Home > Political & Other Important Issues > Political Issues > How is the electoral college influence?

How is the electoral college influence?

  1. All this talk about the popular vote............but it is the electoral college that matters.

    What is the greatest influence of the electoral college?

    Why does the media totally skirt the issue?
  2. The greatest influence is the citizen vote for that state. They're supposed to vote in accordance how the state populace vote.
  3. Without the ec, the national election will be skewed..much like many state elections.
    For instance, in illinois, the state is controlled by one county. This one county can force the rest of the state to do pretty much anything it tells it to.
  4. Fixed it for you.
  5. No, the EC skews the election, just as it was intended to do.
  6. Key word "supposed". There have been times when the people of the EC have decided they know better than the rest of the state and voted as they pleased. Big NO-NO!
  7. The electoral college and the Senate were both crafted to help insure we remain a republic instead of a democracy. Both are designed quite intentionally, to be a check and balance on the concentration of population. As the above poster stated Chicago controls Illinois politics just like NYC controls NY politics.
    The 17th amendment damaged the Senate's ability to fulfill its role just as the bills forcing the electors to vote for the national popular vote winner will.
  8. Ok, i see what you are saying, so yes, i agree.
  9. "Faithless Electors" are those who would vote for a candidate other than the one who won the relevant state election. This would include those enlightened states where the electors were going to vote for the winner of the national popular vote which would mean nobody's vote really counted.

    Fortunately, the Supreme Court stepped in last month and cleared things up. The electors must vote for the winner of their state vote:

  10. I would like to see the electoral college reformed.

    Overall state winner gets 2 votes representing the 2 senators. Each congressional district's vote goes to the winner of the that district. Electors must vote in accordance with the state results.

    This would eliminate battleground states and make candidates campaign equally across the nation.
  11. The Constitution establishes the Electoral College, however it does not dictate how the electors cast their vote.

    They are selected by the state and they vote for President and Vice President.

    There have been changes in the rules over the years that determine how their votes are cast, but NOT why they vote for one candidate or another.

    ME and NE have different rules for allocating their electoral college votes, and that has always been an interesting challenge at the national level. Since there is no dictate in the Constitution, the states can basically do whatever they want to divide their vote, however most now have adopted a popular vote majority approach and all electoral votes align with the state wide popular vote.

    There have been Electors who have voted AGAINST the popular vote in their state, and that is not prohibited under the US Constitution, however recent legal cases have changed that somewhat, though I'm not sure all the loopholes have been closed.

    There is no such thing as the National Popular vote, and that's very intentional. If the office of the President could be won by just the national popular vote, there would only be 8 states needed in a general election (might have risen to 9 or 10 by now) and the rest of the country would suck hind teat, as they say.
  12. You don't quite understand the faithless elector ruling. Electors don't have to vote for the winner of the state's popular vote. They have to vote as instructed by the state government.
  13. So why is the national popular vote all the news harps on?
  14. The media is all about the popular vote......even fox. I was watching the 5 and they did not even mention the electoral vote.......just how Trump was wanting to postpone the election.

    It seems the electoral college would not be postponed in the slightest.
  15. Because they want to push that narrative.
  16. Huh? In several states, there is legislation directing how their electors vote based on the popular vote within that state. If the popular vote was postponed, how would the EC vote not be postponed?
  17. That is up to the individual states. I think it would be a good system but so far 48 States don’t agree.


    Maine and Nebraska both use an alternative method of distributing their electoral votes, called the Congressional District Method. Currently, these two states are the only two in the union that diverge from the traditional winner-take-all method of electoral vote allocation.

    Since electors are awarded to each state based on the number of House seats plus the number of Senate seats (always two), the congressional district method allocated one electoral vote to each congressional district. The winner of each district is awarded one electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state's remaining two electoral votes.

    This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though since both states have adopted this modification, the statewide winners have swept all of the state's districts in every election except 2008 and 2016. In 2008, Nebraska gave four of its electoral votes to John McCain, but Barack Obama won a single electoral vote from Nebraska's 2nd congressional district. In 2016, Maine gave three of its electoral votes to Hillary Clinton, but Donald Trump won a single electoral vote in Maine's 2nd congressional district.
  18. It fits their narrative - mod rule. Social Democracy. This is the "will of the people" and what the Socialists want. They hate the idea of a Representative Republic. Look at all the "citizen initiatives" on the ballot in leftist controlled states. They WANT, no they NEED the people to choose their poison, because it relieves them of the responsibility and as such they cannot be held responsible.

    It's the "will of the people," and we will continue to hear how the Electoral College should be abandoned.

    Thing about the states that have said they will case their EC votes according to the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE. This completely destroys the value of YOUR vote if you live in that state. Of course, they are assuming that the Democrats will win the popular vote. If a Republican wins the popular vote, the ones who pushed for this will be the first to try to invalidate it.
  19. Really there is no need for an actual person; since the number of electors the several states are assigned is determined by the state's population (number of House plus two Senators) why even have a person place a vote? Presidential winner gets ALL the votes from the state won. PERIOD
  20. Because the states get to decide - one by one - how they will allocate their votes. There is no Federal law and the Constitution does not say how this is to be done.
  21. Yes I know, it was a rhetorical question.
  22. "Following the presidential election, Colorado's nine designated electors meet in the Governor's office to cast their votes for president and vice president. Under current Colorado law, each presidential elector must vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates who received the highest number of votes in Colorado's General Election."
  23. In my opinion, if the state does not turn in their electoral vote on time to be ratified by Congress, their vote is simply not counted. It would be nice if New York and California missed the deadline. Of course if no one gets 270 electoral votes, then the House votes for whomever they want. President Pelosi??
    Disclaimer- I'm not an election lawyer so I could be mistaken.
  24. Maybe this will help: ElectionMap.jpg
  25. Not really. It seems the electoral college is not a true representative of a state's geographic vote

    Denver goes dem.....but most of Colorado is rep.

    Not a good representation of the state as a whole
  26. The states should have their own version of the EC, that's for sure. State population centers are currently controlling where the state vote goes, and this disenfranchises anyone outside of these large, mostly liberal, urban areas...

    As long as the state legislators don't care enough to change the rules within the state itself, nothing will change.

    An Amendment to the US Constitution would be the best result in my opinion, however unlikely that would be to get passed...
  27. I've never understood this argument or other similar ones. We have counties in CA with less than 1,200 people and we counties with over 10,000,000 people. Why should the two be considered equal? There are huge swathes of land in this country with very few people living on them and small densely packed places with million and millions of people crammed into them. The Constitution doesn't care how many counties you won or how many acres you won. At the end of the day only one thing matters, how many EC votes did you get.
  28. Do you understand the purpose behind the Electoral College? The reason we have one in the first place? Doesn't sound like you do.
  29. I'm not sure where you're getting that. This is the Court's holding:

    "Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President."

    The last few sentences of the opinion reinforce that electors can be required to vote in accordance with the popular vote of their State:

    "And state election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State’s electors would vote the same way as its citizens.Washington’s law is only another in the same vein. It reflects a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen."

    The Chiafolo opinion doesn't say a State legislature cannot direct the electors to vote in accordance only with its will, or with the 'national popular vote,' or whatever other choice besides the State's popular vote .... but it sure as hell doesn't say it can, either. That question is not yet explicitly answered, but this opinion leans hard against it IMHO.

  30. What does a geographic vote have to do with anything? Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't consider acreage as an important voting criteria in selecting a president.
  31. Exactly. Most "voters" don't realize they don't get a vote, they are "polled".
  32. Yes, in order to give the States more equal footing in the selection of the executive. It has nothing to do with counties and how many people live in them or how big they are.
  33. That talks about the possible impact of the EC vote being delayed, yes. That's not what I asked, though. In states that have legislation dictating how the electors behave based on the popular vote - if the popular vote is delayed, how can the electoral vote not be? (Assuming the popular vote is delayed beyond the historical deadline for that state's electors to have submitted their votes.)
  34. The states need to do the same, to provide equal representation for their residents rather than Mob Rule mentality, giving all the power to specific population centers. Without this sort of divided representation within the state itself, one large city can generally dictate the entire state's vote in the Presidential election. This is counter to the principles that caused the Founders to create the EC in the first place, and should be embraced by the states as well - though it will not happen in my lifetime.
  35. Counties within a State are not the equivalent to States within the US. A State is sovereign, a county is an arbitrary political jurisdiction.
  36. Only true in a minority of states. In most states electors are legally bound to vote according to the popular vote of the state. Those that don't require it include most of the southern states, like Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc.
  37. So you are in favor of mob rule, citizen initiatives, the "will of the people," and not a representative republic.

    So in a state like Washington, where Seattle is a liberal bastion but the rest of the state is relatively conservative, the people living in the one city should decide the fate for the residents of the entire state.

    You don't see this as a problem? Be honest. If one city in YOUR state was controlling the entire outcome for your state, and YOU were not aligned with that decision, you would be perfectly OK with the results? You would consider your voice to have been heard?

    If you look at the history of the EC, how a state voted was initially decided by the State Legislature, and not by a vote of the people. Why? Because we are a Representative Republic. We elect people who represent us. We are not a social democracy where the people get to vote themselves whatever the mob wants.

    The State Legislature is made up of representatives from all over the state, each with an equal vote. This allows for the small districts - legal districts where elected officials represent the people - to have an equal say in how the state votes. This has been abandoned in favor of mob rule by all but 2 states in the Union, however even those 2 states do not allow their legislators to pick, they just use a different version of mob rule.

    In a real Representative Republic, as the Founders intended, the people would vote, their Representative would represent their vote in the actual selection of the candidate and there would actually be broad representation across the state, rather than a single, densely populated city controlling the outcome of the election.
  38. Each state's electors must meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Federal law does not permit a change in that date. If the electors of a State do not meet on that date and submit their results to Congress, in my opinion that State's electoral vote is null and the State electoral vote is forfeit. I'm sure that would spawn lawsuits but too bad.
  39. In those states they are bound by state law, which can be changed by the state government at any time. The recent faithless elector ruling doesn't change that or require a state to use a popular vote to select electors. I've said before that if they so chose, they could select electors based on a best 2 out of 3 roshambeaux game between the candidates and it would be completely constitutional.
  40. 2020 election coming up. Let's trot out the usual complaints:
    1. the voting is not pure because the counts are flawed.
    They are flawed because the taxpayers and politicians put funding of elections and testing of voting methodologies as a totally last priority. They belly ache and do nothing.
    2. There are rigged counts.
    Sure there are rigged counts - because you will not volunteer or give money to your local party organization to pay people to go and watch the counts.
    3. The person with the most votes should win.
    Same complaint.
  41. But there's no legislation stating that if the votes aren't in on time that state's electoral votes are null, right?
  42. I'm in favor of each state doing as they wish when it comes to electing politicians. So far as I know, they have all, conservative and liberal alike, used general popular vote elections. And no, I don't have a problem with it and apparently neither do the vast majority of voters because not a single state has decided to do as you suggest. Perhaps you can start a new thread about your idea.
  43. It's not my idea, it's how the Founders first established the role of the Electors and how the country worked for a very long time.

    Disenfranchised voters are not voters are all.

    Mob rule - raw democracy - doesn't work, and our Founders knew that. That's why the country was established as a Representative Republic.

    When people realize they can vote themselves other people's stuff, society will collapse.

    That's what we are seeing now.
  44. The founders never imposed an EC system on the State level and I don't know of a State that used such a system on their own. I'm really not sure what you could even be talking about.
  45. There doesn’t have to be.
  46. Maybe. Maybe not. Uncharted territory, right?

    Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
  47. Not what I said, though a little research will educate you on the process and how it has changed. Of course you won’t do that, so just keep blathering on.
  48. I'm well versed on that subject as well as recognizing a copout when I see one.
  49. I guess some people have not been reading the news. SCOTUS ruled that state electors must vote for the candidate that received the most votes in that state.

    What this means is that the 3 biggest cities can control the entire country.

    The people in the Hinterlands have no control of the City States.

    Personally, I think the states electors should be divided by the vote. That would at least give the people in the Hinterlands some say in their fate. The City States will only vote for things that benefit THEM. Why not? They have complete control.
  50. Except that's not what the decision says.

    Perhaps you should do a little more reading yourself?