General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPhilip Gourevitch: Abolish the electoral college. Let's stop talking about democracy and let's have one.
Link to tweet
Abolish the electoral college.
Let’s stop talking about democracy and let’s have one.
Andrew Prokop
If Nebraska Rs switch the state to winner-take-all, and it’s too late for Maine to do the same, the impact could be enormous.
Namely, WI-MI-PA would no longer be enough to get Harris to 270.
She’d need at least one more swing state (NV, GA, AZ, or NC) to get over the line
That last image is nightmare fuel...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Elessar Zappa
(16,385 posts)
Dennis Donovan
(31,059 posts)*Which* House (the 118th or the 119th Congress) I'm not sure...
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)Dennis Donovan
(31,059 posts)That makes me feel a bit better. 
Polybius
(21,900 posts)Each state gets one vote. So for example, lets say we win the House by 15 seats. CA has 52 House seats (40 Dem and 12 Rep). The vast majority are Democrats. So, they would vote for Harris, but get just one vote. That's 39 wasted Democratic votes, while just 12 Republicans are out.
A state like Wyoming has just one House member, and she would vote Trump.
We'd lose easily, unless we can gain like 70 seats this year which is an impossibility.
BOSSHOG
(44,738 posts)The only argument against that is a vote against democracy
The EC was designed to protect the rights of slave owners. Trump wants to use it to stay out of jail not to become President. He will use the presidency to enrich himself and his allies and to harm his enemies. The state of our election.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)We see people saying this all the time. "Abolish the Electoral College!"
Well, there is a mechanism in our system to do just that. You just have to amend the Constitution. Easy Peasy.
Except that getting amendments passed and ratified by enough states turns out to be a very difficult thing to do.
So, suggesting that is easy. Accomplishing that is next to impossible in a relatively evenly divided electorate.
Bottom line - It ain't happening.
Next suggestion?
sarisataka
(22,695 posts)is to pass a Constitutional Amendment before election day.
How hard can the be 
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)People demand what cannot happen, instead of planning what they can do to elect enough people to make something happen. I've never understood that.
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)Amongst our little county chapter of the NAACP . . .
Since it is based on the 3/5 Compromise . . . and we descend from enslaved Americans -
Did the 13h, 14th, and 15th, make everything that derived from the 3/5 - unconstitutional? We have some good legal minds on board - but I want an answer to the question.
There are no longer 3/5 of people. We are one person and are now able (theoretically) to vote. It's not my problem if those full human beings in red states vote for a party other than the GOP. Or choose not to vote at all.
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)It was a compromise to get smaller states to agree to support the Constitution. They thought it was unfair that more populous states had more sway in electing the President, and could easily ignore the smaller states.
And, in a way, they were correct. However, it was effectively a bar against the one person one vote concept of electing leaders. It is still how things work, and will be until a Constitutional Amendment changes that part of the Constitution. Since that is impossible in the time frame before the election, it is not a goal that can be reached. The time to do that is AFTER we elect enough people who agree with that idea to Congress and to enough state legislatures to ratify an amendment.
So, demanding such a change is silly. Instead we should be working on electing people so we can do in over the time required to amend the Constitution. And yet, just before every election, some people come here and demand that the Electoral College be abolished. Instead, they should be working their asses off to elect Democrats to legislative offices everywhere.
Why are they not doing that? Waste of time.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.
https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)I know the facts without resource as I've been a part of this little group since 2021.
I'm also a Democratic Committee Member and local elected official. I believe it can be done, because when I moved here in 2013 there was NO Democratic Party presence and a 100% Republican local government.
We now have an all Democratic Council (I was elected last year) and a Michael Steele type of Republican Mayor. We even saw Tom Malinowski win two terms.
Telling me something is impossible or dismissing an idea that is "radical" doesn't fly with me.
It's not radical - if ridding ourselves of an immoral concept and brushing off a little bit of the dirt of our original sin.
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)Thursday July 19, 1787 - James Madison
He then went on to propose an outline of what would become the electoral college.
Why would our ancestors have presented a problem?
Madison was a slave owner from VA. If you counted the enslaved Americans - it was the most populous state. Black Americans comprised 40% of the population.
Madison, in one of his numerous lengthy speeches at the Constitutional Convention was clear that with a popular vote the Southern (aka small ) states:
"Could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”
There were approximately 500K enslaved human beings in the South - and they were absolutely key to the economic health of the Southern states.
So was it small states vs. large states and gaining political power? Yep. How did they get the Slavers/Small across the finish line?
The 3/5 Compromise.
In VA it garnered the slavers 12 electoral votes.
The direct line to the EC is that compromise. As the demographics change at a rapid pace - we need to start now.
It took the ancestors in my dad's family 100 years to get the full rights of American citizenship. If black folks start now - it might take 50 or 100 years . . .
But the population in America in 50 years is much more likely to look at each other and say - "The majority of us are some shade of non-white. Lets throw this out. Its insulting."
We start now. With Harris being elected - there is a critical piece of reparations hidden in her housing affordability plan which can be easily passed. We don't stop that fight - but its been 56 years since George Romney pointed out that housing problem. 56 years.
Yeah I know 1968 was a terrible year and there were bigger issues for America to deal with. I wasn't born until 73 so I missed it.
What I haven't missed is incremental pressure and piling on bit by bit until you break the status quo's back.
What is 50 years to the African American? Nothing - we start now. We've been formulating the approach since 2021 - so it's not all of a sudden to the deep pockets in Hunterdon County.
dpibel
(3,943 posts)You'll certainly never get any movement in the right direction if you say, "STFU about the electoral college, you all."
You're responding to something that isn't even a demand. It's an observation: The Electoral College is antidemocratic. It's just a fact.
There's nothing there that says, "Let's divert resources to this lost cause." There's nothing that says,
"Don't vote because of the electoral college."
As long as there are people, even ones generally on the correct side of issues, saying, "It's useless to even point out that the Electoral College sucks," there will assuredly never be popular support for it.
As is frequently pointed out on this very website, the vast majority of Americans pay no attention to politics other than a vague biennial or quadrennial moment of attention. I'd venture a guess that there's a big wad of people who couldn't venture a guess whether the electoral college is good, bad, or indifferent.
So I'm at a loss to see what is gained by saying, "Don't talk about the Electoral College."
MineralMan
(151,269 posts)I didn't say otherwise. What I said that it makes no sense to bring it up just before an election. It cannot be changed before the election or before the inauguration.
The time to bring this up is after the election. If enough seats have been won to make such a change possible, by all means bring it up.
Instead, I suggested working hard to make sure that we elect a legislative environment that might make such a change. Did you not read my post?
Anyhow, you can talk about it all you like. I don't control any discussion venue. I'm just saying that talk about this at this time, just before an election, is a complete waste of time. Save it until after you've WON the election that is about to take place. Work to WIN it. Then you might have something to talk about that might have some chance of success.
Please read ALL of my post, not just the parts you don't like.
dpibel
(3,943 posts)Unless you disagree that most Americans pay no attention to politics except around election time, then there's no better time to get a message to the masses than right now.
As has been said before on this board: One thing does not exclude the other when it comes to, e.g., GOTV and talking about the EC.
As for you further command: Only talk about the EC if there is a sufficient Congressional majority to make it happen, well, I guess that's how women got the vote, right?
As for your instructions on how to read your posts: Thanks, boss!!
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)We brought this up in 2021. You just weren't in the room where the discussion happened.
My mom died in early June. My parents did alright for themselves. She left $20K to our legal fund to fight this fight.
Yes - she was white, but her children and grands, and greats are not. She also left a sizable chunk to Planned Parenthood- because she thought that was another 50 year fight.
bottomofthehill
(9,390 posts)The littles are not giving up the power.
elocs
(24,486 posts)jimfields33
(19,382 posts)elocs
(24,486 posts)Hillary did not bother to make even a single general election campaign appearance here in Wisconsin. Nobody is doing that anymore.
dpibel
(3,943 posts)You know: The many rallies in California, New York, and Texas!
The Electoral College ensures only that most of the campaigning is done in the half-dozen swing states.
How, exactly, that protects the interests of, say, Wyoming escapes me.
ScratchCat
(2,740 posts)Because we are United States and not a singular entity, the States elect the POTUS, not the population. To change this changes the very nature of this country. While its not fair that people's votes in California and New York essentially don't count the same as votes from other States, that's just the way it is. There will never be a serious effort to amend the US Constitution to change how the POTUS is elected.
DavidDvorkin
(20,589 posts)Or to have the people elect their senators or to have slavery eliminated.
Nothing is set in stone. That's why we have ways to amend the Constitution.
The political possibility of eliminating the Electoral College is another matter, but it's a separate question entirely.
Polybius
(21,900 posts)Republicans really shot themselves in the foot with that one. What were they thinking?
allegorical oracle
(6,480 posts)U.S. citizens share. Common sense tells me that the only trustworthy way to conduct the process is to standardize it.
Venture to say that many, if not most, voters don't realize that they are voting for a slate of handpicked, partisan electors -- not for the actual candidates. The current system can be gamed, adds a needless, complex extra step, and injects doubts about the legitimacy of results.
It's doubtful that the ECollege will be abandoned. But steps could be taken to ensure that the EC votes are allocated in the same manner nationwide. Personally, I favor a proportional allocation -- down to decimal points. That way, a greater percentage of voters' voices are heard. Winner-take-all seems the least and laziest way to consider the population's preference.
republianmushroom
(22,325 posts)
Emile
(42,289 posts)know my vote counted.
Polybius
(21,900 posts)Eliminating the EC would eliminate things like "CNN is now projecting that Joe Biden has won the state of Georgia."
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)vote while Trump won the electoral college. That was a massively fun experience.
WTAF.
Polybius
(21,900 posts)Of course that wasn't fun. I'm not saying to keep it, I'm saying that I enjoy certain aspects of it.
States like California take forever to count. If no more EC, in a close election, it could take weeks to decide.
Beartracks
(14,591 posts)
Freddie
(10,104 posts)I’m from Pennsylvania, apparently our votes are the only ones that count!
The whole thing is just plain wrong. In NO other country does the loser get to take office.
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)They also have an anti-democratic system, thanks to de Gaulle.