MSNBC has an article on whether we should get rid of the Electoral College, and I found this quote interesting:
Amar said a direct national election would create healthy incentives for states to compete with each other in getting more of their people to vote — for example by allowing voter registration on Election Day and by mandating that Election Day be a day off, with pay, for all workers.
He even suggested that states might pay people for voting, just as people are paid for jury duty.
And he’s saying that like its a good thing?
Liberals like to think they’re smart (actually, there is nothing in the world they like better than thinking they are smart), but they always seemed convinced that if they could just get more lazy, ignorant people out to the polls they would always win. That should tell you something.
Anyway, I’m against getting rid of the Electoral College because then a corrupt city like Chicago would be able to turn the whole election by stuffing ballots instead of a few electoral votes. It’s a big country, and it’s nice to be able to quarantine crap like that.
A long time ago, when I had … liberal … leanings, I thought getting rid of the electoral college was a good idea.
I grew up.
But, you know Frank, as much as I agree with you on this, I think we ought to go one step further. This whole “voting early” idea is a bad idea.
Absentee voting, I understand. But it should be harder, not easier, to vote absentee. Military service members and families stationed away from home of record, sure. Other government employees in similar situations, sure. Crackheads and felons, no.
But I’m ranting.
The Electoral College makes it harder for crooks to steal an election; they have to steal a bunch of little elections instead.
This year, unfortunately, it looks like they’re going to do it.
Sandboxing regional preferences was the original reasoning behind the College, Frank. Then as now, the power centers were cities, while the work was done elsewhere. The problem is even worse now that a majority of people live in cities.
I personally am for getting rid of the electoral college. The details of doing that may result in the scenario’s that you are talking about, however the flip side is that others might find it worthwhile to get out and vote. Take California or New York for example (or say Texas for the liberals). If I lived in california there would be no point in voting because it will always go to the democrats and therefore my vote doesn’t mean anything. Even if cali ended up say 51-49 for the dems, that is still 49% of republicans that would get heard.
It would probably be harder to admin, but a little modernization could go a long way to that.
A little modernization?
You haven’t been following the stories on all the screwed-up, new-fangled, fancy electronical votin’ machines, have ya?
Can you imagine the federal government administering a national election?
I am all for turning the entire election in to a season of American Idol. They seem to be able to narrow it down pretty well, and they have better voter turnout than our federal elections. Sorry, I am just trying to think like a liberal – it makes my head hurt, but the Kool-Aid sure is DELICIOUS!!!
I have been arguing this point that you make Frank for many years. If we elect our Top Dog on a popular vote, the mid-section of our county would not have a voice on the national venue. We all know that inner city votes lean to left and that is where the population is. Here in the State of Washington, Seattle always determines the result of state wide elections. The same will happen without the electoral college. Be aware of what you wish for.
> If I lived in california there would be no point in voting
I live in NY and vote in every election, the point of voting in that case is spite.
Oh, I forgot to add. Washington State is all mail in voting except for King County (Seattle) so don’t forget to get your dog registered to vote!
Not only should we hold on to the electoral college with a death grip, we should repeal the 17th Amendment, which was when Senatorial elections became popular votes. Look what that nightmare has wrought. That was a huge blow to the Founding Fathers’ notion of republic over democracy.
Electing the president by popular vote is a great recipe for bleeding rural America to buy votes in big cities. While I’m all for reducing farm subsidies, a one-way street in the opposite direction is not a desirable remedy.
Anyway – it is all academic. There would have to be a constitutional amendment and that is never going to happen.
The electoral college needs to be adjusted. California, New York and a few other states carry far more weight than they should.
Well there was ..one good thought….. I wanna quarentine Chicago…
Personally, I think we should all pay a dollar for the priviledge to vote. Maybe even require proof of a job (or some other form of gainful support – stay-at-home parents and retired folks work, for instance) within the past 6 months. I get a little depressed when people brag about high voter turnout – I want it as low as possible to only get the people who pay attention and matter.
The value of the electoral college has been noted by others. But it is worth repeating.
The EC limits the effect of fraud. No matter how many fraudulent votes are cast in a state that state can only cast a fixed number of electoral votes.
But in a close election the EC cannot totally nullify fraud. And I haven’t been able to think of a system that can.
Let’s inspect an imaginary election. We must face the fact that we have no idea how many legal voters there are in Los Angeles County, CA. There are about 20 million people there. Perhaps 35% are native citizens, 15% naturalized citizens, and 50 % immigrants from one place or another.
If the national election were decided by popular vote and Henry leads by 15,000 then Los Angeles County can just “find” 15,100 votes for his opponent Donald. Sure it is illegal but election fraud takes place often. Politics is a big money game and risks are taken.
A few hours later Dade County in Florida may “find” 200 votes for Henry. And again Henry leads and will be our next President.
That ping-pong game of Finding Votes for Henry or Donald can go on indefinitely and in hundreds of places around the nation. It would take months to investigate and correct them all.
Under the electoral college system Los Angeles County has no incentive to “find” votes for Henry if Henry already leads in CA. No amount of fraud anywhere in CA can then increase Henry’s electoral votes.
Perhaps we should look at ideas for replacement of the EC. But direct vote counts isn’t a replacement I would choose.
About 20 years ago I calculated that the EC system will not choose the popular vote winner about 8% of the time.* And historically over 220 odd years that seems about right. Working from memory here: Gore and Tilden almost certainly won the national popular vote. Van Buren and the second Harrison probably didn’t. Nixon v. Kennedy and Nixon v. Humphrey remain murky and close.
* As in all such calculations I had to guess at some coefficients. So others would get another percentage.
The best thing we could do regarding our election system is move Election to April 16, or Tax day to November 3.
I think we should get rid of the Electoral College, but first we need to seriously crack down on voter fraud (i.e. get rid of ACORN).
PERCEPTION IS NOT NECESSARILY REALITY … DON’T BELIEVE THE POLLS …
Obama supporters act as if the polls are a true reflection of what’s going to happen on November 4th. Obama has consistently tried to win each of his elections prior to a single vote being cast, by eliminating his opponenets on technicalities, or having the DNC dump Hillary, or by giving the false impression that he already won, before the election has even taken place. When you don’t have an actual record to run on … and all you can do is point out problems, and blame others, as Obama has, you have to rely on gimmicks that have nothing to do with your actual ability to lead … like accusations of racism ad nauseam … like early voting …busing and indoctrinating homeless people on the way to the polls … photo ops with big crowds … spending 4 to 1 on advertising … having the media in the tank … having Hollywood in the tank, having Acorn in the tank … and, having 98% of all black voters in the tank. But, all of these things are nothing more than a fabricated perception. They have nothing to do with a person’s experience, or ability to lead. They just reveal a candidate who will say, or do anything to get elected. That’s why the Obamabots are so worried. That’s why Obama is telling his disciples not to get over confident. That’s why the Obama campaign tries real hard to make it look like Obama has already won … just like they did in the run against Hillary in the primaries. I happen to believe there are legions of people who are going to vote for McCain on November 4th … unlike the ‘in your face’ Obama supporters, November 4th is when the McCain supporters will express themselves. A vote for Obama is a vote for voter fraud, corrupt media, and a road to socialism. Keep America safe and strong, elect McCain/Palin on November 4th.
The Electoral College is in the Constitution, set up as a guarantee that less populous states like Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana have as equal a say in the Presidential elections as the population dense areas (NY, Cali) – as it should be.
So yeah, seeing as how those of us in the a.k.a. flyover states usually vote red, getting rid of the EC is just another vote-stealing tactic of the Dems. Surprise me not. Like Howard said so well, when ones got no game of they own, they takes it from those that do.
Electoral College. Just one more example that America’s Founders were genius.
Oooh you said “BELL CURVE” you are a racist even though its illegal to give black kids IQ tests. Its illegal to use IQ tests for employment screening.
And regarding Electoral College maybe if we could just sign up liberals to go there to study we will have a better nation. We can tell them the electoral college is the only university at the north pole. After they go there we can make sure to melt the ice so they go swimming with polar bears and get eaten. Problem solved and liberal style at that !
End the Electoral College and you will end the Republic.
Nine States (CA, TX, FL, MI, IL, OH, PA, NY, NJ) will determine the elections no matter what the other states vote.
If a candidate carries those States he wins and the other States can go screw themselves.
Eliminate the College, even thru the Dems backdoor method of a pact by those states, and the Civil War starts NOW.
Doesn’t it tell you something that LIBERAL DEMOCRATS want to do it!
Pull your heads out of your asses!
The Founders wrote about exactly this situation 230 years ago and said “This is why you will have the Electoral College.”
Jeeez! It’s worse than I thought!
No one understands the Federal Papers.
I better go buy some more magazines for the Galils. I’m gonna need ’em.
#17 – Howard,
Well said!
Keep the College as is!
One thing though – how do they select the electors, and how can I get in on that sweet deal?
I mean, only have to work one day every four years? How’s the pension plan? Do I get a car?
Screw ‘modernization’ if it means getting farther from the founder’s vision.
I’d rather see paper ballots counted at each precinct,
and the 17th Amendment- direct election of senators- repealed.
If RePO -ReidPelosiObama- runs the country, statehood for D.C and Puerto Rico will ensure the Dem Senate for a long time.
Puerto Rico should be given total independence in demonstration of our respect for separate culture and minority values and in a gesture of good bye we should underwrite free relocation of anyone not willing to live in Euro-centric America.
DC was specifically separated from the States and anyone who does not like living in a place without representation – MOVE!!!
If they insist on change then we have the Legistatures on VA and MD meet for a bare knuckles fight to the finish – the losers get DC.
Damn Frank, that bit about the EC containing ballot stuffing is actually very, very good.
Never considered that one before.
#23 “… the losers get DC”. Based on their approval ratings, the whole country agrees. We lose because we have DC.
The average person has an IQ of 100. This ‘average’ person has absolutely no concept of what it really takes to run the country, and whether any stated policy actually will or will not make things better or worse. He or she has absolutely no idea whether a candidate has the intelligence, judgement, and ethics to be a good or bad representative. The only thing this average person knows is that he or she ‘feels good’ about a candidate.
People in large cities tend to be liberal. They tend to look at government as being critical to subsidize ‘the needs of society’. People in rural situations tend to be more conservative, and look at the government as being a necessary evil.
The electoral college system was intended to help prevent the ‘tyranny of the majority’ in electing national representatives – in other words, the national reps were supposed to represent ‘the country’, not just the liberal big cities. It has gotten only worse since the Founding Fathers set this system up (BTW, Senators used to also be elected by the electoral college, but that was changed awhile ago).
Theoretically, the electoral college has a better idea of what each candidate represents and at one time had the ability to ‘correct’ a bad vote by the unwashed masses. Since the states have (mostly) required them to vote ‘with the majority’, the system has been broken.
BTW – I am more liberal than conservative, so don’t take the ‘liberal’ comments as a derogatory term. I personally don’t like pure democracy – as my uncle used to joke “Democracy is nine cannibals voting to eat the tenth”.
To Dean: IF IQ = 100 => Does not know what it takes to run the country THEN: EITHER ( Washington Politicians are all IQ=100 ) OR ( IQ is not enough, in a chaotic system no one can know or predict the economic weather enough to influence or control it – other than to know its best to leave it alone ) OR ( BOTH ).
If you chose BOTH the pellican flops down and you win one hundred dollars.
hey guys while we argue about the EC, lets not forget it was originally intended to give states their due… big states and little states were suspicious of each other… so the college helped to level out the playing field… it protected the small states buy giving them a loud voice in the election of the Prez for example Wyoming has 3 votes… 2 senators and one rep. It is about power and how it is shared among the states… remember we are a federal republic of states….
and by the way there were no parties when we wrote the constitution.. so the #1 dude in EC votes was the Prez and Number 2 dude in EC votes was the vice Prez… obviously this process got broke bad once political parties got set up… soo we got an amendment to deal with it.. then about 100 year later we sorta took the states out of the picture by amending the constitution to allow electing senators by popular vote, their campaigns then bocome a sort of national event… just look at that Canadian actor dude with Parkinson’s doing adds in a bunch of states electing senators… …
if we get rid of the EC then we need to return to the legislatures electing senators.. then states get their proper due.. and by the way if anyone in a small state (population) like MD Me or DE or NV or IA thinks they’ll ever see a presidential candidate campaign in their state again after getting rid of the EC they are doing some pretty cool drugs…