Do you think that a few counties in 9 states should dominate presidential electoral outcomes?

I’m griping about the EC, and I’m from Kansas.
I think the EC is outdated and unnecessary in today’s world.

Fair enough. But it seems to me that without the EC, the entire state of Kansas (2.9 mil) would have a hard time pursuing it’s interests in an election when they were fewer than one county (Orange, 3.1 million)

At least your state’s total 6 electoral votes gives you something to work with against California 48’s 1 electoral vote. Why give up that little tiny bit of power and influence so easily?

Doesn’t that presupposed that ALL voters in Orange County will vote one way, and ALL voters in Kansas will vote the opposite way? I’m pretty sure I was with California on this one.
This really isn’t about the best interest of individual counties or states. That’s what governors and senators are for. This is about which candidate is in the best interests of the country as a whole, isn’t it?

It seems like both options suck.

Either population centers control the election or swing states do. Right now the swing states do. If we switched it over to the population centers, that wouldn’t necessarily be better. Although I am glad that I live in Nevada now where my vote counts for more than it did in California.

@Dutchess_III
As determined by 9 states?
You can’t have it two ways. You are either a collection of semi sovereign states, or you have no states at all.

I currently live in Florida. Our vote is close to 50/50 and all the electoral votes go one way.

CA and NY went 40/60 in both states Trump/Hillary. How does that equate to the popular vote in CA and NY controlling the country? 40% of the vote would go to the Republican candidate most likely, but with the electoral college the Republican candidate gets zero votes from those states.

Edit: the electoral college theoretically can give minority groups more power if they are concentrated in a few states. Maybe the electoral college vote will shift in a different direction than expected as people move around. That would be interesting.

How does the EC decide which way to vote?

Not quite sure if getting rid of the EC is a great idea. What if majority of voters elected someone like trump?

I think in the Philippines they have no EC. Look at what the simple majority put to power.

A simple majority of voters could get it wrong. Terribly wrong.

You have your Representative to look out for your region’s interest at the federal level. You have your Senators to look out for your state’s interest at the federal level.

The flipside to your question is – should a handful of counties, representing, at most, a few hundred thousand voters, be able to overrule the will of millions of voters?

@mazingerz88…how could we have possibly gone any more wrong than trump? We could make it worse from here on out, but Trump was the beginning.

My thoughts too Darth.

@mazingerz88 I was talking to a gentleman about a month ago from Switzerland (Ugh I think Switzerland, it might have been a different cold country) and he said in his country where they currently have a direct vote a lot of people are arguing for a change to something more like an EC system. Both have their pitfalls I guess.

The electoral college was created for two reasons. The first is that the Founding Fathers wanted a buffer between the masses and the president in an election. They were afraid some snake oil salesman would dupe the public and get elected. The second was that it helps equalize the impact on smaller states. States get as many electoral votes as they have representatives in Congress. The felt that was the fairest way to hear everyone’s opinion instead of a couple big states dictating everything for the entire country. Remember, our country is unique in that it isn’t actually one government over all. It is 50 separate governments with one government whose job is to tie them all together.
Interestingly, the one part of the electoral college that isn’t mentioned in the Constitution is the winner-take-all in a state. If you wanted to make it more fair, get rid of that. You would see some interesting elections if you did that.

And that goes back to my point. Presidential elections shouldn’t be about individual states, should they? Isn’t that what our votes for governors and senators are for, state concerns, not entire country concerns?

Yeah, our country is unique. If you ignore other countries that are similar.

@Dutchess_lll Actually, presidential elections SHOULD be about the individual states. They all have to be represented as equitably as possible. When the federal government is supposed to tie all the states together, they all need a say in who the POTUS is.

I agree with Dutch. The question makes the false assumption that individual areas all.vote in uniform. A foolish assumption. Go to a town hall meeting. You’ll find lots of varying opinions, just from one town.

In this day, and age, we are not necessarily separated by geography any more. Media, and the Internet keep us all more connected.

There is zero reason for the EC. Speaking as a non-voter, getting rid of things like the EC, would increase voter turn out. If the popular vote mattered, each vote would gain significant value.

I live in SC. It’s about as red as it gets. The state has gone R in all recent POTUS elections. With that knowledge, it makes little sense to vote at all, as it won’t matter. Unless I’m voting for a republican, in which case it also wouldn’t matter if I voted.

I’m of the opinion that population centers have more educated, and diverse people. Yes. That makes their vote more valuable, to me…

Although I feel that the entire government (and all of it’s political processes) should be completely overhauled, dropping the EC would be a sensible start.

All of the states in the UNITED Stares of America deserve a say in who is elected their President.

@gondwanalon So, does that mean you are in favor of the EC?

So then why don’t we use an Electoral College type system for other elections? Take, for instance, Illinois: in the governor’s race doesn’t a county like Pope (population 4,470) deserve just as much of a say as Cook (population 5,211,263)?

@Darth_Algar because the EC is addressed in the Constitution. The Constitution does not dictate to states how their elections will be held. Which is also why we have some states that are winner-take-all and others that aren’t. If a state wanted to institute an EC, they could. But another issue is that within a state, it is much easier for a smaller group to institute change than in the federal level. If a state starts catering only to the high population areas, a smaller area can push for change and potentially make it happen. I saw this in California a long time ago. Some state Rep from LA wanted to reroute the Sacramento River to use it to supply drinking water to LA and lower their water bills. Doing that would have basically destroyed the center of the state, turning it into a desert. But those in that area were able to find ways to stop that motion even though all those in the LA area thought it was a dandy idea. That is one example of why mere popular vote is such a bad idea. But it also shows that control at the state level is easier to adjust than at a federal level.

That doesn’t really address my question, but ok.

Without the electoral college, and based strictly on popular vote, the people in those states could theoretically have nothing to say about a presidential election outcome.

The people in those states would have exactly the same input as everyone else.

The people who get no say because of the electoral college are those in the minority in their states. Republican presidential votes in California and Democratic ones in Mississippi are effectively thrown in the trash.

All of the states in the UNITED Stares of America deserve a say in who is elected their President.

People deserve a say, not land.

I need to ask a Q about this. Why are we assuming California, or other states, would want something very different from me? Why kind of things?

@Dutchess_III different areas have different needs and different ideals. What is perfectly acceptable in normal and even encouraged in Kansas might be frowned upon in LA, so LA would always vote against such things. My example of the Sacramento River is a perfect example of that.

Perhaps we need to look beyond the States when it comes to decisions on a Federal level @josie. Idealistic perhaps but by saying that individual States should determine the outcome what you are really doing, but on a grander scale, is personifying the State much like what the Citizens United case did for corporations. States, like corporations, are made up of people, they are not actual living, breathing entities. Artificially created areas that do not contain a certain number of only like thinking individuals. By allowing States to determine outcomes not individuals, you actually disenfranchise a greater number of Americans. More directly it is the winner-take-all method of assigning how the votes of these individuals are apportioned that is the greater problem in the disfunction of the present system.

If you want to maintain the Electoral College, a decision I do question, then changes should be made to more adequately represent the populations of the individual states. In the case of the Electoral College the votes of the College should be apportioned out as they are determined by the voters, For example, in California Clinton received all 55 electoral votes yet only won 62% of the popular vote. Trump 33% and the remainder went to three other candidates yet the voters for these candidates were given no voice in the electoral college.

The votes of the citizens of the United States should be given fair representation in the election of the President of the country regardless of where they are geographically located and proportional representation in the Electoral College, combined with ranked choice (or instant run-off) voting, would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal.

@Call_Me_Jay Despite @Darth_Algar smarmy answer about other countries being similar, we are set up way differently than most. Our nation is supposed to be set up as almost 50 countries with individual governments, all working together, with one central government to deal with other countries and to establish rules for interstate dealings. Each of these states IS people…not land. And each deserves a say in how the president is elected.

We could add an EC type electoral section for other elections to the Constitution. I think @Darth_Algar had a good point. I mean, why should Greeley County, Kansas, with a population of 1,210 (dang man. That’s TINY!!) have less than a say than Johnson County with a population of 578,797?

Our nation is supposed to be set up as almost 50 countries with individual governments, all working together,

Yes, that is the line currently parroted by those enjoying the Trump presidency.

And the same people were shrieking “Give us our country back” and whining that they had lost representation when Obama was elected twice.

Republicans have won ONE popular vote for president in the past thirty years.

The electoral college protects an unpopular agenda that makes life worse for the vast majority of Americans.

^^That’s just what I was thinking all the PEOPLE in the UNITED states deserve a say in who becomes president.

It’s almost ironic that so many republicans worry about the minority voice in the lesser populated states.

Well only the people of the US do supposedly JLeslie.
I think.getting rid of the EC would give the disenchanted.some hope. I’ll never stop voting but even I don’t know it it makes a difference….

@seawulf575

Do you seriously believe that the United States is the only nation comprised of individual units, each with its own government, bound together in a federal-type union? Christ, you don’t have to look far to find other such nations. Just glance to the immediate north or south of us, for example.

@JLeslie I’m one of those EEEVIL conservatives (although I did vote for Obama the first time). I live in inside the liberal blue curtain (Washington State) so my votes for Republican candidates for US Presidents don’t count. Nevertheless I’m in favor of the Electoral College for the reason that I stated above.

I went to look up Jays claim that Republicans have won ONE popular vote in the last 30 years. I got side tracked by this

@gondwanalon I’m not calling you evil.

@Call_Me_Jay “Yes, that is the line currently parroted by those enjoying the Trump presidency.” No, that’s the description that has been in the Constitution for almost 250 years. But maybe that should say something to us. Trump and his supporters like following the rules and like the way our country is set up. Liberals don’t like following the rules and want anarchy and mob rule.

Trump and his supporters like following the rules and like the way our country is set up. Liberals don’t like following the rules

Trump administration (first two years)
George Papadopoulos – campaign advisor – pled guilty for his role in the Trump campaign
Paul Manafort – campaign manager – convicted for his role in the Trump campaign, more charges pending
Rick Gates – campaign advisor – pled guilty for his role in the Trump campaign
Michael Flynn – National Security advisior – pled guilty for his role in the Trump campaign
Michael Cohen – attorney – guilty of financial crimes committed on behalf of Trump

Obama administration (eight years)
Zero indictments, Zero convictions

@Call_Me_Jay And you wonder why. Because the Obama administration was actually more corrupt? Yeah, I’d go there. You had cronies covering up as fast as they could to protect Obama

Eric Holder – Contempt of Congress on Fast and Furious – never did produce the documents congress asked for.

Lois Lerner – Using the IRS to target conservative groups looking for exempt status

John Koskinen – Impeachment resolution for his termination in the cover-up of the Lerner case by destruction of evidence

Loretta Lynch – meets privately with Bill Clinton while her Justice Dept has an on-going investigation into Hillary. Amazingly, despite evidence of guilt, they determine she “didn’t have intent”. Lynch later pleads the 5th when questioned by congress on this matter.

Susan Rice – UN Ambassador blaming the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi on an internet video. This is in direct contradiction to the Libyan authorities who showed it was tied to terrorism. This same story was echoed by Hillary and Obama long after the US intelligence agencies were saying it was terrorism too. No investigation was ever initiated into why this deception was perpetrated.

Hillary Clinton – Which scandal do you want to pick? Let’s look at the emails. She used her own private server for all her communications for the State Dept. This included many illegal transmissions of classified materials. This was a proven fact. Yet the Obama justice department created an intent clause for the law, which the law specifically denies as an excuse, so they can not bring charges against her. Many of the emails were also dumped by Clinton on her own decision with no backups anywhere. We have no idea how many illegal transmissions those contained. Some of these classified materials were even found on Anthony Weiner’s personal computer. He had no right to see any of it.

I guess if you destroy evidence, refuse to cooperate with investigations, plead the 5th, and have control of a justice dept that won’t do an honest investigation into any crony activities, you can claim that you are clean, right?

“Well, ____ has never been charged with any crime, so that’s an obvious sign that he’s guilty of something.”

@seawulf575, you forgot about the time Obama grew a tail and swung from the White House balcony. <<< There. I said it. It’s in print,right there, so it must be true.

Wow, all that BS about Hillary’s emails are still being bought to this day.

Wasn’t there any video showing her spitting on the street, something the desperately gullible trump voters and worshipers could focus on and obsessed with for a change?

Maybe Russia has a video! Oh, but they only have pee-pee tapes. Sad.

I was just thinking of his pee tapes too.

Wow, all that BS about Hillary’s emails are still being bought to this day.

He also believes the Clinton Body Count is factual. He’s a font of misinformation swallowed whole off the AM radio.

Oh….don’t forget the child porn run out of that pizza joint.

Folks, you can all be willfully ignorant if you like. Comey came out and said that she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified materials. That term “extremely careless” was changed from “grossly negligent” in the original draft of the statement. Why? Because the LAW actualy says that if materials are mishandled even through “gross negligence” it is a violation and is punishable by fine and/or jail time. So review the facts. (1) Hillary Clinton set up her own personal server and used it for business purposes. (2) she claimed repeatedly that she never sent any classified materials. (3) sending out these classified materials is a violation of the law. (4) The investigation found she sent classified materials over this unsecured network a number of times. (5) The law says that gross negligence is not an excuse (6) Comey, under Obama’s DOJ, made the statement that she did indeed mishandle classified materials and it was extremely careless (which amazingly means the same as grossly negligent). (7) Obama’s DoJ refused to enforce the law on Hillary Clinton.

Now, if any of you actually have FACTS to back up your ridicule, especially those that contradict my facts here, I’d love to continue that discussion. Other than that you are left with just admitting that Obama’s adminstration was full of corruption.

That is hilarious! Not an hour ago someone suggested that you were “willfully ignorant,” @seawulf575. That must have sounded like a nice big word to you so you rushed to use it as quick as you could.

@Dutchess_III So I take that as meaning you have nothing to actually dispute the facts. Thanks for playing.

@seawulf575 . You love your fake lists. As I’ve said before, take your lists to the closest police department. If there are any “facts” to your claims investigations will follow. Thanks for playing; )

@MrGrimm888 Yet another dodge. You are nothing if not predictable. Not a hint of anything to actually refute ANY of the facts, just an attack. Sad.

If they are indeed “facts,” then you should have no problems taking it to the authorities. You are the one dodging. Take your lists to the police. Then report back how incredibly intelligent you are. Then we’ll see who’s “sad.”..

Anyway, since this has veered way off track my favorite cheap candy is Chewy Lemonheads. Yours?

@MrGrimm888 Thankfully I don’t have to take it to the police. The Senate is already looking at the email investigation…again. And all you on the left can do is scream there is nothing there and why should we look at it again and all sorts of other dodges. I’ll use the same argument you all tried to use on me when I said (and continue to say) the Russian collusion investigation is a waste of time and money…if there’s nothing there then what do you care if it is investigated again? Are you afraid something might come out of it?
And the best part of your answer is that you really can’t refute a single thing I have stated. It is all public fact and was in all the news for months. But you are trying to dodge actually having to deal with facts. Pitiful.

LOLL @Darth_Algar!

In days of yore, the highlight of driving west out of Chicago on I-290 was passing the Ferrara Pan Candy Company.

They used to have giant images of their candy boxes on the building, and they make old-timey stuff that somehow still exists:
Lemonhead
Boston Baked Beans
Red Bots
Atomic Fireballs
etc.

The factory is still there but they painted over the advertising. Lame.

@seawulf575 . Nope. You have NOTHING. Any of your “facts” would hold water in court. Awwww. Your poor little lists don’t contain facts? Well thats pitiful…...

@Call_Me_Jay

Still exist? Hell, they’re thriving. Ferrera recently purchased Nestle’s candy brands (Crunch, Butterfinger, etc) for a couple billion $. (Evidently Nestle is looking to gradually shift focus to “health and wellness” foods.)

Red Bots

Ahem. I mistyped. It’s Red Hots.

Red Hots.

Certain foods should be eaten in movie theaters only. Red Hots and Jr. Mints, for example. Hot Tamales. What else?