Electoral College


Emmanuel Goldstein
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

Lol, that's me. Father, Sunday School President, Dungeon master in his D and D group, war criminal being tried at the Hague. 

I go by Evil Incarnate, so we'd get along great. Can we plot world domination together than turn against one another when we've accomplished that goal? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Absolutely. BFF's until the last obtacle falls. Then cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!😁

I get to be Dr. Doom!!!!! 

250px-Doctor_Doom_(2018).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

I like the electoral college for the reasons mentioned already, although I am ok with a slight modification to the system, say dividing it up by the percentage of the vote you win in each state. Right now, there is little incentive to vote if you are a Republican in Massachusettes or a Democrat in Indiana. By following Nebraska and Maine's example, you can get more people out to vote if there is the promise that even if you lose the state you can still bring in a few electoral votes to your candidate if you go out and do your civic duty. At least that's the way it seems to me.

The Presidential Election in November is not one National Election.  Rather it is 50 independent and autonomous State Elections that happen on the same day to choose electors.  The Presidential Election actually occur, not in November, but at a later time in December when the electors cast their votes.  Electors do not represent people, they represent States.  That’s why most States, if not all, don’t hold “election for Electors”.   They simply canvass people’s preferences to aid the State in the decision-making process.  It is technically not a “Presidential Election” but more of a survey.  This was made clear in the SCOTUS decision on Bush v Gore.

The Feds cannot dictate how a State seats their slate of electors and each State cannot dictate how another State seats their electors.  If one State determines they want to save money and not hold Presidential Elections, rather, each Senator and Congressman of the State will be their electors, they can do that.  Or if, like what Colorado did recently they want to surrender the voices of Coloradans to the National popular vote, they can do that too.  Neither the Feds nor any other State can stop them.  So, if anybody wants to change the way the President and his Veep is elected, they have to go to each State and change each of the State.Constitutions. 

The Peesident of the EU is elected the same way.  The main difference is - each EU member do not involve their populace, nor their minority representative parties, in the decision so it feels like the President of the EU is elected “in darkness”.  The US is a much better process.  At least for now.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The Presidential Election in November is not one National Election.  Rather it is 50 independent and autonomous State Elections that happen on the same day to choose electors.  The Presidential Election actually occur, not in November, but at a later time in December when the electors cast their votes.  Electors do not represent people, they represent States.  That’s why most States, if not all, don’t hold “election for Electors”.   They simply canvass people’s preferences to aid the State in the decision-making process.  It is technically not a “Presidential Election” but more of a survey.  This was made clear in the SCOTUS decision on Bush v Gore.

The Feds cannot dictate how a State seats their slate of electors and each State cannot dictate how another State seats their electors.  If one State determines they want to save money and not hold Presidential Elections, rather, each Senator and Congressman of the State will be their electors, they can do that.  Or if, like what Colorado did recently they want to surrender the voices of Coloradans to the National popular vote, they can do that too.  Neither the Feds nor any other State can stop them.  So, if anybody wants to change the way the President and his Veep is elected, they have to go to each State and change each of the State.Constitutions. 

The Peesident of the EU is elected the same way.  The main difference is - each EU member do not involve their populace, nor their minority representative parties, in the decision so it feels like the President of the EU is elected “in darkness”.  The US is a much better process.  At least for now.

Oh I'm a strong believer in Federalism. There is no question that each individual state should have the right to choose how they select their electors. While I favor a proportional Elector selection in each state, the only way I would approve of it being instituted is either individually by the states, or through a Constitutional Amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states. It would be inappropriate for the Federal government to mandate anything about the Electoral College outside of sponsoring a Constutional Amendment.

And my ancestors left Europe for good reasons a few hundred years ago, so we should strive to avoid doing anything the same way they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

No, it’s not the opposite.  The Northern States consider slaves as PERSONS, the Southern States consider them as PROPERTY.  FACT.  The North wants to count slaves as part of the population for Taxation as they are persons (there was yet no income tax,  Feds calculated a State’s tax by their population size).  The South do not.  So the North said, if you won’t count them as Persons then you can’t count them for representation either, hence the compromise.

For what it's worth, Wikipedia appears to agree with my interpretation.

Quote

The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

The proposal to count slaves by a three-fifths ratio was first proposed on June 11, and agreed to by nine states to two with only a brief debate.[8] It was debated at length between July 9 and 13, inclusive, when it was initially voted down by the members present at the Convention.[9][10] A few southern delegates, seeing an opportunity, then proposed full representation for their slave population.[11][12] Seeing that the states could not remain united without some sort of compromise measure, the ratio of three fifths was brought back to the table and agreed to by eight states to two.[13]

Not that Wikipedia is an unimpeachable source, but in matters such as these, it seems to be reasonably reliable. Certainly the taxation issue was involved, but when tied with the representation issue, the South was more inclined to want to count its slaves as people. The compromise gave the South 47 representatives (out of 105; 45%) in the House of Representatives instead of the 33 (31%) they would have had if only free people had been counted.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vort said:

For what it's worth, Wikipedia appears to agree with my interpretation.

Not that Wikipedia is an unimpeachable source, but in matters such as these, it seems to be reasonably reliable. Certainly the taxation issue was involved, but when tied with the representation issue, the South was more inclined to want to count its slaves as people. The compromise gave the South 47 representatives (out of 105; 45%) in the House of Representatives instead of the 33 (31%) they would have had if only free people had been counted.

Vort, Wikipedia is telling you “what happened”.  It didn’t tell you the ideology behind what happened.  There is a reason the Civil War was fought by 100% Person ideology by the North and 100% Property ideology by the South.  This ideology has been set for almost 100 years before the war was fought which is why slave owners were congregated in Southern states.

You can use today’s Democrat vs. Republican fight over Affirmative Action as another example of such.  Media coverage (or wikipedia narrations) would give you the impression that because Republicans oppose Affirmative Action that they do not want Blacks taking White jobs.  But when you study the ideology behind each party’s position on Affirmative Action, it is the Republicans who believe Blacks are equal to Whites, whereas the Democrats believe Blacks are less abled than Whites and would, therefore, need Affirmative Action to succeed.  Same thing with Welfare.  Same thing with Voter ID, etc etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I am reading and understanding from the viewpoints...

@anatess2 and @Vort I think both of you are correct in your perspective.  I think you are talking about two different things (even as it is also the exact same thing as well, or the same issue).  One is talking about the actual thoughts of what slaves were considered (property in the South) while the other is discussing in regards to how they wanted population numbers counted (counted as persons in the South vs. not counted as persons).

I believe @anatess is saying that the South Considered the Slaves as property.  This is reflected as the Southern Slave Owners did NOT allow the slaves to vote as people.  Instead they wanted the Slaves to count as a population which, because they were owned (property) could not vote and hence any voting power would then be delegated to count their owners as MORE than just one person.  In effect, it meant that a slave owner would have the effective power of 3/5 of all their slaves plus their own in regards to the population count.

The Slaves thus were counted completely as property as they had no freedom or will of their own.  Their entire ability to be counted was NOT reliant upon them being persons in and of themselves, but that of the Southern Slave Owners being the person who also could have their property counted as an increase.

The South considered slaves property, and a Slave owner considered the Slaves as THEIR PROPERTY. 

The North on the otherhand felt that slaves should not be counted towards their master's representative power in elections or representation in Congress.  Instead, only those that were free (or worse, each individual if they were actually going to count the slaves as population) should represent their own voting power.  It should NOT be reliant on WHO owned (property) the slave to give them the representative power as such. 

Later, this sentiment increased tremendously in the North until it created difficulties when a Northern state might refuse to see a slave as property and instead set them free as they did not see it right that a person was a slave.

In contrast, I think @Vort is talking population counts and what each side wanted...

As far as population numbers go the South wanted each slave to count the same as every other individual.  Thus, they wanted them to be counted as persons in regards to population (even if they were considered property to the Slave owners and thus ONLY the owners would be granted that power to vote.  A Free individual that owned enough property could also vote...but considering that if one owned enough property to vote at that time they were normally a slave owner...it was one and the same).  These restrictions on who could vote set by states would slowly change, but at the time it was normally property owners.  Hence, as far as the population count went (though not the power that went with it which is what I think @anatess2 is getting at) they wanted slaves to count as persons.  They wanted the slaves to count as persons in regards to the population count.

The North on the otherhand felt this was not a fair representation of the population.  As the Slaves were thought of as property by their Slave Masters, it really did not represent the free voting public as it did in the North.  Hence, they felt property should not be considered as having a representation in regards to the population numbers.

I think both of you are saying very similar things but the way you are looking at it makes it appear that you are talking about the opposite.  Obviously I could be reading what you are writing entirely wrong, but I think you two are actually saying very similar things but with a different perspective on the same issue.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

From what I am reading and understanding from the viewpoints...

@anatess2 and @Vort I think both of you are correct in your perspective.  I think you are talking about two different things (even as it is also the exact same thing as well, or the same issue).  One is talking about the actual thoughts of what slaves were considered (property in the South) while the other is discussing in regards to how they wanted population numbers counted (counted as persons in the South vs. not counted as persons).

I believe @anatess is saying that the South Considered the Slaves as property.  This is reflected as the Southern Slave Owners did NOT allow the slaves to vote as people.  Instead they wanted the Slaves to count as a population which, because they were owned (property) could not vote and hence any voting power would then be delegated to count their owners as MORE than just one person.  In effect, it meant that a slave owner would have the effective power of 3/5 of all their slaves plus their own in regards to the population count.

The Slaves thus were counted completely as property as they had no freedom or will of their own.  Their entire ability to be counted was NOT reliant upon them being persons in and of themselves, but that of the Southern Slave Owners being the person who also could have their property counted as an increase.

The South considered slaves property, and a Slave owner considered the Slaves as THEIR PROPERTY. 

The North on the otherhand felt that slaves should not be counted towards their master's representative power in elections or representation in Congress.  Instead, only those that were free (or worse, each individual if they were actually going to count the slaves as population) should represent their own voting power.  It should NOT be reliant on WHO owned (property) the slave to give them the representative power as such. 

Later, this sentiment increased tremendously in the North until it created difficulties when a Northern state might refuse to see a slave as property and instead set them free as they did not see it right that a person was a slave.

In contrast, I think @Vort is talking population counts and what each side wanted...

As far as population numbers go the South wanted each slave to count the same as every other individual.  Thus, they wanted them to be counted as persons in regards to population (even if they were considered property to the Slave owners and thus ONLY the owners would be granted that power to vote.  A Free individual that owned enough property could also vote...but considering that if one owned enough property to vote at that time they were normally a slave owner...it was one and the same).  These restrictions on who could vote set by states would slowly change, but at the time it was normally property owners.  Hence, as far as the population count went (though not the power that went with it which is what I think @anatess2 is getting at) they wanted slaves to count as persons.  They wanted the slaves to count as persons in regards to the population count.

The North on the otherhand felt this was not a fair representation of the population.  As the Slaves were thought of as property by their Slave Masters, it really did not represent the free voting public as it did in the North.  Hence, they felt property should not be considered as having a representation in regards to the population numbers.

I think both of you are saying very similar things but the way you are looking at it makes it appear that you are talking about the opposite.  Obviously I could be reading what you are writing entirely wrong, but I think you two are actually saying very similar things but with a different perspective on the same issue.

You represented my views perfectly.

The initial statement was in regards to the phrase in error - "3/5s of a person".  Nobody thought at any point of the Compromise that slaves were 3/5's of a person.  Throughout the entire thing all the way to the Civil War, slaves where thought of as either 100% person (by Northern States) or 100% property (by Southern States).  Period.  The debate centered around that ideological difference.  The ideology didn't switch just because Northern States wanted this or that legislation and Southern States wanted this and that legislation.  Ideologies did not change even after the Civil War - it just so happened that the South got defeated in the war so they lost their power to affect legislation.  

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eliminating the Electoral College would be a catastrophic mistake. 

It is currently liberals who do the most complaining about the Electoral College, but they are kind of jaded by the fact that they have won the popular vote in two elections in the past 20 years, but lost the electoral college.  For the vast majority of people, it's easier to complain about the unfairness of the system than it is to reflect on why they aren't able to reach rural voters.  But let's not kid ourselves into believing that the bulk of conservatives wouldn't be screaming the same way if the tables were turned.  It's kind of a human nature thing.

What more liberal voters and representatives need to understand (and keep in mind, I'm so liberal I'd be a communist if I had any faith in humanity--but I don't, and that's another discussion)...what more liberal voters and representatives need to understand is that there are fundamental differences in how rural and urban populations live, which require fundamental differences in how they approach problems that they face. Gun control laws are a really good example of this, where the problems facing urban populations are completely different than those facing rural populations (where, frankly, guns aren't much of a problem). And so the liberal mantra of gun control for all is a message guaranteed to fail because it creates more problems for rural voters than it solves.

Instead of focusing on the electoral college, there would be a lot more value in focusing on how congressional districts are formed. The amount of gerrymandering going on in many/most states (liberals and conservatives both do it) is extremely toxic to representative government. I'd like to see an algorithm that attempts to make districts of equal size and equal population, preferably in a manner that attempted to build districts where approximately half of the voting populace is urban and the other half is rural.  That way, the representatives have to understand and represent the interests of both categories of voters.  I believe we'd see some meaningful governance in such a system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

But let's not kid ourselves into believing that the bulk of conservatives wouldn't be screaming the same way if the tables were turned.  It's kind of a human nature thing.

I disagree with this.  Conservatives are majority Constitutionalists... it's kinda embedded in the idea of being Conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mores said:

Fake news?  Or propaganda?  Either way, it's historically incorrect to quote Madison as calling the EC "evil".

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/opinions/why-so-many-people-want-to-ditch-the-electoral-college-avlon/index.html

This should interest you...

A talking point of the communist party (yes, it is literally from the Communist Party in regards to their hatred of the Electoral College...

A few snippets from this article from the Communist party about the 2000 election

Quote

This election has many unique features. The fact that the vote is close for one. As of this morning out of over 100 million votes cast, Gore has a 200,000-vote lead in the popular vote. Bush is leading in Florida by just 300 or so votes. Despite having less popular votes nationally, Bush could win the presidency based on electoral

The Electoral College system was set up to appease the slaveholding states 150 years ago and still haunts us today. It is quite a commentary on the state of our democracy that the next president of the most powerful capitalist nation could win office without a popular vote victory, through voter fraud based on racism and anti-Semitism.

...........

Our party has long believed, and the 2000 election shows loud and clear, that the Electoral College is basically undemocratic and should be abolished.

That so many are taking a talking point from the Communist Party probably should alarm or horrify any individual who is Republican or a Democrat.  I find it ironic that so many today are going so far to the left as to basically become Communists in sheep's clothing.

Even Roosevelt (F.D.R) and other classic Democrats from the past that the Democrat party holds in such high regard would be absolutely floored and dismayed at what the far left in the Democrat party are stating today in regards to the Electoral College idea.  It is interesting that we have moved from the Democracy and ideas of less than 50 years ago where the US and the West was involved in a great Cold War against Communism to today, where it appears that even if they lost the Cold War, the Communists are slowly winning the war of ideas in taking over the US by the backdoor instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This should interest you...

A talking point of the communist party (yes, it is literally from the Communist Party in regards to their hatred of the Electoral College...

A few snippets from this article from the Communist party about the 2000 election

Thank you.  While I haven't read this particular quote, I have heard many times that the Communist Party would rather be rid of the EC.

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That so many are taking a talking point from the Communist Party probably should alarm or horrify any individual who is Republican or a Democrat.  I find it ironic that so many today are going so far to the left as to basically become Communists in sheep's clothing.

Well, I've given an example of Democrats doing that.  But you mention Republicans taking talking points from the Communist Party as well?  

Apart from some very broad topics that most Americans agree with, I'm not sure I've heard anything like that from the public figures of the Republican Party.  Could you enlighten me?

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Even Roosevelt (F.D.R) and other classic Democrats from the past that the Democrat party holds in such high regard would be absolutely floored and dismayed at what the far left in the Democrat party are stating today in regards to the Electoral College idea.  It is interesting that we have moved from the Democracy and ideas of less than 50 years ago where the US and the West was involved in a great Cold War against Communism to today, where it appears that even if they lost the Cold War, the Communists are slowly winning the war of ideas in taking over the US by the backdoor instead.

As far as history, it was FDR that introduced so many communist policies in the guise of the New Deal that made communism acceptable to America.  Why would he be surprised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mores said:

Thank you.  While I haven't read this particular quote, I have heard many times that the Communist Party would rather be rid of the EC.

Well, I've given an example of Democrats doing that.  But you mention Republicans taking talking points from the Communist Party as well?  

Apart from some very broad topics that most Americans agree with, I'm not sure I've heard anything like that from the public figures of the Republican Party.  Could you enlighten me?

As far as history, it was FDR that introduced so many communist policies in the guise of the New Deal that made communism acceptable to America.  Why would he be surprised?

I'm an equal opportunity castigator.  I don't know many Republicans who would actually do such a thing but the idea that this thing passed in Colorado (3 house seats Republican, 3 Democrat, made the opposite statement earlier...edited for correction) has me wondering.

Of course, Colorado currently is controlled by the Democrats as they are the majority, but Republicans still have enough of a stronghold there that I am wondering what happened.

I am also wondering what will happen to the compact if it takes effect and the Republicans regain the House and Senate as well as the Governorship and repeal this electoral national compact they've joined.  The compact has the idea that once a state has joined they cannot leave it, which could lead to court cases. 

Personally, while I am against Marxist Communism, I'm not necessarily against all forms of it (look up the idea of Religious Communism), however, the USA has ALWAYS stood against Communism up until the 21st century in ALL it's forms and in ANY of it's forms that it presented itself (in my opinion, of course, as if it has to be said).  Communism itself may have a vote but that vote is a ONE PARTY rule type idea.  Votes are normally for or against the party, not one with multiple candidates like the US. 

In this, I would think Democrats are the bigger supporters thus far (and with the exception of Colorado which is considered a swing state, all the other states have been Democrat states to accept this idea).  I think they would very much prefer that if the Electoral compact is triggered that there is ONLY one party that is represented...and that would be Democrats.

I think for many US citizens, the idea that people are trying to do away with the Electoral College is one of the greatest threats to the US Constitution today.  Perhaps some could see that it is a direct challenge to destroy the Constitution and if successful that the rest of the Constitution would not be far behind in it's destruction unless something is done to save it.

 

PS: I do NOT think ALL Democrats feel this way, nor that even a majority feel this way.  I am thus wondering why this idea has so much momentum among some democratic areas.  I, myself, am not a Republican.  I probably lean Conservative Independent when compared to the rest of the nation, though compared to many Mormons (as a group, not just those who are part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and their political persuasions I probably appear extremely liberal.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm an equal opportunity castigator.  I don't know many Republicans who would actually do such a thing but the idea that this thing passed in Colorado (3 house seats Republican, 3 Democrat, made the opposite statement earlier...edited for correction) has me wondering.

Of course, Colorado currently is controlled by the Democrats as they are the majority, but Republicans still have enough of a stronghold there that I am wondering what happened.

I am also wondering what will happen to the compact if it takes effect and the Republicans regain the House and Senate as well as the Governorship and repeal this electoral national compact they've joined.  The compact has the idea that once a state has joined they cannot leave it, which could lead to court cases. 

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/02/28/national-popular-vote-polis-electoral-college/

Quote

No Republicans Backed The Effort.

Democrats.  That's what happened.  Democrats.

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 the USA has ALWAYS stood against Communism up until the 21st century in ALL it's forms

What do you think the New Deal was?

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In this, I would think Democrats are the bigger supporters thus far (and with the exception of Colorado which is considered a swing state, all the other states have been Democrat states to accept this idea).

They are no longer considered a swing state.  It has been consistently blue (if only light blue) for the last several elections (both state and federal elections).

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think for many US citizens, the idea that people are trying to do away with the Electoral College is one of the greatest threats to the US Constitution today.  Perhaps some could see that it is a direct challenge to destroy the Constitution and if successful that the rest of the Constitution would not be far behind in it's destruction unless something is done to save it.

On that we agree.

28 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I do NOT think ALL Democrats feel this way, nor that even a majority feel this way. 

No idea has support from ALL of virtually any demographic.  Majority?  Ever since the Bush/Gore election, I would tend to think the vast majority do support abolishing it.  Can you provide evidence to the contrary?  I could provide many news articles.

I could also provide the polls in Colorado on the bill you just brought up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/02/28/national-popular-vote-polis-electoral-college/

Democrats.  That's what happened.  Democrats.

What do you think the New Deal was?

They are no longer considered a swing state.  It has been consistently blue (if only light blue) for the last several elections (both state and federal elections).

On that we agree.

No idea has support from ALL of virtually any demographic.  Majority?  Ever since the Bush/Gore election, I would tend to think the vast majority do support abolishing it.  Can you provide evidence to the contrary?  I could provide many news articles.

I could also provide the polls in Colorado on the bill you just brought up.

I cannot provide any evidence that many Democrats do not feel this way.  I do not know any Democrats (in my personal life that I know personally) that DO...but that is anecdotal rather than actually any real evidence of the fact.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I cannot provide any evidence that many Democrats do not feel this way.  I do not know any Democrats (in my personal life that I know personally) that DO...but that is anecdotal rather than actually any real evidence of the fact.

In Colorado, the representatives voted completely along party lines.

The polls said that the public was about 1/3 for,  1/3 against, 1/3 neutral.  Assuming that this is somewhat along party lines, it would appear that 2/3 of Democrats are for it and 1/3 are against it.  But they vote for representatives that are 100% for it.  So, you tell me why a large minority of Democrats stay with their party that keeps voting for things that they don't approve of.

I'm not registered with either party.  But I do consider myself a conservative.  I mostly align with Republicans because I have enjoyed the benefits of many things their party stands for. And I'm harmed by most of the things that Democrats stand for.

In contrast, I find that most Democrats vote for things that affect OTHER people, not themselves.  They "hear about" racism, so they vote for what they perceive as less racism.  They "hear about" the poor and downtrodden, so they vote for what they perceive as aid to the poor.  The main reason I don't do that is that I don't see it in my life.  If I don't see it in my life, how do I know that it isn't just propaganda?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 I do NOT think ALL Democrats feel this way, nor that even a majority feel this way.  I am thus wondering why this idea has so much momentum among some democratic areas.

I believe it's because urban areas tend to be mostly Democrat, rural areas tend to be Republican.  The nature of the Electoral College is such that it will always favor the rural areas, which is by design.  As a result, only Republicans tend to benefit from it when it comes to the choice of President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

I believe it's because urban areas tend to be mostly Democrat, rural areas tend to be Republican.  The nature of the Electoral College is such that it will always favor the rural areas, which is by design.  As a result, only Republicans tend to benefit from it when it comes to the choice of President.

Interestingly only Republicans (and one Democratic-Republican way back in 1824 where the winner lost both) have lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. Rutheford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. It's especially interesting because twice during that period Republicans were supported by the more heavily populated Northern States, and twice by the less populated rural states. John Quincy Adams actually lost both the popular vote and the electoral college, but was selected as President by the House of Representatives (the only time the 12th Amendment has been used) because Andrew Jackson only won a plurality of electoral votes not a majority. Can you imagine the storm that would erupt if that happened today? Anyways, there is your random history lesson for the day from your friendly neighborhood high school history teacher☺.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Interestingly only Republicans (and one Democratic-Republican way back in 1824 where the winner lost both) have lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. Rutheford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. It's especially interesting because twice during that period Republicans were supported by the more heavily populated Northern States, and twice by the less populated rural states. John Quincy Adams actually lost both the popular vote and the electoral college, but was selected as President by the House of Representatives (the only time the 12th Amendment has been used) because Andrew Jackson only won a plurality of electoral votes not a majority. Can you imagine the storm that would erupt if that happened today? Anyways, there is your random history lesson for the day from your friendly neighborhood high school history teacher☺.

Didn’t Obama lose the popular vote to Hillary in the Dem Primary?

If they insist on getting rid of the EC, then we must insist they get rid of their delegates and especially their super delegates...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Didn’t Obama lose the popular vote to Hillary in the Dem Primary?

If they insist on getting rid of the EC, then we must insist they get rid of their delegates and especially their super delegates...

Yep he sure did. But like you said that ridiculous Super Delegate system they use ensured he won anyways (not that Hillary can complain, she took advantage of it in 2016). Its actually amusing to me that those complaining loudest about the EC have the least democratic nomination process.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share