maybe it is worth considering. If it is simply this garbage of we need to change the rules because trump won then throw this idea away. I think today the question is coming up because people are unhappy that trump won and that is the only reason and if hillary had won the same way this system would not be questioned.
      November 14, 2016 8:43 PM MST
    1

  • 13260
    Indeed, ITpro. I think it's quite ironic that after the Clinton supporters assumed (rather arrogantly) that she would win and worried that Trump supporters wouldn't accept the outcome, and now it's those same Clinton supporters who aren't accepting the outcome - at least those who are whining about the popular vote thing and crying in the streets and on college campuses. There was, for example, a gathering at Cornell University for students and faculty to express their sorrow.
      November 14, 2016 9:58 PM MST
    1

  • 3934
    @ITPro -- While I thank you for your answer, this is the SECOND election I've lived through where the popular vote and the declared winner diverged (Bush over Gore in 2000). I've been thinking about this question for a long time. As I've noted elsewhere on this thread, I am NOT NECESSARILY in favor of eliminating the Electoral College, because replacing it with a direct popular vote would effectively disenfranchise many voters in low-population-density states.

    I brought it up simply to see what other perspectives might be out there. While I am deeply disappointed that Donald Trump won, his victory does not motivate me to say "Get rid of the Electoral College." Are there others for whom that is a motivation? Almost certainly. But that doesn't give you license to attribute that motive to EVERYONE who questions the fairness of the EC. Please keep that in mind.
      November 14, 2016 11:13 PM MST
    0

  • 1268
    I would like for every state to have equal influence over who is elected president of the USA.
      November 15, 2016 11:08 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @CTY -- Why should that be?

    Why should 1 million people in Montana have the same influence over the Presidential election as 38 million people in California?

    Or were you making a joke?
      November 15, 2016 12:38 PM MST
    0

  • 1268
    For the same reason each state has two U.S. Senators.

    Equal representation for each state and what our individual cultures represent. Otherwise, we are largely controlled by regions that don't represent us. I know this would do away with a democrat getting elected for a few years, until people started to realize you can't leave any party in control too long... or you'll have an Oligarchy as my good friend Jimmy Carter has stated.
      November 15, 2016 2:02 PM MST
    0