The real problem with the Electoral College.

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,755
Dispargum
This is a double edged sword though. This has the potential of ignoring blocks of minority voters in one state to sync up to the majority voting interests in another state. True, the candidate with the most national votes will win, but, this "fix" is arguably worse than the system is now.
Please elaborate on this "potential of ignoring blocks of minority voters in one state to sync up to the majority voting interests in another state." I'm not sure what you're getting at.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honoris
Jul 2009
10,008
Actually, we could fix the EC by implementing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Of course, one could say that such a compact would be contrary to the spirit (if not the letter) of the US Constitution since it would essentially avoid giving extra weight to voters in any US states whereas the Founders envisioned the EC as giving extra weight to voters in small US states.
I do not think the Interstate Compact will go much further than it has. Added to that are two problems that have yet to be addressed. First is gerrymandering. That exists in so much profusion that it probably can never be undone. The second is the contemporary practice of voter suppression. Politics is politics, but the widespread campaigns to purge voter rolls and to deny enfranchisement based on partisan affiliation is more than alarming. Not too sure the SCOTUS will even be sympathetic to reviewing that "states right."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Apr 2014
65
new york
There is way too much fraud in the Democratic states to have confidence, plus voter suppression of remaining Republican voters in the sense that, e.g. California is a lost cause. California also reports its results later and runs up the tally

Plus would we really want Clinton Foundation cronies ruling, unemployment, unlimited immigration, endless wars?
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,757
San Antonio, Tx
I can’t believe we’re talking about the EC as if it makes anyt sense whatsoever. The Electoral College robs you and me of the power of my vote while enhancing the votes of folks from small states. That's right: my vote in Texas is worth less than a vote in Oklahoma. Is this fair? No, it isn’t. .It’s a cockamamie subterfuge that gets between the ordinary voter and the candidate he/she votes for. Any roadblock thrown in the voters’ paths is ridiculous. Presidential elections should be national and not by state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,757
San Antonio, Tx
There is way too much fraud in the Democratic states to have confidence, plus voter suppression of remaining Republican voters in the sense that, e.g. California is a lost cause. California also reports its results later and runs up the tally

Plus would we really want Clinton Foundation cronies ruling, unemployment, unlimited immigration, endless wars?
Give it a rest.
 
Apr 2014
65
new york
Give it a rest.
Explain. This really cuts to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?

Look at how even now under a Trump Presidency, the Deep State is hell bent on unemployment, warmongering, and a police state

Together with the banks, the communists, and the chamber of commerce, it really is a circle of hell
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,345
Please elaborate on this "potential of ignoring blocks of minority voters in one state to sync up to the majority voting interests in another state." I'm not sure what you're getting at.
As I understand it:

With the NPVIC, as soon as there are enough states in the compact to represent 270 EC votes, then all the electors in those states are assigned to the candidate with the majority of votes throughout the compact states.

Therefore, any state that would, otherwise have electors going to the "losing" candidate on the national ballot, those electors would be assigned to the candidate with the largest plurality.
Negation of state-level majorities[edit]

Two governors who have vetoed NPVIC legislation, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Linda Lingle of Hawaii, both in 2007, objected to the compact on the grounds that it could require their states' electoral votes to be awarded to a candidate who did not win a majority in their state. (Both states have since enacted laws joining the compact.) Supporters of the compact counter that under a national popular vote system, state-level majorities are irrelevant; in any state, votes cast contribute to the nationwide tally, which determines the winner. The preferences of individual voters are thus paramount, while state-level majorities are an obsolete intermediary measure.[34][35][36]
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,757
San Antonio, Tx
Explain. This really cuts to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?

Look at how even now under a Trump Presidency, the Deep State is hell bent on unemployment, warmongering, and a police state

Together with the banks, the communists, and the chamber of commerce, it really is a circle of hell

I will reply as soon as you begin to make sense. There is no deep state. Please get over it.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,755
Dispargum
Heavenly Knight, you're venturing too close to the ban on politics. So long as the conversation sticks to the Constitution and the process of choosing a president, I'm not going to stop the conversation, but stay away from particular candidates and parties. Your comment about a deep state is venturing too far off of the process of choosing a president and is too close to party politics.

Moderator
 
Last edited:

Kotromanic

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
5,037
Iowa USA
Electors are the epitome of obscurity. No one knows who they are, nor does it matter since they always (99.9% of the time) vote according to their instructions. Somehow, we could fix how we choose senators, but we can't fix how we choose a president.
Please check the electoral college vote for the 2016 Presidential election.

Within three significant digits, the proportion of "faithless" electors in this election was not 99.8 percent (highest possible with a sample of 538, 99.9 isn't possible).

Actually, the proportion of "faithless" electors was 1.31 percent. If you voted in the State of Washington: 33.3 percent of your electors were faithless!

Note that the margin of the 2000 Presidential Election was 1.5 votes, so the number of faithless electors in the last election was actually three times the margin of a recent election.

I'm not understanding the sanguine attitude about this feature of the EC!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist