OlHoss1884
9 years ago
Here's a little history lesson.

When the Constitution was first ratified, states were allowed to count 3/5 of their slaves as population for purposes of representation in congress. In those days, each state got 1 rep for every 40,000 people. This was a compromise to give disproportionate representation to the slave states.

The electoral college was built on representation, not population, so that the 3/5 rule would also help the slave states have a greater say in the presidential election.

To me, maintaining the electoral college (which tends to favor the Democrats for who I usually vote for in presidential elections) is an outdated reminder that the side that won the civil war didn't take the spoils of war...namely dispensing with this ridiculous compromise.

There are other arguments on the issue, to be sure, but since the reason for its inception is no longer valid, I say the whole process isn't valid either.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" --Albert Einstein
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
9 years ago
I would be in favor of he change I have heard talk about going to a straight popular vote since the 70s. It never gets anywhere. There have been 4 times were a President lost the popular vote and still won the Electoral Vote. The most recent time was when Bush defeated Gore in 2000.

There have been other major changes in voting procedures. Once upon a time people did not vote for their US Senators. They voted for their state representatives who in turn voted for the Senators.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
9 years ago
The electoral college was (and is) a way to check the power of the majority.

Everyone remembers from grade school civics class that the "separation of powers" idea was a core part of the Constitution because of the problems that ensue when a particular part of government (state v. federal, legislative v. executive v. judicial) has too disproportionate a share of the power to govern.

What people forget, however, is that the founders also considered "the popular majority" a power that needed to be limited. In general, it is why they went with a republic rather than a pure one-man/one-vote democracy. In specific, it is why they did not want direct election of senators and why they wanted an electoral college determining the President.

They believed in representative government, but they also believed a workable/sustainable representative government had to incorporation multiple modes of representation. They chose a bicameral legislature because they wanted to tension that came with one house determined by the majority of the total population (the House of Representatives) and one where the differences between states were represented without regard to relative population size (the Senate). They needed a popular-vote determined House to check the power of the patricians/elite, but they also needed a non-popular-vote determined Senate and President to check the power of ordinary people/the mob. They saw what was starting to happen in France (and, even more so, with what had happened in Britain with Jacobinism, the Gordon riots, etc).

We as a nation, of course, have spent the last 75 years increasing the possibilities for the "tyranny of the majority" and the rise of unchecked federal power, and now approach our elections and the rest of "we the people" governance. Instead a government designed to limit the power of anyone (or any type of division) getting bigger, we now are all about "empowerment." Instead of looking emphasizing solutions based on how they take away power that a group has or might accumulate, we now emphasize solutions based on how they increase the power of one group over another.

In short, it took us a bit longer, but we now believe and approach governance the way the French peasantry and "ordinary people" did c. 1789, not the way Madison, Jefferson, Washington, and company did c. 1789.

Unfortunately. As a nation, we have forgotten that a 51%/49% outcome means almost half of the population doesn't want what the "winner" offers, regardless of how that winner is chosen; and that means we ought to restrain ourselves in our fervor to pursue and use the power of the majority to impose our will on the minority. Or, to put it another way, there are times when "we, the 50.001% people," ought not to be allowed to get "what we want" vis-a-vis the 49.999% people, any more than the 49.999% ought to be allowed to tramp on the 50.001%.

If either Sanders or Trump is elected, I fully expect those wishing for the popular vote determining the president will finally get their wish. They are both riding the populist wave, and encouraging it (albeit for different reasons). If Clinton is, it is less likely, since she's more an old-fashioned "Senatorial" type.

Ironically, the result will likely be that even as the some of patricians get tossed out or tossed under the guillotine), others (call them the "inside the Beltway" people) will get more power than ever.

And the possibility of a Robispierre and Committee on Public Safety arising in accordance with the populist will gets greater all the time.






And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
9 years ago
Thank you Professor. Even in grade school I always felt the Elite, the Southern Gentry, didn't trust the Boston, Philly and NYC urban dwellers to make an "informed decision" and thus they blocked their ability to elect the President. They might lose 1 or 2 states to the rabble but they would make a stand in more states in the South. 4 of 5 Presidents were from Virginia.

I can't imagine either party wanting to change to popular vote.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
9 years ago
The whole system is flawed. Our representation government doesn't represent the needs of the common people. The government is completely corrupt, purchased, and run by the billionaires. The "electoral college" is very low in priority of our country's problems.
UserPostedImage
OlHoss1884
9 years ago

The whole system is flawed. Our representation government doesn't represent the needs of the common people. The government is completely corrupt, purchased, and run by the billionaires. The "electoral college" is very low in priority of our country's problems.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



I would be the first to agree that gerrymandering is a much worse problem, but because of the electoral college, the practical result is that in many states, a minority vote (Dem in WY, for example) is a waste, because as long as there is no chance for the dems to win that state, it becomes irrelevant, and the entire election is generally decided by a few "battleground" states.

The electoral college being a "check" on the majority has no basis in "check" of powers of the three branches talked about in the constitution. It was a compromise to keep free states from declaring slavery illegal by offering disproportionate representation to the slave states.

The Constitution itself is a check against the majority...it protects the rights of individuals despite attempts by the majority to crush those rights.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" --Albert Einstein
PackFanWithTwins
9 years ago
I don't think the electoral college itself is bad, but I do believe it needs to change. States should not be able to give 100% of their electorals to the person who wins the state. Each candidate should be awarded electoral's off the percentage of the vote they receive. with the odd remainder going to the winner overall. there are states republicans barely campaign in because they know the state will go democrat, and the same goes the otherway. I believe this would get candidates campaigning in areas they avoid today because they would have a chance to get votes they never would have before. Republicans would not avoid CA if they could walk away with 25 or so of those electorals.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Porforis
9 years ago

I would be the first to agree that gerrymandering is a much worse problem, but because of the electoral college, the practical result is that in many states, a minority vote (Dem in WY, for example) is a waste, because as long as there is no chance for the dems to win that state, it becomes irrelevant, and the entire election is generally decided by a few "battleground" states.

Originally Posted by: OlHoss1884 



It's also a huge factor behind maintaining our two-party system, and everything bad (and good) that comes with it. Given the disapproval rating in all branches of our government, how many people do you think would vote third party if one vote for a third party was worth the same as one vote for a democrat/republican, instead of nothing?
Porforis
9 years ago

I don't think the electoral college itself is bad, but I do believe it needs to change. States should not be able to give 100% of their electorals to the person who wins the state. Each candidate should be awarded electoral's off the percentage of the vote they receive. with the odd remainder going to the winner overall. there are states republicans barely campaign in because they know the state will go democrat, and the same goes the otherway. I believe this would get candidates campaigning in areas they avoid today because they would have a chance to get votes they never would have before. Republicans would not avoid CA if they could walk away with 25 or so of those electorals.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins 



Very well could be missing something, but how would this be functionally different than a straight up popular vote, if the number of electoral votes are based on population? The difference should be negligible at best.
Zero2Cool
9 years ago

Very well could be missing something, but how would this be functionally different than a straight up popular vote, if the number of electoral votes are based on population? The difference should be negligible at best.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



Negligible or not, in 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush.
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (8h) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
    Zero2Cool (9h) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
    Zero2Cool (9h) : No sir. I did not.
    dfosterf (9h) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
    wpr (10h) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
    dfosterf (11h) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
    Zero2Cool (11h) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
    wpr (11h) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
    Mucky Tundra (12h) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
    Zero2Cool (12h) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
    Zero2Cool (13h) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
    wpr (15h) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
    wpr (15h) : The site is much more better.
    Zero2Cool (15h) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
    Zero2Cool (15h) : I saw that and thought it was kind of lame.
    dfosterf (15h) : Packers new locker room is pretty awesome. Great for morale, imo
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Shuffled things on the web server. Hope it makes it faster.
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Other times, it's turtle ass
    Zero2Cool (16h) : Sometimes it's snappy, like now.
    beast (17h) : I feel like it's loading at the top of the next minute, or something like that.
    beast (17h) : Also the thanks/heart takes FOREVER to load, and posting in the shout box takes three times FOREVER!
    beast (17h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
    beast (17h) : Thanks for saying something, I thought it was slow, but assumed it was on my end
    Zero2Cool (18h) : Yeah, I noticed that too. Is it slow for PackerPeople.com too?
    wpr (18h) : I don't know what you IT guys call it but the page loading is very slow for me today.
    Zero2Cool (18h) : SSL might be settled now.
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Still working through SSL cert issues
    wpr (23-Jul) : Glad to be back
    Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I think PH original finally working.
    dfosterf (22-Jul) : Can tell you are having a fun day Kev
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Yep, I had to manually move them. It'll fix itself after more posts.
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Same deal with the songs/videos thread, says you replied last but when I go there it's what I posted earlier is last
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : I had to manually move three posts.
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : But when I go it, Martha's is the last reply
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Still a little screwy; it shows on the main forum that you were the last person to reply to the Jenkins trade thread
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Host issues, been crazy day
    Mucky Tundra (22-Jul) : Connect 4?
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : Connecting to new database
    Zero2Cool (22-Jul) : What the hell
    beast (22-Jul) : Packershome going to the Whiteout unis again
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Oh wait, they got Cam Ward. 1st overall right? haha oops
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : They could send Packers a 1st for a QB they are familiar with
    Zero2Cool (21-Jul) : Titans QB Will Levis to have season-ending shoulder surgery
    Zero2Cool (19-Jul) : Their season did kind of start there, so 🤷
    dfosterf (19-Jul) : Eagles put an engraved Brazil flag on their super bowl rings
    Zero2Cool (18-Jul) : Benton unsigned no more
    Zero2Cool (17-Jul) : That's good analysis, yes you are getting old. It'd a blessing!
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : *analysis* gettin' old
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : One of the best analyisis I"ve ever watched at this time of an offseason
    dfosterf (14-Jul) : Andy Herman interviewed Warren Sharp on his Pack a day podcast
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    27m / Around The NFL / beast

    1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    3h / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

    6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    18-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    15-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.