I have seen a ton of talk about the Electoral College in recent months. The majority of Americans feel that going to a Direct Popular Vote like the rest of the world is the way to go. Those on the Right seem to be completely against abolishing the Electoral College.
The question is why?
The most common argument given is that we shouldn't let voters in all the big cities decide who is in office for the entire country, and that with Direct Popular Vote, those people who live in rural communities also get a say.
When you break down that argument, you quickly find all the holes that exist within it. Let's start by talking about one other thing that is completely unfair in our current political system. Let's look at the Senate.
In the Senate, each State elects 2 Senators to go to Congress in Washington D.C.
Sounds fair right?
Let's look at the most populous states and least populous states and how many people in each state Senators represent at the federal level.
Wyoming
Each Senator Represents 290,000 People
Vermont
Each Senator Represents 310,000 People
North Dakota
Each Senator Represents 350,000 People
New York
Each Senator Represents 9,790,000 People
Texas
Each Senator Represents 13,030,000 People
California
Each Senator Represents 19,020,000 People
So representation in the Senate is lopsided to say the least. Some may say that just isn't important and that 2 Senators for each state is fair. Think about the trial that is about to happen in the Senate after the beginning of 2020. If Senate positions were allotted by population instead of 2 from each state, there would be a far more accurate portrayal of the actual constituencies in the United States than there is in the Senate right now. Right now, representation is horribly lopsided. A state with almost 40 million people has the same 2 senators as a state with 580,000 people. See, when you break it down, it seems a bit ridiculous right?
Now back to the Electoral College. In most states, one candidate walks away with all of the Electoral Votes in the state by simply winning a the largest percentage of votes in that state. So if we have a strong third party candidate in a state, you could see one candidate get 30 percent of the vote, another get 30 percent of the vote, and a third get 40 percent of the vote in a state. In many states, that candidate who received 40 percent of the vote would receive ALL Electoral Votes for the state, essentially disenfranchising 60 Percent of the voting public.
Even in a 2 party race, you see a candidate get just over 50 percent of the vote and their opponent get just under 50 percent. The winner takes all Electoral Votes and the loser gets nothing, leaving about half of the voting public disenfranchised.
If you look at our elections for President, it always comes down to a few battleground states. That is not how it should work. Each vote cast by a citizen of this country should count as equally as every other vote cast. Those arguing against abolishing the Electoral College are usually members of a political party that is in the minority in the country, and they know that they couldn't possibly win in a Direct Popular Vote. The funny thing is that the argument they make against abolishing the Electoral College is hypocritical at best.
The most recent one I saw was regarding someone not wanting the big city liberals to decide elections, and that the rural communities need to have an equal say in elections. Funny thing is, the only way to provide an equal say is by a Direct Popular Vote. Each vote cast goes to the candidate selected and no one candidate takes all the votes in a state. They take the votes they received. Everyone has an equal vote, and the person selected as President is selected by the will of the people, not an antiquated process that shouldn't exist anymore.
The vote of a Teacher in Los Angeles should be no different than the vote of a Farmer in Nebraska or a Fire Fighter in New York. Each of their votes should be equal, and in today's system, that just isn't the case.
Look at the 2016 Election. Donald Trump received 62,984,828 votes and Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes. So 2,868,686 more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, but Trump won 304 to 227 in Electoral Votes.
If we truly had free and fair elections, Hillary Clinton would have been elected President in 2016, because that is the only outcome that would have supported EVERY vote being equal across the country.
There is no argument in today's America that supports keeping an Electoral College System...no argument. At least no logical one.
The Right at this point is surviving with an Electoral System for the Presidency, gerrymandering at the State Level that allows parties to draw up ridiculous district borders that benefit them, and through ridiculous rhetoric. Yes, Democrats have gerrymandered some borders as well, but the Right has taken it to absolute ridiculous levels. When Democrats by far win the vote in states but still don't control the majority of seats, that is the result of gerrymandering; and it is just wrong.
So I am open to discussion on anything I have said above. Give me a logical reason to keep the Electoral College. Give me a logical reason to allow gerrymandering to the levels we have seen. Give me a logical reason to allow the lies, gaslighting, and misdirection we have seen in the GOP over the past 3 years. Give me a logical reason why....and I have to stop or this blog will end up a book.
The President we have shouldn't have been our President because the majority of the populous didn't vote for him. He has lied now well over 15,000 documented times (and those are just he public lies), had affairs with at least 2 women we know of and paid them off with hush money (while he had a small child at home), he was fined 25 million dollars for running a sham of a University, he was fined 2 million dollars for misuse of his charity for personal gain, he clearly held up approved military aid money totaling almost 400 million dollars to get favors from a country that is being attacked by Russia, he sided with Putin over U.S. Intelligence Agencies, He talks highly of Putin, MBS, Chairman Kim, Xi, etc., He pulled US Troops out of Siria and signed off on the deaths of allies that have helped us fight ISIS for years, he wants Russia to be allowed back into the G7, he has pulled the U.S. out of almost every international deal to include the Paris Climate Accord, he has opened up government land to drilling and has essentially dismantled the EPA, he believes the Climate Crisis is a hoax, he instated unconstitutional tariffs that resulted in having to completely bail out American Farmers, he shut down the government over a wall that doesn't stop anyone, he...the list goes on and on folks. He has made racist comments, misogynist comments, and xenophobic comments. He has dozens of open sexual harassment cases against him. His inner circle have almost all seen the inside of prison. There are just endless negatives to report, and yet a cross section of the American Populous and the GOP stand beside this man as if he has done nothing wrong. Some state he is a better president than Washington or Lincoln.
Everything I just stated is true, and Trump is the ultimate disgrace to the office he holds and the country we hold dear. We are the laughing stock of the world, and that has been made very evident in the past year.
Final word is simple. We would not be where we are today if a Direct Popular Vote was used to select our Presidents. The will of the people should be the only factor used. Who did the majority vote for? Hillary Clinton. I am not saying Hillary was a great choice for President, but she was the other choice, and the choice the majority of Americans picked. This country is broken, and Trump is breaking it further. Those of you who are unwilling to admit it and unwilling to see the overt and rock solid facts are complicit; just like the members of the GOP in the Senate who will refuse to vote Trump out in January because they care more about their jobs than their country.
I am getting frustrated now, so I will end it here. I welcome discussions and comments.
Happy Holidays,
DUNK
The question is why?
The most common argument given is that we shouldn't let voters in all the big cities decide who is in office for the entire country, and that with Direct Popular Vote, those people who live in rural communities also get a say.
When you break down that argument, you quickly find all the holes that exist within it. Let's start by talking about one other thing that is completely unfair in our current political system. Let's look at the Senate.
In the Senate, each State elects 2 Senators to go to Congress in Washington D.C.
Sounds fair right?
Let's look at the most populous states and least populous states and how many people in each state Senators represent at the federal level.
Wyoming
Each Senator Represents 290,000 People
Vermont
Each Senator Represents 310,000 People
North Dakota
Each Senator Represents 350,000 People
New York
Each Senator Represents 9,790,000 People
Texas
Each Senator Represents 13,030,000 People
California
Each Senator Represents 19,020,000 People
So representation in the Senate is lopsided to say the least. Some may say that just isn't important and that 2 Senators for each state is fair. Think about the trial that is about to happen in the Senate after the beginning of 2020. If Senate positions were allotted by population instead of 2 from each state, there would be a far more accurate portrayal of the actual constituencies in the United States than there is in the Senate right now. Right now, representation is horribly lopsided. A state with almost 40 million people has the same 2 senators as a state with 580,000 people. See, when you break it down, it seems a bit ridiculous right?
Now back to the Electoral College. In most states, one candidate walks away with all of the Electoral Votes in the state by simply winning a the largest percentage of votes in that state. So if we have a strong third party candidate in a state, you could see one candidate get 30 percent of the vote, another get 30 percent of the vote, and a third get 40 percent of the vote in a state. In many states, that candidate who received 40 percent of the vote would receive ALL Electoral Votes for the state, essentially disenfranchising 60 Percent of the voting public.
Even in a 2 party race, you see a candidate get just over 50 percent of the vote and their opponent get just under 50 percent. The winner takes all Electoral Votes and the loser gets nothing, leaving about half of the voting public disenfranchised.
If you look at our elections for President, it always comes down to a few battleground states. That is not how it should work. Each vote cast by a citizen of this country should count as equally as every other vote cast. Those arguing against abolishing the Electoral College are usually members of a political party that is in the minority in the country, and they know that they couldn't possibly win in a Direct Popular Vote. The funny thing is that the argument they make against abolishing the Electoral College is hypocritical at best.
The most recent one I saw was regarding someone not wanting the big city liberals to decide elections, and that the rural communities need to have an equal say in elections. Funny thing is, the only way to provide an equal say is by a Direct Popular Vote. Each vote cast goes to the candidate selected and no one candidate takes all the votes in a state. They take the votes they received. Everyone has an equal vote, and the person selected as President is selected by the will of the people, not an antiquated process that shouldn't exist anymore.
The vote of a Teacher in Los Angeles should be no different than the vote of a Farmer in Nebraska or a Fire Fighter in New York. Each of their votes should be equal, and in today's system, that just isn't the case.
Look at the 2016 Election. Donald Trump received 62,984,828 votes and Hillary Clinton received 65,853,514 votes. So 2,868,686 more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, but Trump won 304 to 227 in Electoral Votes.
If we truly had free and fair elections, Hillary Clinton would have been elected President in 2016, because that is the only outcome that would have supported EVERY vote being equal across the country.
There is no argument in today's America that supports keeping an Electoral College System...no argument. At least no logical one.
The Right at this point is surviving with an Electoral System for the Presidency, gerrymandering at the State Level that allows parties to draw up ridiculous district borders that benefit them, and through ridiculous rhetoric. Yes, Democrats have gerrymandered some borders as well, but the Right has taken it to absolute ridiculous levels. When Democrats by far win the vote in states but still don't control the majority of seats, that is the result of gerrymandering; and it is just wrong.
So I am open to discussion on anything I have said above. Give me a logical reason to keep the Electoral College. Give me a logical reason to allow gerrymandering to the levels we have seen. Give me a logical reason to allow the lies, gaslighting, and misdirection we have seen in the GOP over the past 3 years. Give me a logical reason why....and I have to stop or this blog will end up a book.
The President we have shouldn't have been our President because the majority of the populous didn't vote for him. He has lied now well over 15,000 documented times (and those are just he public lies), had affairs with at least 2 women we know of and paid them off with hush money (while he had a small child at home), he was fined 25 million dollars for running a sham of a University, he was fined 2 million dollars for misuse of his charity for personal gain, he clearly held up approved military aid money totaling almost 400 million dollars to get favors from a country that is being attacked by Russia, he sided with Putin over U.S. Intelligence Agencies, He talks highly of Putin, MBS, Chairman Kim, Xi, etc., He pulled US Troops out of Siria and signed off on the deaths of allies that have helped us fight ISIS for years, he wants Russia to be allowed back into the G7, he has pulled the U.S. out of almost every international deal to include the Paris Climate Accord, he has opened up government land to drilling and has essentially dismantled the EPA, he believes the Climate Crisis is a hoax, he instated unconstitutional tariffs that resulted in having to completely bail out American Farmers, he shut down the government over a wall that doesn't stop anyone, he...the list goes on and on folks. He has made racist comments, misogynist comments, and xenophobic comments. He has dozens of open sexual harassment cases against him. His inner circle have almost all seen the inside of prison. There are just endless negatives to report, and yet a cross section of the American Populous and the GOP stand beside this man as if he has done nothing wrong. Some state he is a better president than Washington or Lincoln.
Everything I just stated is true, and Trump is the ultimate disgrace to the office he holds and the country we hold dear. We are the laughing stock of the world, and that has been made very evident in the past year.
Final word is simple. We would not be where we are today if a Direct Popular Vote was used to select our Presidents. The will of the people should be the only factor used. Who did the majority vote for? Hillary Clinton. I am not saying Hillary was a great choice for President, but she was the other choice, and the choice the majority of Americans picked. This country is broken, and Trump is breaking it further. Those of you who are unwilling to admit it and unwilling to see the overt and rock solid facts are complicit; just like the members of the GOP in the Senate who will refuse to vote Trump out in January because they care more about their jobs than their country.
I am getting frustrated now, so I will end it here. I welcome discussions and comments.
Happy Holidays,
DUNK
Comments
Back when the Electoral College was considered, we were a nation that had just fought to remove itself from a tyrannical king. Many didn't want Congress to choose the president because of a strong chance of corruption to exist within a process like that. Others didn't want the American public to choose the president because they felt voters at that time lacked the ability to be informed about the candidates, especially in rural areas. They also felt a directly elected populist president who appealed directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.
So the Electoral College was formed out of compromise during a time when it really needed to be, but the nation and world has changed in the following centuries. Today, as stated above, we have a populous that is connected to everything electronically; even in rural areas. We have a populous that is informed if they choose to be, and a congress that doesn't work for the people.
I am not talking about Republicans. I am talking about all of Congress on both sides of the isle. There are just a few progressives who do not take money from PACs, big business, or special interest groups. Almost every candidate has a dark side that is connected to large lobbyist groups and corporations. These financial connections make it so our congressional members aren't looking out for the best interests of Americans or America. They are looking out for the best interests of the corporations that own them.
So we have a congress that is corrupt and an electoral process that doesn't necessarily select the candidate who gets the most votes. We are also supposed to have 3 co-equal branches of government, and yet the President refused to supply documents or allow any of his employees to testify in a lawful inquiry.
Our country has many problems, and one of the most easily fixed of those problems is the Electoral College. You say there wouldn't be campaigning in 2/3 of the states. That's no different than the focus on the battleground states we have now because of how the Electoral College is set up. The simple fact is that people are connected in today's world, unlike centuries ago, and everyone's vote should be counted equally.
People in rural communities wouldn't be heard under a direct popular vote? Everyone would be heard if they wanted to be. Farmers can still come together and push for legislation and push for change, just like others. And a vote from a Farmer in Utah shouldn't be any different than a vote for a Teacher in Los Angeles or a Lawyer in New York. Everyone's vote should be equal. There is no benefit to a system that doesn't equally consider everyone's vote with the same weight; not in 2019.
I understand your point, but I have to say to the first part of your statement...Do you think that many liberals didn't go out and vote in states like CA, NY, NJ, and IL because of the same reason? The vote would absolutely be different under a Direct Popular Vote. First, you would see a dramatic increase in the number of voters who actually go to the polls and vote. In many cases, voters from both the Republican and Democratic sides don't vote because they don't feel their votes matter. Under a direct popular vote, their votes would very much matter; all of them. You would see an increase in not only voting but voter registration. People who have never considered voting before would sign up to vote. That would happen on both the Right and the Left, and it would be an amazing thing, considering we have some of the worst voter turnout in developed countries around the globe. It is abysmal to say the least when only about half of registered voters show up to the polls.
So I get it, but I think if we look at the reasons the Electoral College was created in comparison to the state of the nation centuries later in 2019, those reasons no longer hold water.