The real problem with the Electoral College.

May 2019
201
Salt Lake City, Utah
Code Blue, you are right in that it worked for the minority again. That will not happen again.

Why should anyone think you are doing anything more than just justifying that your minority guy (yet again) defeated the will of the people. Not to worry. That will not happen again
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,575
Dispargum
Code Blue, you are right in that it worked for the minority again. That will not happen again.

Why should anyone think you are doing anything more than just justifying that your minority guy (yet again) defeated the will of the people. Not to worry. That will not happen again
What did I tell you about post 1991 politics? You are clearly provoking a political and not a historical argument.
 

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
4,394
Caribbean
To be fair, Code Blue did say 'why should anyone believe that your are not just complaining because your guy lost the last time?'
Demonstrated to be a fair question.

My skepticism began earlier, with the thread's first sentence, which opened- "The fact that Hillary Clinton got nearly 3 million votes more than Donald Trump..." Maybe next time, someone could get himself worked into a huff over the 1824 election as a great injustice.

If that happens and I am still here, I'll still be asking about how anyone can believe the foundation of good government is idiots voting.
 
Last edited:

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,558
Las Vegas, NV USA
Then an amendment eliminating the EC should be easy to accomplish. Unless, of course, you are overstating the case.
I don't believe it would be easy to accomplish. There are more small-medium states than large states. In recent years the top 13-14 states by population had a majority. To amend the Constitution takes 3/4 of the states regardless of population. This was the most contested issue in creating a federal state. The 36-37 states in the lower half are not going to vote themselves less power. One concession was giving every state two senators. But that won't be accepted as an argument to give the upper half of states more power now IMO.

Given that, it's possible to make the EC more fair. I suggested that the number electors awarded to each party in a state be proportional to the votes the party got to the nearest whole number.

The current "all or none" allocation dates from the 1800 election where each party had a slate of electors which the voters chose instead of voting directly for the electors. It is a tradition, not a law.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,575
Dispargum
The current all or none allocation dates from the 1800 election where each party had a slate of electors which the voters chose instead of voting directly for the electors. It is a tradition, not a law.
Actually it's state law how electors are chosen or allocated. The US Constitution only says that the states will decide how to choose their electors. 48 states plus DC have winner take all systems in place.