Twitter hashtag to get rid of the electoral college?

[Edward78]

From now on, just the popular vote should count... Seeing on how the electoral college gave it to Trump #justpop_vote

 

[ricochet]

May I suggest that you carefully read our constitution again... the concept of a popular vote actually doesn't, nor could it, exist under our constitution and form of government for choosing a president/vice-president. When a citizen steps into a ballot box they are casting a vote for an elector in their state, simple as that.

Our very wise and thoughtful forefathers carefully created an electoral representative system that specifically avoids a directly elected president/vice-president for many good reasons: they rightly feared/distrusted a popular unfiltered national vote to properly choose a president/vice-president as they knew most people are ill-educated and prone to any/all forms of ignorance and prejudice.... they wanted to avoid at all costs mob rule (tyranny of the majority), class-ism (class warfare), fascism/demagogue politic-ism and other potential forms of political chaos... they knew small and rural states could and would become irrelevant in a direct system... they needed to ensure a proper balance between all branches of the federal government and the states.

The day the electoral college goes away is the day that hell freezes over and our government and constitution have become completely defunct.

 

[XeaLouS]

Can confirm that electoral college is definitely a better system.

In australia-land, we don't even elect our prime minister/leader. All we do is vote for which ministers we want in the upper/lower house, and it is up to the sides themselves to allocate who is prime minister/treasurer etc etc. Each member of parliament represents an area, so it is very possible that in an election, a current member of parliament is the leader, and that "team" wins, but the leader gets voted out.

 

[EdZ]

In the UK we have a similar system, but backwards so it doesn't really work: leaders of each parliamentary party are elected by their parties before each General Election, so things generally boil down to being a populist personality vote anyway regardless of the actual local MP candidates.

 

[Phuncz]

In my opinion, there is only one good way to elect representatives:

Fight to the death, one on one, until the warriors supreme remain. Then the people in the arena will vote who will be deserve the role to speak for the people. "Survival of the fittest" has been the unwritten law of nature and life for a good reason.

 

[IntoxicatedPuma]

My one complaint with the US system has to do with parties selecting their candidates before the election. Party loyalty is very important and it feels like it takes precedent over what the nation as a whole wants. The good thing is that it moderates extremists, but the bad thing is it pushes moderates towards the extreme in terms of the rhetoric they use and people they put around themselves.

 

[ricochet]

My one complaint with the US system has to do with parties selecting their candidates before the election. Party loyalty is very important and it feels like it takes precedent over what the nation as a whole wants. The good thing is that it moderates extremists, but the bad thing is it pushes moderates towards the extreme in terms of the rhetoric they use and people they put around themselves.

Concur in many respects. This is yet another example clearly showing that the concept of a popular vote does not and could not exist in our form of government.

In fact our forefathers never envisioned the level of staunch party politics and bipartisan misgoverning that we have today... nor did our forefathers anticipate or even want the existence of political parties as they viewed them as dangerous "factions" that would ultimately destroy representative government and democracy. Many believe they got it wrong but I wonder what our government/nation would be like today if we had avoided political parties as originally intended... though consensus would be damn hard to reach and/or maintain I have the feeling that we could have evolved into a more truly democratic society.

 

[Edward78]

Have you guys ever heard the president is picked not chosen? Hillary was chosen by us (pop. vote) Trump was picked by them (elec vote)... http://lwv.org/content/who-will-elect-president-electoral-college-system

 

[confusis]

I'll just leave this here (how us in NZ elect our government)

 

[Phuncz]

If we're just leaving stuff here, lets leave this one here as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...al-college-still-can-its-in-the-constitution/

If they choose, state legislators can appoint presidential electors themselves this November, rather than leaving the matter of apportioning electoral college votes by popular vote. Then, via their chosen electors, legislatures could elect any presidential candidate they prefer.

Remember, Americans don’t directly elect the president. The electoral college does: Slates of electors pledged to support presidential and vice presidential candidates are voted upon in each state every four years. Each state, and the District of Columbia, is apportioned at least three of the 538 electors, allocated by the total number of U.S. senators and House members each state has.

In December, these electors will gather in their respective states and cast votes for president and vice president. And in January, Congress counts these votes, determines if a candidate has achieved a majority — at least 270 votes — and then certifies a winner.

Some of the Founders worried that rash decision-making by the collective body politic would be “radically vicious” or “liable to deceptions” if they directly elected the president, for the people would lack the “capacity to judge” candidates. While members of the House of Representatives would be accountable directly to the people, presidential elections would occur indirectly. Electors, not the people, would elect the president. And state legislatures could decide how. (Most states now have laws binding electors to vote for the candidate who wins their state’s popular vote — but many states don’t.)

Am I reading this correctly ? Can the electoral college still kick Trump out ? Though it was two centuries ago when they last did.

 

[EdZ]

Am I reading this correctly ? Can the electoral college still kick Trump out ? Though it was two centuries ago when they last did.

Can, but would likely cause a constitutional crisis if they didn't. Same with the British Crown exercising any of their remaining direct authority: still technically part of the legal system, but actually exercising that power independently of Parliament would be catastrophic (and they have nobody they could charge to execute any decisions anyway).

 

[ricochet]

The consensus required in the college to actually do this is near impossible to get unless under an emergency crisis in which a majority of electors quickly come together and agree 100% on the next step. Again, under our current system and number of electors in the college, that will happen again only if hell freezes over.

 

[IntoxicatedPuma]

The reason why they won't is because the states where Clinton is popular, she already won the election. The ones where it's a close race, maybe only some of them will switch sides at best, but most of those states have laws against it. If Clinton was a more likeable person maybe this could happen.

 

[jØrd]

my $0.02 on this is it wont happen because your basically asking the people in power to vote on legislation that would curtail that very power

 

[ricochet]

my $0.02 on this is it wont happen because your basically asking the people in power to vote on legislation that would curtail that very power

Bingo! And exactly why our forefathers (the power elite) designed the government the way they did. They feared the majority lower/middle class as much as they did royalty and the Catholic Church!

 

[Josh | NFC]

The electoral college is not to blame for who is an who isn't president...

Try to think of it if the situation was reversed. Would you still be for the popular vote? Might doesn't make right, which is why we are a nation of laws.

Hillary, Trump, C'Thulu...I am for the electoral college (or more specifically against the nonsense of a popular vote) but Phuncz' deathmatch resolution seems like something reasonable too.

 

[Phuncz]

Hillary, Trump, C'Thulu...I am for the electoral college (or more specifically against the nonsense of a popular vote) but Phuncz' deathmatch resolution seems like something reasonable too.

I would have liked Cthulhu more than the other two candidates, atleast I wouldn't be facepalming (as a non-American) religiously every day in the direction of the US, since the US choose a corrupt corporate owner to handle the economy, quality of life and foreign relations. What could go wrong ?

Disney:

Nature:

 

[Stevo_]

Yeah, cuz the popular vote is so trustworthy. Motor voter, no ID required, citizenship check not required. California is a mess due to all of this. When I've been in Tijuana during their voting it makes me laugh at our system. The precincts actually have a photo of the voter next to their name AND they must show their voting card. WTF? thought they were the 3rd world country.

http://ktla.com/2016/11/03/possible...steriously-delivered-to-one-womans-apartment/
http://ktla.com/2016/11/03/possible...steriously-delivered-to-one-womans-apartment/

 

[Phuncz]

It's plain and simple: when the system of measuring, counting and registering is obscure, there is no way to be a 100% sure about the legitimacy of the voting. The people should demand an honest system that allows full transparency without sacrificing the voting choice from the voters.