Besides me does anybody else getting e-mails about ending the Electoral College, and yet so far what has really been done about it? It's an outdated system, as with the internet that exists now that didn't exist decades or centuries ago, that we can do we can really do our homework in years that a President election comes up, with the next one being next year. And whether it is the current president running for a second and final term, if he has served a full first term without having to fill in as president provided whatever happened to the previous president, impeachment, resigns, or dies in office. Or say if he does get reelected serves the second and final term, and the next one comes up and it is an election for a new president as nobody can serve as president for no more then 2 terms if he didn't serve as acting president for 2 or more years. he Electoral College that are the ones that are responsible for selecting the President of the United States, no matter who the people vote for. Take the 2016 United States President election, most of the country had voted for Hilary Clinton, and Donald Trump lost the popular vote despite he won the election for reaching the 270 votes at least that a person needs to win the election, of where they pledge to vote fro a certain canaanite the night of the election, but the Electoral College doesn't go to vote until the month after the election occurs. where today President candidates have their websites where people can go to find out more naotu them, and even what issues that claim to support or against.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Ending the Electoral College
- Thread starter staggmovie
- Start date
Of course, in 2016, going strictly by the popular vote would have changed the outcome in a way people in many small states wouldn't have cared for.
Beautifully stated summarization. At the time the Constitution was drafted New Jersey was a small state
(in size and population) which feared having its interests trampled by the big states of that day (Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts). So the Electoral College was a compromise arrived at to keep New Jersey and other small states onboard. The issues and arguments really have not changed a heck of a lot since that time.
Last edited:
There was an additional reason for the electoral college, which was to prevent regional differences, such as New England vs. the southern states, becoming undue influential. Initially, it was to balance the more populated northern states and the more rural southern ones. Today, it serves the purpose of balancing the two coasts and "fly over" country.
More like 1 1/2 coasts. While the West Coast is solid blue, the East Coast is decidedly red, or at least shading red, once you go south of Maryland (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida).
There is also the National Popular Vote Bill, which if a state's governor signs into law, enables the popular vote to assume the electoral votes for that state, providing that enough states reach the minimum electoral vote of 270. This doesn't affect the presidential election unless that number is reached. I believe the bill has been active for about 20 years and has picked up steam lately with only 74 electoral votes to go. A great deal of information about how each state is proceeding can be found on their official website: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Not so fast... Virgina went solidly blue, and we know how tight FL was going back to Bush 43. The most recent gubernatorial race in GA went down to the wire, too. Based on population, the eastern coast is rather overwhelmingly blue.
With those two blocks of votes, why would a candidate campaign in Texas or Minnesota or Missouri or Alabama or Colorado? They could win the popular vote by taking just those coastal states by solid margins. No need to pay attention to those pesky Oakies, right?
BigA is correct, if the EC is to end, it will need to be done via Constitutional Amendment. Considering the high bar required to create an amendment, such a change is unlikely.
As to this National Popular Vote concept, I believe it would be struck down judicially before it could have an impact, if it is even implemented. Even then, it would last only until a state that had voted for one candidate had to tip its electoral votes to another candidate. The outrage would lead to quick repeal in that state and collapse of the compact.
There was great wisdom in the construct of the Electoral College. Thankfully, it's unlikely to change.
As to this National Popular Vote concept, I believe it would be struck down judicially before it could have an impact, if it is even implemented. Even then, it would last only until a state that had voted for one candidate had to tip its electoral votes to another candidate. The outrage would lead to quick repeal in that state and collapse of the compact.
There was great wisdom in the construct of the Electoral College. Thankfully, it's unlikely to change.
We don't agree on much, politically, but on this, I am with you 100 percent!
We don't know though, because the campaigns would have been run completely differently. We wouldn't have all the candidates' time and money spent in a handful of states. Case in point: Living in Tennessee, it was "election? What election?". Cross the border into North Carolina and it was wall to wall Trump and Hillary commercials. I used to live in Ohio, and the candidates had traffic tied up twice a week. Here, except for primaries, not a thing. In 2012 Paul Ryan blew into town once to pick up a big check.
Connecticut is another "Election? What election?" state, even in the primaries, since it holds one of the latest primaries and almost never figures in determining the nominee. It hasn't gone Republican since George H.W. Bush in 1988, and most of the time the winner, whichever party, carries the state by a large margin. You have to go back to 1948, when Dewey edged Truman ("Dewey Wins!") by 1.5 percent to find a race decided by less than 5 percent.
My brother lives on the Vermont side of the New Hampshire/Vermont border and never sees a presidential candidate -- other than Bernie Sanders, who passes through on his way to New Hampshire. (Vermont is another late-primary state.) I was up there a couple of weeks ago and in Hanover and Lebanon, on the New Hampshire side, Gabbard, Buttigieg and Warren were all there over the course of one weekend! Since New Hampshire, unlike the other New England states, is in play for both parties, I'd expect to see Trump and the Democratic nominee both make at least one stop there between August and November.
Last edited:
I personally know someone who just got his butt kicked running as a Republican in Virginia.
I would disagree with that statement.
I admit I was wrong about Virginia. The growing population of the DC suburbs has made it a toss-up in most presidential elections, and it was presidential elections to which I was referring. Aren't Roanoke, Lynchburg, Newport News, the Richmond suburbs and rural Virginia still largely Republican, though?
I'm sorry. I was trying to save space. You read that as the total popular vote, when I meant it as the total popular vote of each state being assigned to that state's total electoral votes. In this way, we wouldn't need a constitutional amendment. I disagree that the Electoral College was a great idea. It was needed at the time because the spread of information was almost nonexistent. Did you know that even Trump says he wants to get rid of it?
Which is weird, because he wouldn't be president without it.
Hi all...I would not trust any email for that topic unless its a legit source...I'm 50/50 of dropping it or holding on to it............The same with DST as the other topic here is about..
Pete........
Pete........
Like many things, he's actually gone both ways on that particular issue, and he's aware of its role in his current situation.
The chances of ending the Electoral College, given that it would take 38 states to ratify such an amendment, are several orders of magnitude less than zero.
The National Popular Vote Agreement is a non-starter. I believe there is a Federal law that prohibits such agreements between states without the consent of Congress. Lotsa luck getting that to happen.
One thing that can be done without a Constitutional amendment is for all states to divvy up their electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine do: One vote for each Congressional district, plus two for the statewide popular vote (representing the two Senators). It's not perfect, but it would make the electoral votes more in line with the popular vote nationwide. Each state legislature would have to approve such an arrangement, with the Governor's signature. In some states, a change to the state Constitution might be necessary.
There were aspects of its creation that are invalid today, such as counting each slave as 3/5 of a person for census purposes, never mind the fact that slaves neither could vote nor were they considered legal persons or citizens at the time the Constitution was created and first ratified. That's the main argument for abolishing the Electoral College, even though that was done away with via the 13th thru the 15th Amendments, over 150 years ago.
The Equal Rights Amendment has been trying to get to 38 since 1972. I can't think of a single proposed amendment that would have any chance of ratification in today's angry, polarized nation.
- Status