Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

Newsflash: that’s exactly how the EC is supposed to work. If it worked the way it was supposed to on a larger scale, Trump wouldn’t be President. He’s exactly the kind of person the EC was designed to prevent taking office.

The EC is corrupt and members vote along party lines, regardless of the qualifications they are suppose to consider before casting a vote for someone. The next level of corruption is paying off the EC voters. I am sure there is enough NRA- level money to buy their votes.

It's so crazy to me that any modern country elects its presidents this way.

Popular vote would hand the Dems the presidency until the GOP comes back from the extremes. The GOP would be forced to moderate.

And the US, please cease to proclaim yourself "a democratic republic" from now on since you are not anymore. And try not to lecture anyone about democracy as well. You're becoming like China in how you elect your president.

Why should the coasts get to decide who wins the elections?

[quote] Why should the coasts get to decide who wins the elections?

Because they have more people.

Because R6 is too old, too fat, too blind and too stupid to understand something called "popular votes"

R8, that’s not good enough. There’s millions of people who don’t live on the coasts who don’t want elitists deciding elections for them.

The Electoral College is a holdover from a time in which there was no national American identity per se and sectionalism was the order of the day. Small states, and slave states in which the vast majorities of the populations couldn’t vote, worried that a popular vote for the only nationally-elected offices would leave them with an executive chosen by the the few largest states. They had just gotten away from the tyranny of a government they had no voice in and weren’t excited about what many thought would be more of the same.

It was a compromise made in order to salvage a republic which had floundered after the Revolution under the Articles of Confederation and it’s weak central government. It is now a compromise which doesn’t make much sense in today’s world. The small states can no longer make a compelling argument that federal tyranny is a danger because their rights and privileges are now supported by over two hundred years’ of judicial precedent.

In this modern age, in which we think less of ourselves Jayhawkers or Nutmeggers but rather Americans, people who live in Kansas should not have more of a say about who becomes President than Connecticut.

R10. And they don’t. Because of the EC. The founders did not want a tyranny of the majority to override regional interests. So the EC guarantees that all states have a voice. Even the ones AOC thinks are useless. Colorado can’t rewrite the constitution.

r9 Who are elitists? People with education and teeth? People who aren't racist? People whose taxes pay for government services provided to non-elitists?

R11, indeed they do have more of a voice in choosing the President and Vice President. Each state gets the number of electors equal to their representatives in Congress. While the number of Representatives is based on population, the number of Senators is the same for small states as it is for large. This equates to Alaskans and Montanans have a stronger vote than Californians and Texans.

Before the election, the NYTimes wrote a very prescient article that, if the Dems ever expect to win, they should be spending money on abolishing the Electoral College. I read it when all the polls were predicting a comfortable victory for Hillary, and it made me shudder.

[quote]In this modern age, in which we think less of ourselves Jayhawkers or Nutmeggers but rather Americans, people who live in Kansas should not have more of a say about who becomes President than Connecticut.

That’s wishful thinking that we don’t still categorize ourselves by state and locality. People in Kansas, and other states, don’t want California to have more of a say than it should by contributing a lopsided margin to a candidate. Californians get a 55/538 effect on the outcome regardless of the margin within the state, and that’s how it should be. Californians themselves tout how they are different from the rest of America, and the rest of America is not going to agree to be overruled by the behemoth California.

[quote]. It is now a compromise which doesn’t make much sense in today’s world. The small states can no longer make a compelling argument that federal tyranny is a danger because their rights and privileges are now supported by over two hundred years’ of judicial precedent.

Exactly. There is zero legitimate reason in 2019 why 1 person shouldn't equal 1 vote other than Republicans realizing that if it was this way they'd lose a whole lot more.

Be that as it may, R15, that argument doesn’t address why the individual votes of people living in populous states don’t count as much as others. If the low population states wanted more electors they should enact laws that encourage business investment, jobs, and interstate immigration.

R15 explain to me how California would have more of a say than it should if we used the popular vote instead of the electoral college

R16. The founders did not create a democracy because they foresaw the situation you are touting. They insisted on creating and maintaining states’ rights. And not concentrating all power in the federal government. To avoid exactly what you seem to advocate. California and New York have more members of Congress. And more EC votes. But candidates have to appeal to the other states too. And that’s how it should be.

Fuck the EC. It’s time to get rid of it.

The populous states have more EC votes because they have more people - of COURSE they have more EC votes. The theory at the founding was that the senate would be the great equalizer. However, then you take the 4 or 5 smallest states who get a House Representative even though their population wouldn't warrant one in any other state (Wyoming, with a population of 550,000, gets one representative, whereas in California, it's approximately 800,000 people per one representative.) Each California senator represents, individually 20,000,000 people. In Wyoming each Senator represents individually, 250,000 people. And given the makeup of the Senate and its rules, these tiny states senators can end up in positions of extreme power (committees and so forth) while representing a tiny tiny proportion of the US population. In my opinion, it's unfair that the small states get all of this extra representation in the federal government and then, on top of all of that, can fuck up the Presidential election with the EC.

I doubt that the founders ever realized that the states might end up so unequal in population. At the founding, the most populous states had perhaps 3-4 times the population of the least populated ones. In our time, the most populous state has 80 TIMES the population of the least populated state. To put in another way, one out of EIGHT Americans lives in California. One out of 640 Americans lives in Wyoming. Or as a different kind of reminder, 54% of American voters voted NOT to have Trump as president, and 46% voted to have him as President, yet those 46% ran off with the prize. (Yes, I realize that Hillary Clinton only won 48% of the popular vote, but that means that the other 6% of the population ALSO didn't want Trump as President).

The solution of having the state promise to throw its electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner is the most logical one to the EC fucked-up system that our founders left us (without violating the language of the constitution.)

It has ALWAYS been so. The E College can vote for anyone it chooses, it is not bound.

Some democracy.

R21 us much wiser, and probably much slimmer than R6.

Thank you for your clear-sightedness here.

Calling the election F’d up is rather short-sighted. The founders deliberately did not create a pure democracy. That’s why we are a constitutional republic. They feared pure majority rule for good reason. Some of you mock residents of the smaller or fly-over states like AOC does. They wanted all areas of the country to have a voice and decentralized the government to promote self-governance. It pure majority was the rule we would have government by tyranny.

r25 The "tyranny of the majority" was coined in regard to RIGHTS, not legislation. A mostly Christian nation could curtail the RIGHTS of other religions. A mostly white nation could curtail the RIGHTS of other races. The courts are also supposed to be a check on the tyranny of the majority. But when the minority of a country elects a President over the express wishes of the majority, who does that serve? Whose RIGHTS are being abrogated? Does the minority of a country get to decide to pollute the air of the majority? Does the minority of the country get to decide to imprison children and separate them permanently from their parents over the strong sentiment of the majority not to do that? That's what has happened, and that is showing a defect in our system, not a strength.

R1 nailed it.

The entire point of the electoral college was to prevent someone like Trump. The founders didn't trust voters, so they had these electors who made the final vote on the Presidency. They had the power to ignore the voters and pick the "right person" if the voters voted for an unworthy person.

The court is correct that electors shouldn't have to follow the will of the voters. The real solution is just getting rid of the electoral college.

I disagree that the purpose was to avoid trump. The purpose was to give all regions a voice. I think if the tables were turned you’d be saying differently.

[quote] They wanted all areas of the country to have a voice and decentralized the government to promote self-governance. It pure majority was the rule we would have government by tyranny.

So every other country in the world that elects its national leaders by popular vote is experiencing tyranny?

R29. Funny how so many people in those countries want to be here. But the states were given more power under our constitution to govern themselves. It’s a decentralized government intentionally. The EC is another way of acknowledging that and forcing candidates to appeal to all areas of the country -urban and rural-not just the big population centers. Why should rural states be pushed around by the big cities who have no clue as to what affects them?

R28/r30 is ignoring or possibly ignorant of what the electoral college actually is. The Senate is about giving unweighted representation to lower populated areas, the electoral college exists to give a select group of people the power to actually vote for the President. That's literally by design what it is.

You could have the same point passed system without electors, but the founding fathers didn't trust that. If you've read anything about the founding fathers they were still very untrustworthy of voting. That is what only the House of Representatives was based on voting, in the constitution the Senate, the President and the Suprme Court were not picked by the voters.

Trying to defend the electoral college is always the hardest for trolls, because it is a batshit crazy system that is really hard to come up with any logical reason to justify.

[quote]The EC is another way of acknowledging that and forcing candidates to appeal to all areas of the country

Even while typing it you know this is bullshit. The electoral college just causes people to spend a lot of money and time in certain swing states. It does literally nothing to help appeal to all regions of the country. The majority of states are ignored in a Presidential race, everybody is trying to campaign towards a handful of ordained states.