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

[Terraceth]

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

Not necessarily. Remember, if it had been abolished beforehand, he and his campaign would have focused on different states and the popular vote could very well be different than what we have now. He may not like the electoral college, but that's what he would have to win to become president so he worked to try to win it and succeeded.

Now, if the system had been changed to a popular vote, he lost it, but he would have won had the electoral college remained, then perhaps that would have been another matter.

[Mountain Man]

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

In theory, yes, but they would be going against hundreds of years of tradition.

[Mountain Man]

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.

I didn't say they were stupid, I said they were ignorant. And rural states aren't ignored even if candidates do tend to focus on swing states. They're mathematically required for an electoral college win.

[KingsGambit]

I didn't say they were stupid, I said they were ignorant.

Either way, the attitude that "any thinking person must agree with me" is simply arrogant.

[Mountain Man]

Either way, the attitude that "any thinking person must agree with me" is simply arrogant.

Oh, so now you're going to criticize me for your interpretation of my "attitude".

How about instead you just admit you were wrong and that I never said they were stupid. I chose the word "ignorant" for a reason.

[Jaecp]

In theory, yes, but they would be going against hundreds of years of tradition.

And said tradition includes a fair number of faithless electors.

[Mountain Man]

And said tradition includes a fair number of faithless electors.

So tell me, how many times has a president won the electoral college during the election but ultimately lost because faithless electors went against the will of the people?

[Mountain Man]

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.

Apparently Hillary laughed at Bill when he said she should try to appeal to rural voters. And then she lost the election. Maybe she should have taken Bill's advice

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/11/13/aps-pace-2/

[rogue06]

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.

Lot of rural areas in places like Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[Cow Poke]

Not necessarily. Remember, if it had been abolished beforehand, he and his campaign would have focused on different states and the popular vote could very well be different than what we have now. He may not like the electoral college, but that's what he would have to win to become president so he worked to try to win it and succeeded.

Now, if the system had been changed to a popular vote, he lost it, but he would have won had the electoral college remained, then perhaps that would have been another matter.

EGGzackly - BOTH sides knew the rules 'going in' - and BOTH sides campaigned strategically for "the 270", not for the popular vote.

[Bill the Cat]

And said tradition includes a fair number of faithless electors.

Not since 1972 has a faithless elector cast for a different party. Most of the time when there is a block of "faithless electors", it was because the candidate died before the EC votes were cast.

[Sparko]

A lot of electors would have to change their votes for the election to change. And that would cause an outroar that would put the current sissy protests to shame. It would be we could no longer trust our electors. The snowflakes would be happy of course, THIS time. but what about the next time it could happen? So I think both sides would revolt against such a thing.

So theoretically it could happen, but not likely.

[Roy]

Not since 1972 has a faithless elector cast for a different party. Most of the time when there is a block of "faithless electors", it was because the candidate died before the EC votes were cast.

A quick check of Wikipedia suggests the opposite - that there have only been two instances when multiple "faithless electors" voted differently because of a candidate's death, but six instances of a block of "faithless electors" voting against their pledge because they did not like the candidate (1896, 1836, 1832, 1828, 1801 and 1796).

The 1796 election was bizarre, with some faithless electors conspiring to change the electoral victor from Adams to Pinckney, only to be thwarted by a different group of faithless electors who declined to vote for Pinckney (as they had pledged) at all, with the result that Pinckney, who would have become vice-president if the electoral college had all voted as they had pledged to, lost the vice-president post to Jefferson.

Why do y'all still permit such shenanigans???

[The Thinker]

I'm all for destroying the electoral college. The popular vote is what we need. Elections should be determined by the will of the majority, not the minority. The electoral college is insanity.

[Sparko]

A quick check of Wikipedia suggests the opposite - that there have only been two instances when multiple "faithless electors" voted differently because of a candidate's death, but six instances of a block of "faithless electors" voting against their pledge because they did not like the candidate (1896, 1836, 1832, 1828, 1801 and 1796).

The 1796 election was bizarre, with some faithless electors conspiring to change the electoral victor from Adams to Pinckney, only to be thwarted by a different group of faithless electors who declined to vote for Pinckney (as they had pledged) at all, with the result that Pinckney, who would have become vice-president if the electoral college had all voted as they had pledged to, lost the vice-president post to Jefferson.

Why do y'all still allow such shenanigans???

I think this is actually the way the founding fathers wanted it, to prevent uninformed voters from electing an idiot president. The electors are supposed to be well informed and will usually vote the way the people do, but they don't have to. So if the popular vote decided to vote in a complete moron, then the electors have a choice to not vote that person it. But states were also afraid that the electors could do the opposite and vote in someone else despite the informed will of the people, so they made sure that the electors were dedicated men and women that swore to vote the way the people in the state wanted and not to vote their own will instead.

So it was another "check and balance"

So legally they can change the vote to Clinton if they want and that is the actual vote that counts. But if you think the riots now are bad, just wait if they do something like that.