Destroying the Electoral College: The Anti-Federalist National Popular Vote Scheme

[John Reece]

Destroying the Electoral College: The Anti-Federalist National Popular Vote Scheme, By Hans A. von Spakovsky

Abstract:Conclusion:

As is sometimes said: Discuss civilly.

[Teallaura]

If you think about it, the electoral college is proof that the Founding Fathers didn't trust anyone with power - the genius of he Constitution remains its checks and balances.

[rogue06]

If you think about it, the electoral college is proof that the Founding Fathers didn't trust anyone with power - the genius of he Constitution remains its checks and balances.

Well said.

[Jaecp]

If you think about it, the electoral college is proof that the Founding Fathers didn't trust anyone with power - the genius of he Constitution remains its checks and balances.

I wonder, if we were to continue on this "how crazy can 2016 get" if faithless electors put someone other than Trump into power whether this would be respected by the people who didn't win the popular vote for have been crowing about how that doesn't matter?

[Mountain Man]

I wonder, if we were to continue on this "how crazy can 2016 get" if faithless electors put someone other than Trump into power whether this would be respected by the people who didn't win the popular vote for have been crowing about how that doesn't matter?

So for this to work, the electors would have to go against the will of the people by voting for someone other than who the majority favored in their own state. You really think that's a viable option?

To be blunt, there are three kinds of people who want to abolish the electoral college:

1) Those who are too ignorant to understand why it exists.
2) Those who are too ignorant to understand how it works.
3) Bitter Hillary supporters with tear-stained cheeks who can't believe Trump won.

Or maybe that's one kind of person.

[Teallaura]

I wonder, if we were to continue on this "how crazy can 2016 get" if faithless electors put someone other than Trump into power whether this would be respected by the people who didn't win the popular vote for have been crowing about how that doesn't matter?

That really would destroy the college - but parties spend a LOT of time and money to ensure that the guys and gals they elect can be trusted to vote as they promised.

[Jaecp]

So for this to work, the electors would have to go against the will of the people by voting for someone other than who the majority favored in their own state. You really think that's a viable option?

To be blunt, there are three kinds of people who want to abolish the electoral college:

1) Those who are too ignorant to understand why it exists.
2) Those who are too ignorant to understand how it works.
3) Bitter Hillary supporters with tear-stained cheeks who can't believe Trump won.

Or maybe that's one kind of person.

You missed my point, it was a counter-factual about if Republicans would be so magnanimous if in the, as Teal pointed out highly unlikely occurence, event that this "quirk" of our system were to be used. Because it is absolutely a quirk of the system that in one election in America, the only one as far as I know, the person whom more people want to be president doesn't win sometimes because we've intentionally weighted the system. Like Teal was saying about checks and balances that includes faithless electors

[DesertBerean]

I recall that in that nail biter of the year 2000, an elector did mention she might or would refuse to certify. There was almost an uproar and I don't believe she mentioned it again and did certify.

[KingsGambit]

I am guessing Trump has changed his mind about it after going on a rant against it in 2012.

[Cow Poke]

I am guessing Trump has changed his mind about it after going on a rant against it in 2012.

The side that wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college is always cursing the electoral collage. This is nothing new.

[37818]

The people of each state elect their electoral college representatives by whom they vote for the President. The states inturn vote for the President using their electoral college vote. I do not see a problem, except many do not understand this. And then there are those who oppose this.

[Terraceth]

So for this to work, the electors would have to go against the will of the people by voting for someone other than who the majority favored in their own state. You really think that's a viable option?

If they want. They're allowed to under the electoral college, after all.

[Teallaura]

FYI: for the faithless elector thing to work Clinton has to take both Michigan (appears to be going to Trump) and New Hampshire (appears to be going to Clinton) AND twenty-two electors vote faithlessly - which has only happened once, to my knowledge and that was for VP (for history buffs, VP was originally a separately elected office).

Not very likely.

[KingsGambit]

To be blunt, there are three kinds of people who want to abolish the electoral college:

1) Those who are too ignorant to understand why it exists.
2) Those who are too ignorant to understand how it works.
3) Bitter Hillary supporters with tear-stained cheeks who can't believe Trump won.

Or maybe that's one kind of person.

It's not very charitable to assume anybody who disagrees with you is stupid. I would suggest that in the past century in particular, the boundaries between the states have blurred significantly and that at this point in time, individual states are not the disparate entities they once were.

I don't buy the argument that "rural, smaller town voters" would be ignored. As it stands now, most of these voters already can be ignored because they don't live in swing states.

[Jaecp]

FYI: for the faithless elector thing to work Clinton has to take both Michigan (appears to be going to Trump) and New Hampshire (appears to be going to Clinton) AND twenty-two electors vote faithlessly - which has only happened once, to my knowledge and that was for VP (for history buffs, VP was originally a separately elected office).

Not very likely.

That really would destroy the college - but parties spend a LOT of time and money to ensure that the guys and gals they elect can be trusted to vote as they promised.

I wonder, if we were to continue on this "how crazy can 2016 get" if faithless electors put someone other than Trump into power whether this would be respected by the people who didn't win the popular vote for have been crowing about how that doesn't matter?

The point of my question wasn't about it's likelihood, but a query of if the people who are quite content that their candidate won despite having fewer people vote for their candidate would be as magnanimous if they then lost under a faithless elector scenario.