- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Electoral College and common misconceptions
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:18 pm
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:18 pm
Do liberals actually think it never dawned on the Founding Fathers that there was the possibility of the winning candidate NOT winning the popular vote? Dear God.... what's their point?
"To begin with, contrary to popular belief, when Americans go to the polls to seemingly vote for the next president of the United States, they are, in fact, not actually voting for the president. Rather, they are casting a vote for a group of electors who will then vote for the president as they see fit. To reduce any chance of confusion, rather than having people explicitly vote for electors on the ballot, the presidential candidate a given group of electors is pledged to vote for is put on the ballot instead.
Another common misconception about presidential voting in the United States is that the president is elected once the general public’s votes are tallied up. Again, because the general public does not technically vote for a president, but rather on which Electoral College representatives will get to vote for president, the president isn’t officially elected until the following January. Specifically, on January 6th the current vice president opens voting during a Joint Session of Congress. It’s during this session that electoral votes are tallied, with the deadline for those to be submitted being in late December. This may seem to be something of a technicality, but there are many completely legal scenarios in which a different president may be chosen than the one who appears to have won after the general public has cast their ballots for electors."
LINK
"To begin with, contrary to popular belief, when Americans go to the polls to seemingly vote for the next president of the United States, they are, in fact, not actually voting for the president. Rather, they are casting a vote for a group of electors who will then vote for the president as they see fit. To reduce any chance of confusion, rather than having people explicitly vote for electors on the ballot, the presidential candidate a given group of electors is pledged to vote for is put on the ballot instead.
Another common misconception about presidential voting in the United States is that the president is elected once the general public’s votes are tallied up. Again, because the general public does not technically vote for a president, but rather on which Electoral College representatives will get to vote for president, the president isn’t officially elected until the following January. Specifically, on January 6th the current vice president opens voting during a Joint Session of Congress. It’s during this session that electoral votes are tallied, with the deadline for those to be submitted being in late December. This may seem to be something of a technicality, but there are many completely legal scenarios in which a different president may be chosen than the one who appears to have won after the general public has cast their ballots for electors."
LINK
4
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:21 pm to tigerpawl
I agree with the electoral college, but there should be zero winner-take-all states. That is not a representative government in any shape or fashion. Just as the red districts in California have no voice, neither does the black belt in the south.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:29 pm to AUbagman
quote:Yeah. I think district-level level winners, with 2 EC votes from the state level winner, would maintain the purpose of the EC while giving each vote a more similar representation.
I agree with the electoral college, but there should be zero winner-take-all states. That is not a representative government in any shape or fashion. Just as the red districts in California have no voice, neither does the black belt in the south.
Beyond that, I would support the popular vote winner receiving a single electoral vote, as a less controversial tie breaker.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:35 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Beyond that, I would support the popular vote winner receiving a single electoral vote, as a less controversial tie breaker.
I could get on board with that. Seems very reasonable to me.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:39 pm to buckeye_vol
Also, another aspect of zero winner-take-all states would be candidates would actually campaign and meet with people in long forgotten states. As it is now, only a dozen or so states are actually targeted and included in the process. Of course there is the aspect of people always voting for a party, regardless of candidate or policy, but I think allowing all EV from any one state to go to the popular vote winner is the biggest detriment.
This post was edited on 12/3/16 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:40 pm to AUbagman
quote:
neither does the black belt in the south.
If they would get out and vote they would. Plenty of black politicians in the south. Would be more if they would take the time to go to the polls.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:41 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
neither does the black belt in the south.
quote:Why do blacks live in a different America?
If they would get out and vote they would. Plenty of black politicians in the south. Would be more if they would take the time to go to the polls.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:43 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
If they would get out and vote they would. Plenty of black politicians in the south. Would be more if they would take the time to go to the polls.
I'm speaking strictly in terms of presidential elections. Even with sufficient representation, it means nothing when all EV go to the winning party on the national scale. I really can't understand the benefit of that whatsoever. A winner take all state is like electing a president by popular vote. It is not representative and inflicts the will of the state you live in on the minority, so essentially in certain districts, they have zero voice in the process.
This post was edited on 12/3/16 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:46 pm to AUbagman
quote:Yeah. It would widen the campaigning, and I think it would increase turnout in those who feel marginalized in the most partisan states.
As it is now, only a dozen or so states are actually targeted and included in the process.
Most importantly though, I think it would give third-party candidates more legitimacy, since they could possibly win come EVs. Ross Perot had nearly 20% of the popular vote in 1992, yet didn't have a single EV. I believe that type of disparity strongly maintains the two-party system, regardless if that's what the electorate truly prefers.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 12:49 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Most importantly though, I think it would give third-party candidates more legitimacy, since they could possibly win come EVs.
Great point, and a very important one at that! There are so many upsides to eliminating winner-take-all states and little to no downsides. Every district should have a say in the outcome.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 1:00 pm to AUbagman
quote:
The election of 1824 is most famous for the "corrupt bargain," a deal in the House of Representatives that gave John Quincy Adams the presidency despite his winning fewer popular and electoral votes than Andrew Jackson. But 1824 was also significant for another reason: it was the first election in which the majority of states used a statewide winner-take-all voting method for choosing their presidential electors.
It is a system that now seems like a fundamental part of the American democracy. Presidential candidates compete to win states, which is how they get votes in the Electoral College. The U.S. Constitution does not mandate that system, however. Instead, it is left up to the states to determine how they select their representatives in the Electoral College. For the first 13 presidential elections, spanning the first four decades of the history of the United States, states experimented with many different electoral systems.
The shift to statewide winner-take-all was not done for idealistic reasons. Rather, it was the product of partisan pragmatism, as state leaders wanted to maximize support for their preferred candidate. Once some states made this calculation, others had to follow, to avoid hurting their side. James Madison's 1823 letter to George Hay, described in my earlier post, explains that few of the constitutional framers anticipated electors being chosen based on winner-take-all rules.
quote:
1824: The tipping point election for presidential electoral systems, as twice as many states used the winner-take-all statewide method as used the state legislature method. The defeated Andrew Jackson joined James Madison's pleas for a constitutional amendment requiring a uniform district election system, but to no avail. In every U.S. presidential election since, the statewide method has been predominant.
LINK
So basically, winner-take-all revolved around states wanting to squash the minority voice and influence the election to their side as much as possible. It makes zero sense in terms of a fair and balanced means of electing a president. James Madison was right, there should have been a constitutional amendment to make a uniform district voting process for president. What we have now is an abortion of what was intended.
ETA: And before the down votes rain down, the winner take all method has probably actually hurt Republicans far worse than Democrats, where centralized voting blocks control the outcome for the entire state.
This post was edited on 12/3/16 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 12/3/16 at 1:39 pm to tigerpawl
Would like to see us go to a Parlamentary system. Gives third parties proper representation. Forces forming governing coalitions to force compromise.
Of course, we'll never do that gay Euro stuff.
Of course, we'll never do that gay Euro stuff.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 1:47 pm to Duke
Every district having a say is dumb because of redistricting.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 1:59 pm to JaxDog
quote:
Every district having a say is dumb because of redistricting.
What? So because districts are shifted occasionally, some should have no say? That's asinine.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 2:54 pm to tigerpawl
Switch to COUNTY based system...1 vote for every county.
bye bye democraps.
bye bye democraps.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:01 pm to AUbagman
quote:Let each state decide how to do it (which is what we do now).
there should be zero winner-take-all states.
quote:Counterpoint: Nebraska does it the way you want the states to do it (electoral votes cast in proportion to state's popular vote). If you have four electoral votes, and Trump wins 51%-49%, and your electors cast two votes for each Trump and Clinton, you have muted your entire state's voice because you haven't moved the needle.
Just as the red districts in California have no voice, neither does the black belt in the south.
Winner-take-all maximizes your state's influence on elections.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 6:31 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Counterpoint: Nebraska does it the way you want the states to do it (electoral votes cast in proportion to state's popular vote). If you have four electoral votes, and Trump wins 51%-49%, and your electors cast two votes for each Trump and Clinton, you have muted your entire state's voice because you haven't moved the needle.
I'd rather mute a few percentage points either way in a close race than mute a full 49% of a state.
Plus, small discrepancies, which could result from illegal or miscounted votes, wouldn't effect the election.
Lastly, all states would become potential swing states, spreading the campaign trail more evenly.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 7:50 pm to cahoots
Agree. 100%
Posted on 12/3/16 at 7:52 pm to Duke
quote:
Would like to see us go to a Parlamentary system. Gives third parties proper representation. Forces forming governing coalitions to force compromise.
Of course, we'll never do that gay Euro stuff.
This!
Posted on 12/3/16 at 8:23 pm to cahoots
quote:That's just it. Winner-takes-all mutes up to 50%, while a proportional election mutes up to 100%.
I'd rather mute a few percentage points either way in a close race than mute a full 49% of a state.
quote:Quite the opposite. Swing states would be the most muted. Losing 53-47 in Ohio? Big deal—you'll still get half their votes. In winner-take-all, you stand to gain tens of votes by campaigning more.
all states would become potential swing states,
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News