The electoral college doesn't work as designed and could be improved. It was supposed to discourage demagogues but Americans alive today have only ever had demagogues as their President. Just switching to a popular vote won't fix that, but it will make elections more expensive, and less secure against hacking and rigging.

Let's all ignore the stupid memes we see that show vast numbers of "red" counties and a tiny number of "blue" ones. The founders weren't thinking about balancing the votes of big cities versus rural areas.

The founders gave us an electoral college for two reasons. 
One is, they couldn't agree to a national standard of who gets to vote and who doesn't.  If some states let a wider variety of people vote, it would be unfair to just add up those votes against those from another state where it's harder to earn the right to vote.  We still have this problem today.  Some states let convicts vote from their prison cell!  Some still make it difficult for convicts to vote long after their sentences are over.  So National Popular vote makes no sense for us unless we tackle this problem first.
The second is, the founders didn't want presidential candidates having to criss-cross the nation making direct appeals to the people.  They wanted those candidates to "campaign" subtley to the wealthy men in each state who were likely to become electors.  Then the electoral college would have to meet in many separate locations, with everyone voting at the same moment, and only once.  They wanted there to be surprises when the envelopes were opened.  They thought the most likely result was no candidate would get a majority, lots and lots of candidates would get a few votes, and the House would then get together all in the same place and pick one candidate from the top three.  But any of these top three candidates might have gotten votes from only a single large state.

The people didn't like this idea.  They didn't like voting for an elector unless that elector pledged to vote for a specific person.  The people wanted to know who people in other states were voting for, because the electors were only going to get to vote once.  If votes were split between two similar candidates, both candidates might be eliminated from consideration by the House.  If a big state like Virginia or new York put all their electors for a single candidate, a spot in the top three was almost guaranteed.  So the people pretty quickly came up with the idea of political conventions to bring together like minded people and agree on a single nominee before the electors were even selected.  This would make sure that votes were not split and that the electoral college would, more often than not, give a majority to a single candidate.   

The political conventions and primary process leading up to them defeat the two goals the founders had.  Now, candidates have to campaign directly to the people well in advance of a vote.  This guarantees that we get two demagogues to choose from. And now, the results of the electoral college are pre-determined, no aspect of randomness or surprise, and no chance for the House to deliberate. 

I do think the plan leaves a lot of room for improvement, but I think we should focus on the process holistically:

1) the nominating process must be considered as well as the final selection.

2) if a national popular vote total is used, every state must have the exact same voter qualifications. Maintaining such standards probably requires a central, federal authority for voter registration and counting votes - this office would instantly be the target for hackers and ballot box stuffers from around the world.

3) some indirect or "surprising" mechanism needs to be present to counteract demagogues.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The electoral college works exactly as designed. Hillary Clinton is the latest example of it working as designed. Ignore states, pay the consequences.

Our founding fathers were smart men that created rules that will stand the test of time. Also, hacking is also an issue because Russia stole the last election.

---

It works as intended and does not need to be changed. You’re going to find injured parties in any system that is designed no matter how fair you attempt to make it. All things considered, it is the fairest system and due to the requirements to change it, it will likely only be changed if some sort of second civil war takes place. If anything needs to be changed it’s that Senators should be appointed by a state’s governor instead of directly elected by the people like they were originally.

Also, if big liberal strongholds were to somehow force a change to the electoral college system, I think that would be the catalyst for much bigger problems for this union of states staying together than any specific policy difference.

---

The electoral college works exactly as designed. Hillary Clinton is the latest example of it working as designed. Ignore states, pay the consequences.

Our founding fathers were smart men that created rules that will stand the test of time. Also, hacking is also an issue because Russia stole the last election.

You didn't read what I wrote.
It's true that Hillary lost in part because she didn't pay enough attention to Wisconsin.  You can call that a good outcome, but it's not anything like what the founders wanted to happen.
The founders did not think that a person would have to campaign in most states in order to win.  Read Federalist 68.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It works as intended and does not need to be changed.  You’re going to find injured parties in any system that is designed no matter how fair you attempt to make it.  All things considered, it is the fairest system and due to the requirements to change it, it will likely only be changed if some sort of second civil war takes place. If anything needs to be changed it’s that Senators should be appointed by a state’s governor instead of directly elected by the people like they were originally.

Also, if big liberal strongholds were to somehow force a change to the electoral college system, I think that would be the catalyst for much bigger problems for this union of states staying together than any specific policy difference.

1) it does not work as intended; the intent is described in Federalist 68, and that's not how it works.  Also James Madison said specifically that it was not working as designed even after the 12th amendment.

2) you're right that it's not possible to create a system that everyone will always think is fair.  I didn't say that was my goal.  My stated goal was to consider the founders intent and try to get closer to that.

3) the national popular vote Interstate Compact is close to being enacted.  Other changes to the system might require amending the Constitution, but, even though this is unlikely, it can still be discussed. Either change would require the cooperation of a variety of states, including red States. It's implausible that liberals alone would be able to do it.

4) senators were never appointed by governors until after the 17th amendment.  The original system called for them to be appointed by state legislatures. The state legislatures themselves voted to end this because they didn't like the results.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The electoral college doesn't work as designed and could be improved.  It was supposed to discourage demagogues but Americans alive today have only ever had demagogues as their President. Just switching to a popular vote won't fix that, but it will make elections more expensive, and less secure against hacking and rigging.

Let's all ignore the stupid memes we see that show vast numbers of "red" counties and a tiny number of "blue" ones. The founders weren't thinking about balancing the votes of big cities versus rural areas.

The founders gave us an electoral college for two reasons. 
One is, they couldn't agree to a national standard of who gets to vote and who doesn't.  If some states let a wider variety of people vote, it would be unfair to just add up those votes against those from another state where it's harder to earn the right to vote.  We still have this problem today.  Some states let convicts vote from their prison cell!  Some still make it difficult for convicts to vote long after their sentences are over.  So National Popular vote makes no sense for us unless we tackle this problem first.
The second is, the founders didn't want presidential candidates having to criss-cross the nation making direct appeals to the people.  They wanted those candidates to "campaign" subtley to the wealthy men in each state who were likely to become electors.  Then the electoral college would have to meet in many separate locations, with everyone voting at the same moment, and only once.  They wanted there to be surprises when the envelopes were opened.  They thought the most likely result was no candidate would get a majority, lots and lots of candidates would get a few votes, and the House would then get together all in the same place and pick one candidate from the top three.  But any of these top three candidates might have gotten votes from only a single large state.

The people didn't like this idea.  They didn't like voting for an elector unless that elector pledged to vote for a specific person.  The people wanted to know who people in other states were voting for, because the electors were only going to get to vote once.  If votes were split between two similar candidates, both candidates might be eliminated from consideration by the House.  If a big state like Virginia or new York put all their electors for a single candidate, a spot in the top three was almost guaranteed.  So the people pretty quickly came up with the idea of political conventions to bring together like minded people and agree on a single nominee before the electors were even selected.  This would make sure that votes were not split and that the electoral college would, more often than not, give a majority to a single candidate.   

The political conventions and primary process leading up to them defeat the two goals the founders had.  Now, candidates have to campaign directly to the people well in advance of a vote.  This guarantees that we get two demagogues to choose from. And now, the results of the electoral college are pre-determined, no aspect of randomness or surprise, and no chance for the House to deliberate. 

I do think the plan leaves a lot of room for improvement, but I think we should focus on the process holistically:

1) the nominating process must be considered as well as the final selection.

2) if a national popular vote total is used, every state must have the exact same voter qualifications.  Maintaining such standards probably requires a central, federal authority for voter registration and counting votes - this office would instantly be the target for hackers and ballot box stuffers from around the world.

3) some indirect or "surprising" mechanism needs to be present to counteract demagogues.

I'm not sure you've actually read Federalist 68 or any of the anti-Federalist papers like 72 or lesser known Cato. I say this because you have a pretty rough interpretation to what was actually written. In any case, the process works exactly as intended. They even went so far as to fix flaws along the way with appropriate amendments. I will agree that improvement could take place but I think we would disagree as to why.

Like previously mentioned, the process works as designed. The issues as of late are self induced by those states and a particular party introducing legislation to muddy the waters so to speak. States have tanted the electoral process by corrupting electors. Oddly enough, Hamilton warned of this as well as foreign interference. It is our recent stupidity that opened that vulnerability. Let me quickly address your "holistic" points:

1.) I agree, the nominating process is probably the biggest reason for controversy today. This process has been molested over the last few decades and we are really seeing negative results. Back to fundamentals and eliminate tampering.

2.) This isn't happening (popular vote), nor should it ever. Every logical person knows this is not a solution and would only open the doors to further corruption and interference either by foreign entities or corporate. Money talks! I do agree a Federal voting standard and identification must be put in place to avoid ballot box stuffing. This is completely logical and fair...which is why it will most likely not happen. State and Federal elections are money makers and sadly depend on a bit of "smoke & mirrors" for a certain group! Oh if we had just listened to the forefather's warnings!

3.) The nature of introdcuing surprise is not a fix nor should be an element in today's society. In fact, we hate surprises! We must be connected to real time info 24/7. Surprise introduces doubt that gets fed on. Any question to my opinion can be answered by looking at the 2016 election. How did the Dems and Hillary handle that "surprise" element. Nearly every viable poll had her winning. SURPRISE!! Here we are two years later with Trump and every associate being blasted with investigation after investigation because corruption entered into our system, only this time it failed to succeed.

Elections and the current issues associated are directly connected to our want to fix what isn't broke, strictly for the benefit and gain of a party or group for the almighty dollar. Unfortunately, when people are involved, so is the potential corruption. The answer, get back to grassroots, remove monetary interference, implement a federal/state voter identification system, and provide federal grants to each state to ensure equipment is of the same standard (no strings attached). If there was ever a process that required the KISS principle, elections is it. We can't allow corruption to take root and hide in the bowels of complicated legislation.

---

The electoral college doesn't work as designed and could be improved.  It was supposed to discourage demagogues but Americans alive today have only ever had demagogues as their President. Just switching to a popular vote won't fix that, but it will make elections more expensive, and less secure against hacking and rigging.
...
I think we should focus on the process holistically:

1) the nominating process must be considered as well as the final selection.

2) if a national popular vote total is used, every state must have the exact same voter qualifications.  Maintaining such standards probably requires a central, federal authority for voter registration and counting votes - this office would instantly be the target for hackers and ballot box stuffers from around the world.

3) some indirect or "surprising" mechanism needs to be present to counteract demagogues.

I'm not sure you've actually read Federalist 68 or any of the anti-Federalist papers like 72 or lesser known Cato. I say this because you have a pretty rough interpretation to what was actually written. In any case, the process works exactly as intended. They even went so far as to fix flaws along the way with appropriate amendments. I will agree that improvement could take place but I think we would disagree as to why.

Like previously mentioned, the process works as designed...

Please cite a quote from a Federalist paper that shows a specific intent for the system, and then cite a recent election cycle where this intent was met.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Is this about that stupid Martin Sheen video?

---

Is this about that stupid Martin Sheen video?

Haven't see it.  Guess I'll avoid it?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I'm going to take up a ton of space to quote large portions you chose to ignore. You can view them all here...

https://www.congress.gov/resources/displ...ist+Papers

You appear to be ignoring the whole of my statements just like you ignore the whole of the Federalist papers... The process works, however, our interference is creating issues as I previously described. Taking us further and further away from the design is detrimental to the process. Allow parties to legislate and insert advantages like the BS and unconstitutional National PVotersis not how to solve perceived issues.
[quote pid='1201562' dateline='1553099792']

Please cite a quote from a Federalist paper that shows a specific intent for the system, and then cite a recent election cycle where this intent was met.
[/quote]

I'm not going to take up a ton of space to quote large portions you chose to ignore. You can view them all here...

https://www.congress.gov/resources/displ...ist+Papers

You appear to be ignoring the whole of my statements just like you ignore the whole of the Federalist papers... The process works, however, our interference is creating issues as I previously described. Taking us further and further away from the design is detrimental to the process. Allowing parties to legislate and insert advantages like the BS and unconstitutional National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is not how to solve perceived issues.

---

Please cite a quote from a Federalist paper that shows a specific intent for the system, and then cite a recent election cycle where this intent was met.

I'm going to take up a ton of space to quote large portions you chose to ignore. You can view them all here...

https://www.congress.gov/resources/displ...ist+Papers

You appear to be ignoring the whole of my statements just like you ignore the whole of the Federalist papers... The process works, however, our interference is creating issues as I previously described. Taking us further and further away from the design is detrimental to the process. Allow parties to legislate and insert advantages like the BS and unconstitutional National Popular Voter is not how to solve perceived issues.

I agree with the bolded part.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Maps like this deceive more than they inform.
Note that Clinton has an "island" in nearly every state.  You probably think that doesn't matter. And it doesn't. Just like everything else this map shows us doesn't matter.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This thread is as asinine as I expected it to be.

The electoral college is working precisely as designed, which is a good thing.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Is there an admittance scam to get into the electoral college?

---

The electoral college doesn't work as designed and could be improved.  It was supposed to discourage demagogues but Americans alive today have only ever had demagogues as their President. Just switching to a popular vote won't fix that, but it will make elections more expensive, and less secure against hacking and rigging.

Let's all ignore the stupid memes we see that show vast numbers of "red" counties and a tiny number of "blue" ones. The founders weren't thinking about balancing the votes of big cities versus rural areas.

The founders gave us an electoral college for two reasons. 
One is, they couldn't agree to a national standard of who gets to vote and who doesn't.  If some states let a wider variety of people vote, it would be unfair to just add up those votes against those from another state where it's harder to earn the right to vote.  We still have this problem today.  Some states let convicts vote from their prison cell!  Some still make it difficult for convicts to vote long after their sentences are over.  So National Popular vote makes no sense for us unless we tackle this problem first.
The second is, the founders didn't want presidential candidates having to criss-cross the nation making direct appeals to the people.  They wanted those candidates to "campaign" subtley to the wealthy men in each state who were likely to become electors.  Then the electoral college would have to meet in many separate locations, with everyone voting at the same moment, and only once.  They wanted there to be surprises when the envelopes were opened.  They thought the most likely result was no candidate would get a majority, lots and lots of candidates would get a few votes, and the House would then get together all in the same place and pick one candidate from the top three.  But any of these top three candidates might have gotten votes from only a single large state.

The people didn't like this idea.  They didn't like voting for an elector unless that elector pledged to vote for a specific person.  The people wanted to know who people in other states were voting for, because the electors were only going to get to vote once.  If votes were split between two similar candidates, both candidates might be eliminated from consideration by the House.  If a big state like Virginia or new York put all their electors for a single candidate, a spot in the top three was almost guaranteed.  So the people pretty quickly came up with the idea of political conventions to bring together like minded people and agree on a single nominee before the electors were even selected.  This would make sure that votes were not split and that the electoral college would, more often than not, give a majority to a single candidate.   

The political conventions and primary process leading up to them defeat the two goals the founders had.  Now, candidates have to campaign directly to the people well in advance of a vote.  This guarantees that we get two demagogues to choose from. And now, the results of the electoral college are pre-determined, no aspect of randomness or surprise, and no chance for the House to deliberate. 

I do think the plan leaves a lot of room for improvement, but I think we should focus on the process holistically:

1) the nominating process must be considered as well as the final selection.

2) if a national popular vote total is used, every state must have the exact same voter qualifications.  Maintaining such standards probably requires a central, federal authority for voter registration and counting votes - this office would instantly be the target for hackers and ballot box stuffers from around the world.

3) some indirect or "surprising" mechanism needs to be present to counteract demagogues.

Lol, I guessed your opinion before even opening the thread. However, I will give you credit on national voting standards, that actually is a good idea.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

I admit I haven't read this entire thread, but...

I think an interesting point that has been made in this thread is that the big flaw in abolishing the electoral college and going to pure popular vote, is that each state runs their own vote and has their own voting requirements and standards. This is something I never really thought of, and I find that point extremely compelling.

One thing I would add is that for a long time it has been my opinion that all these ridiculous hoops people have to jump through to run for President constitute a sort of test. Part of that test is to figure out how to cobble together 270 electoral votes, and if you cannot do that, even though you win the popular vote by 5 million votes, then, figuratively speaking, you have tripped over one of the barriers in this steeplechase called "running for President." You have flunked the test, and you don't deserve to be President.

---

I admit I haven't read this entire thread, but...

I think an interesting point that has been made in this thread is that the big flaw in abolishing the electoral college and going to pure popular vote, is that each state runs their own vote and has their own voting requirements and standards.  This is something I never really thought of, and I find that point extremely compelling.  

One thing I would add is that for a long time it has been my opinion that all these ridiculous hoops people have to jump through to run for President constitute a sort of test.   Part of that test is to figure out how to cobble together 270 electoral votes, and if you cannot do that, even though you win the popular vote by 5 million votes, then, figuratively speaking, you have tripped over one of the barriers in this steeplechase called "running for President."  You have flunked the test, and you don't deserve to be President.

You're right that the electoral college and other aspects how we run elections for president represent big and complicated tests. 
However, like many tests in life, you don't have to do objectively well at them, you just have to do better than the others.
at the beginning of a season of American idol, you already know that you're going to have an American idol winner, even if all the candidates suck.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Four of you say it "works as designed."
maybe we can ask one of the people who designed it if that's actually the case..
https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madis...-president

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Four of you say it "works as designed."
maybe we can ask one of the people who designed it if that's actually the case..
https://www.fairvote.org/why-james-madis...-president

Well, strictly speaking, doesn't everything work as designed?   Maybe you mean "works as intended."

---