Thank God for the Electoral College

Mark75H said:

In theory it prevents a populist dictator from becoming president.

Think back to 1788 ... suppose some extremely popular pro-reunification with England candidate had won the popular vote ... the electors would have chosen someone else.

Whether a current group of electors would be able to both recognize and stand up to a populist dictator is unknown.

Click to expand...

Good point, I guess it cuts both ways then. No matter what you do, bad outcomes remain possible.

They sort of are a final guard against a tyrannical present.

That said, the electors going rouge and voting for Clinton could start a constitutional crisis.

And I believe the house can vote to reject electoral votes.

Boondock Saint said:

This is a drive by post for the time being (I haven't read anything since my initial post in the thread as yet), but I wanted to get this video out here now. It's from the same guy who does the videos I first linked. I believe it to be a must watch. It's a follow up to his prior videos on the matter. The EC does not provide the state-level protection that some folks think it provides.

Click to expand...

Boondock,

I have too much respect and regard for you to let you walk away with just that. You frequently submit well thought-out replies on a variety of topics, but this wasn't one of them. As you said this is a drive by post for the time being. I'll accept that, but I suggest this drive by doesn't advance your position. There were substantive responses in those other posts that addressed head on many of the arguments this new video puts forward, as well as refuting the previous videos by this same author.

I'll respectfully look forward to your future comments once you've had the time to digest all of the postings in the entire thread, and when you can respond properly with more than just a YouTube video link.

WatTyler said:

something more modern, like Russia, 1917-1923. No front lines, starvation and disease, cities put to the torch and towns completely wiped out with ropes, axes and hammers. To save bullets for the real fighting. So yes, liberals are stupid. But they should be reminded that Bush-Gore 2000 is how a government peacefully changes hands under tough circumstances. Reds-Whites 1920 is how it is done differently.

Click to expand...

More modern ... Spanish Civil War ... towns being bombed by Air Force ... thousands of church leaders disappearing or turning up dead ... Mexico supporting one side ... Russia accepting all the gold bullion from the treasury and screwing over the partisans

WatTyler said:

An acquaintance (who lives in CA, and who the last time I checked was not even a citizen) just sent me an appeal to convince a minimum of 23 electors to change their pledges and vote for Clinton. And a link to a petition. So many errors there, I cannot even begin to count. But if I felt it was worth a response and probably messing up a business relationship, I would caution her that unless she knows she has more guns and ammunition than all of her neighbors combined, she should be careful what she wishes for. People pushing for something like this are pushing for a civil war. And not some kind of quaint and honorable one, with a Gettysburg and an Antietam, bad as that would be. No, something more modern, like Russia, 1917-1923. No front lines, starvation and disease, cities put to the torch and towns completely wiped out with ropes, axes and hammers. To save bullets for the real fighting. So yes, liberals are stupid. But they should be reminded that Bush-Gore 2000 is how a government peacefully changes hands under tough circumstances. Reds-Whites 1920 is how it is done differently.

Click to expand...

I don't think an elector has ever flipped, so the odds of 38 (needed to get her to 270) flipping are basically nil.

press1280 said:

I don't think an elector has ever flipped, so the odds of 38 (needed to get her to 270) flipping are basically nil.

Click to expand...

Several have, starting in the early years. Never amounted to anything of consequence.

Mark75H said:

Several have, starting in the early years. Never amounted to anything of consequence.

Click to expand...

think it did screw up a vp selection in the 1800's but was fixed when it went to the house

swinokur said:

the passage of years has not diminished the light of their genius

me

Click to expand...

YES, genius IS the right word!

aray said:

Boondock,

I have too much respect and regard for you to let you walk away with just that. You frequently submit well thought-out replies on a variety of topics, but this wasn't one of them. As you said this is a drive by post for the time being. I'll accept that, but I suggest this drive by doesn't advance your position. There were substantive responses in those other posts that addressed head on many of the arguments this new video puts forward, as well as refuting the previous videos by this same author.

I'll respectfully look forward to your future comments once you've had the time to digest all of the postings in the entire thread, and when you can respond properly with more than just a YouTube video link.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your understanding. It was certainly not my intention to toss a grenade or two into the thread and flee while watching it burn. I was to this point unable to come back with a cogent response. I'm back now; whether or not my response is cogent will be entirely up to the reader.

I have what feel like a dozen or so multi-quotes in this post, so forgive me if the order and/or formatting gets mangled, but I'm attempting to make it as clear as possible.

aray said:

Boondock,

With the same due respect, that video’s logic is badly flawed. (I’m speaking of the first one, the main one.)

It’s also internally inconsistent. At one point he argues for Electoral College votes to be distributed to the states, with a minimum of one vote each, but at the very end abandons that idea altogether and advocates for just a pure popular vote across the nation.

As an aside, why even bother to have states at all then? Why not just cede control to an all-powerful Federal Government? The Framers feared that, and vested the Sovereign States with certain powers, powers that sadly over time have not been exercised, have been eroded, and have led to growth of Big Government far removed from control of The People.

Click to expand...

First, a small point regarding the strength of the federal government (most especially the executive) as envisioned by the Founders. There was significant disagreement over this very point. None of them wanted a return to monarchy or even anything that had the appearance thereof (Adams aside, if you believe in some of the slanders against him), but there was significant debate over the powers of the executive vs. the legislature. Would we be ruled by the many, or the few? The Constitution very narrowly defines the powers granted to the legislature while purposefully leaving those granted the executive rather vague. Still, there was no disagreement at all over whether or not we would be a nation of laws, a republic (Latin res publica, roughly "the public thing/matter"). All that to say, a popularly elected executive would still be bound by the laws of the land. Such a scenario would not usher in the tyranny of the majority to the utter repression of the minority.

aray said:

As for his 22% argument it’s fallacious. For example he assumes some candidate can win 50% +1 of the votes in Maryland and DC, and the same in North Dakota and South Dakota. That’s just not realistic, as the regional interests are so dramatically different no candidate would ever be able to pull that off. And the historic voting patterns and party registrations provide ample evidence of that fact. He's arguing for a unicorn and it just doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

The 22% argument is somewhat disingenuous, granted. However, it speaks to the very point that the system as designed could otherwise restrict the voice of a large majority of the populace. It's possible to win the EC with merely the 11 largest states. Again, unlikely, but also possible. Where is the protection for the states, writ large, in such a scenario?

Please keep in mind, too, that California for years went red, while Texas went blue. In fact, since the Civil War, California has gone red more often than blue, and Texas has gone blue more than red. Populations and priorities change, and so too does the composition of the electoral math needed for 270.

(Are one/both of us falling victim to recency bias in our arguments? Hmm.)

aray said:

He also seems incensed that some voters’ votes “count more” than others. Exactly right, and that was by design. Far from being an anathema, that is inherent in why we have both a House of Representatives and also a Senate. I didn’t hear him criticize the structure of Congress at the same time, yet to be logically consistent he should have done so.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't speak for him (as if I know the guy), but the legislature was of course designed that way to speak for both the people and the states. We agree that is an incredibly important virtue of our republic, but it of course has been diminished by the 17th Amendment. Were I king for a day, the 17th Amendment would be repealed.

I gather that most people in support of the EC do so under the premise that it protects states' interests. Presently, it does to some extent, but that protection is not inherently guaranteed. It is subject entirely to population shifts. Should the "big one" hit California and Nevada becomes oceanfront property, I imagine they'll see a huge boom in population.

(I kid about the cataclysmic earthquake, but the underlying point is unchanged: the EC could eventually codify that the half of America living in rural areas receives even less of a voice than they do at present. Then where shall we find our republic? Likely condemned to the ash heap, unfortunately.)

aray said:

We are NOT a Democracy. We are a Republic, and I’m very glad that we are, for the Separation of Powers and complex system of Checks and Balances against concentration of power in any one location, even in tyranny of the majority, is an important foundation of our Constitution.

Click to expand...

You'll receive no argument on the matter from me here.

aray said:

And the historic results speak for themselves. The only people who win by dissolving the Electoral College are Big Government, “free stuff” sorts of candidates. He would consider yesterday’s result, and I quote, “a failure”. He also labels Bush v Gore “a failure” for the same reason. I consider them both tremendous victories for the country and for the Constitution.

Click to expand...

I remain skeptical on this assessment, but I'm not recalcitrant on the issue. I think this dialogue is rather important. After all, it's possible that my wife is right and that I'm wrong about everything this, too.

alucard0822 said:

The electoral college is one of the differences between a constitutional republic and a democracy, part of the reason it's lasted as long as it has. If there were any changes, get rid of the 17th amendment, return the senate to it's place to represent the states. If they want to change the electoral college, give electoral votes to the states to appoint. The erosion of f government representing states rights alongside the rights of the people, and the concentration of power in population centers has caused far more harm than good.

Click to expand...

TheBert said:

The 17th amendment broke the electoral college.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Among the lumps taken by our republic, the 17th Amendment is especially damaging.

danb said:

One thing to note abut the "popular vote" is that we have no idea what the actual popular vote would have been without the electoral college. the EC creates an incentive to get-out-the-vote only in certain states. Not much point in TX or CA. CA actually has tens of millions of republicans, many don't turn out because whats the point?

Presidential campaigns only focus on certain states as a result.

No way to know what the popular vote really would have been without the incentives of the EC.

Click to expand...

Melnic said:

I think that what some people are not thinking about is that if the election WAS by popular vote, then many of the opposing party members in a biased state would actually vote.
That is to say, more Repblicans would vote in Marlyland and California. More Democrats would vote in Kentucky such.
We don't know who would have won the popular vote in this election IF the popular vote would have decided the presidency. Why? because it didn't and many people know that and some did not vote. I know several who did not vote because they were in MD and I urged with failure to get them to vote, especially for the local elections.

Click to expand...

I think this is an excellent point. Voters in some states are disenfranchised by the electoral college. Anyone in our fair state who wanted to see Trump as president was shouted down by the Free Shit Army and their backers because they presently outnumber us. A popular election for the executive (necessarily retaining all that which makes our republic) gives equal voice to my vote, your vote, and the votes of all others.

Republicans in Maryland, would turn out in record numbers because their voice would finally be meaningful. It hasn't been for a generation at this point.

aray said:

Absolutely. We need to get the word out, and out beyond the confines of MD. The Electoral College is under dire threat, and the proponents of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) that would render the EC essentially null and void, without amending the Constitution I might add, are 61% of the way to their goal. They don't need all states to participate, only states with 270 EC votes to swing the election all by themselves. At that point, it doesn't matter what the other states do, because those NPVIC states' electoral votes alone will decide the outcome of the election.

Maryland under Martin O'Malley became the first state in the union to pass the NPVIC. MD was then joined by: New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, DC, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, and most recently New York.

Anyone see a pattern there? You are known by your friends, or in this case by our enemies...

(And to be clear to Boondock, I am NOT !!! calling you an enemy; I'm speaking of the liberals in the Big Government states that if the NPVIC passes will run roughshod over us all.)

Click to expand...

I would never assume you to make me for your enemy.

Devil's advocate here - if the states retain their right to apportion their EC votes as they see fit, and ~270 EC votes worth of states decide to award their votes to the winner of the national popular vote, what's the problem?

The states as individual entities would have made their decision through their own laws. Most of us are proponents of states' rights and the republic itself. That poses an interesting conflict, doesn't it?

sxs said:

Strongly disagree with the highlighted. In fact, right now the candidates tend to do the most campaigning in the 'battleground states'. Why wouldn't they do most campaigning in the largest cities (NY, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, etc). And, consider this: if that's where they are campaigning, that is who likely to whom they would pander. Further, the electoral system adds a 'regional representation' (actually state by state....much like the idea of the Senate) to the Presidential Election.

Click to expand...

We already see a version of the "largest cities" argument at present with the various swing states. More resources are necessarily expended in states where the outcome isn't already determined. There's a reason why neither candidate invested in Maryland: Hillary didn't need to hold our hands to ensure that we (as a state) would vote for her; Trump knew that in any scenario where he won Maryland, he'd be looking at a Reagan-esque victory already. Better to spend resources elsewhere in case the landslide didn't happen.

press1280 said:

I don't think an elector has ever flipped, so the odds of 38 (needed to get her to 270) flipping are basically nil.

Click to expand...

Electors have flipped roughly 1% of the time, and it has never altered the results. This is fantastic, but the door is still open to enough faithless electors who are simply chosen by their respective parties to vote however they choose. A relatively small fine is paid, and one's political career is effectively dead, but it is indeed possible.
------------------------------------------

In short, I believe that the EC doesn't actually protect states' interests. While it presumably has done so in practice sometimes, it is not bound to necessarily do so in the future. It also doesn't protect the will of the people. A system whereby our leader is chosen through a method that protects neither the states nor the people is one in need of revision. Perhaps not abolition, but revision.

This incredibly nerdy discussion has brought me joy this morning. I look forward to continuing it.

Wow bds that was a lot of work but great reading. I am really learning a lot in this thread. Never heard of the npvic - seems kind of creepy to me but I get the idea. Not sure yet where I personally sit on all this, arguments on both sides have had merit.

Boondock Saint said:

The 22% argument is somewhat disingenuous, granted. However, it speaks to the very point that the system as designed could otherwise restrict the voice of a large majority of the populace. It's possible to win the EC with merely the 11 largest states. Again, unlikely, but also possible. Where is the protection for the states, writ large, in such a scenario?

Click to expand...

It’s an argument based in theory, not in practice. One can conjecture a number of scenarios where either approach fails to protect someone, somewhere, somehow. However I have a greater fear of mob rule by the denser population centers over the rural interests than I do the theoretical mathematical possibility that Maryland and DC will find common ground with North Dakota and South Dakota and the other states in that 22% contrived example.

Boondock Saint said:

I wouldn't speak for him (as if I know the guy), but the legislature was of course designed that way to speak for both the people and the states. We agree that is an incredibly important virtue of our republic, but it of course has been diminished by the 17th Amendment. Were I king for a day, the 17th Amendment would be repealed.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I’m really hoping that now that Republicans have historic representation not just at the Federal level, but also at the State level as well, that a sufficient number of state legislative bodies will call for a Constitutional Convention and pass the Liberty Amendments, which as I’m sure you probably know include a repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Boondock Saint said:

… the underlying point is unchanged: the EC could eventually codify that the half of America living in rural areas receives even less of a voice than they do at present. Then where shall we find our republic? Likely condemned to the ash heap, unfortunately.)

Click to expand...

Again we’re dealing with hypothetical probabilities vs. demonstrated performance. In practice every time the Electoral College has been called upon to pick between the popular vote vs. the EC count, every time it decided a race between a Democrat and Republican where there was such a split, every time the EC has been tested between urban & big-government interests vs. rural & local state interests, the EC has done its job the way the Founders intended, and the election was decided in favor of Liberty.

Boondock Saint said:

I think this is an excellent point. Voters in some states are disenfranchised by the electoral college. Anyone in our fair state who wanted to see Trump as president was shouted down by the Free Shit Army and their backers because they presently outnumber us. A popular election for the executive (necessarily retaining all that which makes our republic) gives equal voice to my vote, your vote, and the votes of all others.

Republicans in Maryland, would turn out in record numbers because their voice would finally be meaningful. It hasn't been for a generation at this point.

Click to expand...

And Democrats in Maryland, in NYC, in Chicago, in LA and across all of California, would similarly do the same. If our votes don’t matter in MD and so people don’t go to the polls, that sword cuts both ways. Democrats likewise don’t bother to vote because they know that MD, NY, IL, CA, and so on are going to go Democrat with or without their vote. So the tiny number of Republicans here in MD will get more than swamped by the big urban population areas, which are intensely Democrat, Big Government, and Entitlement cultured. It’s way more easy for them to turn out big volumes of untapped votes than it is for us.

Now, a vote in North Dakota for example counts for something – more than its population would otherwise justify. But without the EC, that same vote in ND would be cancelled out by a vote in NYC, indeed by busloads of deadbeats in NYC.

Boondock Saint said:

Devil's advocate here - if the states retain their right to apportion their EC votes as they see fit, and ~270 EC votes worth of states decide to award their votes to the winner of the national popular vote, what's the problem?

The states as individual entities would have made their decision through their own laws. Most of us are proponents of states' rights and the republic itself. That poses an interesting conflict, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

No conflict at all; I respect states’ rights. But that’s why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is so dangerous. I believe it’s legal, but I also believe it is wrong, and dangerously so. As I pointed out before: Martin O’Malley kicked this off in Maryland, to be joined by New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, DC, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, and New York. These are not the states that I want picking our president. I have nothing in common with the culture of the majority of the population in these states. And if they get just a few more solid Democratic states to pass this legislation at the state level, it’s all over, and I believe we’ll get an endless series of presidents like Gore, Hillary, and Bloomberg. And then once they pack the courts with liberals who don’t care one whit about Constitutional limits or Separation of Powers, I believe our Constitutional Republic is all but doomed.

Boondock Saint said:

In short, I believe that the EC doesn't actually protect states' interests. While it presumably has done so in practice sometimes, it is not bound to necessarily do so in the future. It also doesn't protect the will of the people. A system whereby our leader is chosen through a method that protects neither the states nor the people is one in need of revision. Perhaps not abolition, but revision.

This incredibly nerdy discussion has brought me joy this morning. I look forward to continuing it.

Click to expand...

So we see why the Founding Fathers debated this point for so long. Patriots of sincere faith differed on how to balance competing interests. I suspect they covered all of the points we’ve already discussed, and then some. But in the end, they chose the current make-up of the Electoral College. They didn’t know how it would work out in practice. We have the benefit of hindsight. I assert that is has been shown to protect states’ interests every time it has been exercised; it does protect the will of the people by providing a bulwark of the minority against the tyranny of the majority, while at the same time providing a strong preference towards the majority in almost all cases; and it should be left alone as the genius of the Founding Fathers has been validated in practice.

I also believe it will come under unbelievable assault in the next four years. I note Sen. Barbara Boxer on her way out the door has already talked of introducing legislation to overturn the EC within the last few days. Congress is not a serious threat to the EC however; it is the state legislators in just a few more of the big blue states that pose the most dire threat to the EC, and hence to the future of our nation.

Boondock, a tip of my hat to a fellow Patriot.

dplay said:

YES, genius IS the right word!

Click to expand...

Another large part of the puzzle is that they prayed before pretty much every decision they made.

Dr. Arnn Defends the Electoral College

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/16/dr_arnn_defends_the_electoral_college

These are good as well


https://youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU


https://youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0

Trust me, I'm not trying to pile on or beat a dead horse, but this topic comes up from time to time and I wanted to document something here for future reference only, otherwise I'll forget it the next time we discuss the Electoral College.

According to Charles Krauthammer there are about 5,000 counties in the US and Hillary only won 300 of them. That speaks to the whole issue of balancing raw population with regional and geographic interests.

(And yes I know I don't have the original source, and Charles is an opinion writer not a journalist, however this is such an easily disproved statistic that, if he got it wrong, I'm sure someone in the Big Media will call him on it. Consequently unless shown otherwise I'll default to believing his numbers.)

There. Now I don't have to rely on my ever-decreasing memory.

"In 2007, Maryland became the first state to approve legislation that would give Maryland’s electoral votes to the winner of the nation’s popular vote. Since then, 10 other states have passed similar legislation."

http://wtop.com/virginia/2016/12/most-virginia-electoral-college-members-see-need-for-changes/

Is the Electoral College Perfect, no. What many people miss is the election was won via popular vote. The bottom line aggregate means nothing. For a candidate to win the EC votes of a state that candidate has to win the popular vote of that state. The aggregate is just shows why we cannot have popular vote wins it all system. With a popular vote wins all system NY, Ill, California would be all that is needed to win the Presidency

jrumann59 said:

Is the Electoral College Perfect, no. What many people miss is the election was won via popular vote. The bottom line aggregate means nothing. For a candidate to win the EC votes of a state that candidate has to win the popular vote of that state. The aggregate is just shows why we cannot have popular vote wins it all system. With a popular vote wins all system NY, Ill, California would be all that is needed to win the Presidency

Click to expand...

That's right. It's an election by the states, with states that have larger populations like CA, NY, and IL already carrying more weight than smaller ones, but those with lower populations still having their interests protected. Like the Senate, where WY has as many senators as CA.

It was never, ever intended to be a "popular" majority nationwide vote. The Left has fostered that myth.

Trump won 30 states.
Clinton won 20 states.

It was a landslide.

Just another way of looking at it.

aray said:

Trust me, I'm not trying to pile on or beat a dead horse, but this topic comes up from time to time and I wanted to document something here for future reference only, otherwise I'll forget it the next time we discuss the Electoral College.

According to Charles Krauthammer there are about 5,000 counties in the US and Hillary only won 300 of them. That speaks to the whole issue of balancing raw population with regional and geographic interests.

(And yes I know I don't have the original source, and Charles is an opinion writer not a journalist, however this is such an easily disproved statistic that, if he got it wrong, I'm sure someone in the Big Media will call him on it. Consequently unless shown otherwise I'll default to believing his numbers.)

There. Now I don't have to rely on my ever-decreasing memory.

Click to expand...

one of many sources...

http://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/BL-WB-66979?responsive=y from the link.......

"Mr. Trump won roughly 2,600 counties. Since 2012, the population in those counties has grown by more than 2.8 million people. But in this year’s election, they produced 3.5 million more votes than in 2012.

In other words: Mr. Trump’s counties grew, but his vote tallies grew even more.

Mrs. Clinton won about 490 counties. Since 2012, the population in those counties grew by more than 4.4 million people. Still, they produced only 3.4 million more votes than they did in 2012."

and what a coincidence, those states are populated with the elitist leftists who think they are smarter than the rest of us.

Thank God for the genius of the Founding Fathers.