Lets get rid of primary elections when electing our president

[RoadRunner79]

This is why we have an electoral college.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_America

[Clueless Morgan]

... That doesn't explain anything, it just shows what we already know: most counties in the US aren't 100% red or 100% blue but somewhere in the middle.

Among the actual reasons we have an electoral college and not a direct democracy are:

- to provide a constitutional limitation on direct democracy whereby "factions" of citizen could grow large enough that they could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” (James Madison) which is where we get the idea of the "tyranny of the majority."

- to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” (Alexander Hamilton) (A lot of good this one did)

- because the founders didn't trust that the population of a geographically large country would be able to be well enough informed about presidential candidates to make intelligent decisions when casting their votes

- because a direct democracy would not be acceptable to the slave-owning south where the population of eligible voters was much less than in the north. Having an electoral college meant that they could enact the 3/5th rule for southern slaves and give the south an electoral college boost and enhancing their power in the vote. Ah, racism rears it ugly head again.

[A Theist]

This is why we have an electoral college.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_America

...and in most states aren't the electoral votes awarded to the winner on a state by state popular vote?

[Clueless Morgan]

This is why we have an electoral college.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_America

...and in most states aren't the electoral votes awarded to the winner on a state by state popular vote?

There is a winner-take-all rule in 48 states and the District of Columbia where the electoral votes are awarded either by who won the popular vote in that state or by who won a plurality of the vote (not more than 50% of the vote but more than any other candidate; i.e. Candidate 1 wins 15%, Candidate 2 wins 45%, Candidate 3 wins 40%, Candidate 2 wins). Maine and Nebraska are the only states that split their electoral votes by "proportional allocation."

[RoadRunner79]

This is why we have an electoral college.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_America

...and in most states aren't the electoral votes awarded to the winner on a state by state popular vote?

Some states have laws where the electoral representative must vote for the majority vote of the state.   Others allow for faithless voters, where they can go against the popular vote.   However my understanding is that the representative is chosen by the vote, so if the candidate for party X wins, then it is their party's rep who gets the vote.   Some states can fine or penalize a faithless voter.

It didn't make a difference, but I did find out, that this election actually had the most number of faithless voters.  5 for Clinton and 2 for Trump.  I'm not sure, but I guess that this was more of a protest, once they realized that their vote wouldn't make a difference and in all 7 cases, they voted independent.

---

... That doesn't explain anything, it just shows what we already know: most counties in the US aren't 100% red or 100% blue but somewhere in the middle.

Among the actual reasons we have an electoral college and not a direct democracy are:

- to provide a constitutional limitation on direct democracy whereby "factions" of citizen could grow large enough that they could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” (James Madison) which is where we get the idea of the "tyranny of the majority."

- to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” (Alexander Hamilton) (A lot of good this one did)

- because the founders didn't trust that the population of a geographically large country would be able to be well enough informed about presidential candidates to make intelligent decisions when casting their votes

- because a direct democracy would not be acceptable to the slave-owning south where the population of eligible voters was much less than in the north.  Having an electoral college meant that they could enact the 3/5th rule for southern slaves and give the south an electoral college boost and enhancing their power in the vote.  Ah, racism rears it ugly head again.

There was a lot of close ballots in this election.   Even California surprised me, in their numbers for Trump.  

And I agree with your comment about the south and eligible voters.   That the point is to boost the say of those in lower population areas, where they me be drown out by the larger metropolis areas.   Which I think is good.  It is their President too.  I disagree however, with your trying to make it as if racism is a reason for the electoral college.

[Clueless Morgan]

...and in most states aren't the electoral votes awarded to the winner on a state by state popular vote?

Some states have laws where the electoral representative must vote for the majority vote of the state.

Which is why there has been a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which means that whomever wins the national popular vote gets all of a state's electors. If this policy is signed into law in enough states to equal more than 270 electoral votes then the electoral college would basically be obsolete and the US would, for all intents and purposes, become a nation that elects its presidents by popular vote.

For example, if states comprising 270 or more electoral votes had joined the NPVIC before 2016 Hillary Clinton would now be president regardless of whether Trump won the popular vote in any of those individual states.

Right now the NPVIC has passed in 12 states comprising 172 electoral votes. It has passed both houses of 2 more states (14 EVs), but in different years so it wasn't enacted into law, and passed in one house in 9 more states (75 EVs) and was approved by committee in 2 states (27 EVs).

It would have to be reintroduced, passed and enacted in ALL of the states above for the NPVIC to take effect which basically means it will never be passed because among the above states are Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, not to mention several Great Plains states and states with the minimum number of EVs who generally don't like the idea of going to a popular vote system because they would then lose their disproportionate representation in the Electoral College.

[RoadRunner79]

Some states have laws where the electoral representative must vote for the majority vote of the state.

Which is why there has been a movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact which means that whomever wins the national popular vote gets all of a state's electors.  If this policy is signed into law in enough states to equal more than 270 electoral votes then the electoral college would basically be obsolete and the US would, for all intents and purposes, become a nation that elects its presidents by popular vote.

For example, if states comprising 270 or more electoral votes had joined the NPVIC before 2016 Hillary Clinton would now be president regardless of whether Trump won the popular vote in any of those individual states.

Right now the NPVIC has passed in 12 states comprising 172 electoral votes.  It has passed both houses of 2 more states (14 EVs), but in different years so it wasn't enacted into law, and passed in one house in 9 more states (75 EVs) and was approved by committee in 2 states (27 EVs).

It would have to be reintroduced, passed and enacted in ALL of the states above for the NPVIC to take effect which basically means it will never be passed because among the above states are Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, not to mention several Great Plains states and states with the minimum number of EVs who generally don't like the idea of going to a popular vote system because they would then lose their disproportionate representation in the Electoral College.

I think that there are downsides to the electoral college process as well.   Often in PA here, all of our votes go to Pittsburgh and Philly as the largest population centers.  I don't know if it would be legal for a state to break up its electoral representation and say have some for Democrats and some for Republicans out of their share.  But popular vote has it's downside as well.  It's not just about the majority of the people, but about the majority of the country as a whole.  In the end, it really only comes into play in a close race anyway.  I just don't see the point in complaining that the electoral college is not a popular vote; when it is not meant to be.  And I think that you need to discuss the reasons for a change.

[Clueless Morgan]

And I agree with your comment about the south and eligible voters.   That the point is to boost the say of those in lower population areas, where they me be drown out by the larger metropolis areas.   Which I think is good.  It is their President too.  I disagree however, with your trying to make it as if racism is a reason for the electoral college.

I am not "trying to make it as if racism is a reason for the electoral college" it's a fact.

Initially, James Wilson, a delegate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, put forth direct election of the president but James Madison (President 1809-1817) pointed out that the South wouldn't go for that because “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” AKA: The Northern free population outnumbered the Southern free population, minus the half a million slaves. So the Three-Fifths Compromise was enacted to mollify the South.

The Three-Fifths Compromise meant that Pennsylvania, which had 10% more free people than Virginia, got 20% fewer electoral votes. I.e. the more slaves any slave state bought or "bred", the more electoral votes that state would have.

It was because of the pro-slavery skew of the electoral college that 4 of our first 5 presidents were white, slave-owning Virginians, and it was that same pro-slavery skew was the difference-maker in electing Thomas Jefferson over John Adams (of Massachusetts) in 1801. The freed population of the South was not enough to elect Jefferson on its own.

To put it another way, "Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves."

I'm not making this shit up, it's American history.

[RoadRunner79]

And I agree with your comment about the south and eligible voters.   That the point is to boost the say of those in lower population areas, where they me be drown out by the larger metropolis areas.   Which I think is good.  It is their President too.  I disagree however, with your trying to make it as if racism is a reason for the electoral college.

I am not "trying to make it as if racism is a reason for the electoral college" it's a fact.

Initially, James Wilson, a delegate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, put forth direct election of the president but James Madison (President 1809-1817) pointed out that the South wouldn't go for that because “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”  AKA: The Northern population outnumbered the Southern population, minus the half a million slaves.  So the Three-Fifths Compromise was enacted to mollify the South.

The Three-Fifths Compromise meant that Pennsylvania, which had 10% more free persons than Virginia, got 20% fewer electoral votes.  I.e. the more slaves any slave state bought or "bred", the more electoral votes that state would have.

It was because of the pro-slavery skew of the electoral college that 4 of our first 5 presidents were white, slave-owning Virginians, and it was that same pro-slavery skew was the difference-maker in electing Thomas Jefferson over John Adams (of Massachusetts) in 1801.  It was the electoral college votes granted to southern, pro-slave states that made the difference in that election.  The freed population of the South was not enough to elect Jefferson on its own.

To put it another way, "Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves."

I'm not making this shit up, it's American history.

Doesn't the principles still apply even without the issue of slavery though?   It's possibly a corollary explanation, but not a necessary one.  The reason is because they had less eligible voters,the "why" is secondary.   It doesn't make it a racist system.  The same reasoning still holds today, and nobody owns slaves.  And as you said, it is a compromise.  Areas with higher populations do have more electoral votes, and regions of the country with lower populations can't just be ignored.  Perhaps we can improve it, but I think that you will still need a compromise and popular vote is not necessarily better.

[Clueless Morgan]

And I think that you need to discuss the reasons for a change.

I'm not saying that abolishing the electoral college would be a blanket good for the nation because it brings up the problem of the tyranny of the majority.  Those impulses would need to be checked so that minorities remain protected, be they atheists, religious minorities, racial and ethnic minorities, LGBT minorities, etc.

HOWEVER

The main problem that I have with the electoral college is the fact that some citizens are over represented and others are under represented.  For example, California has a population of 39.5 million and 55 electoral votes meaning each electoral vote represents 718,181 people.  In South Dakota, with 3 electoral votes and a population of 870,000, each electoral vote represents 290,000 people.  If every state had that many people per EV, California would have 136 electoral votes.

This country does not have equal representation either in our elected officials or in our electoral college which violates one of the core ideals upon which this country was founded: that all men are created equal.  Well, if we're really equal, then give us all equal representation.

Doesn't the principles still apply even without the issue of slavery though?   It's possibly a corollary explanation, but not a necessary one.  The reason is because they had less eligible voters,the "why" is secondary.   It doesn't make it a racist system.  The same reasoning still holds today, and nobody owns slaves.  And as you said, it is a compromise.  Areas with higher populations do have more electoral votes, and regions of the country with lower populations can't just be ignored.  Perhaps we can improve it, but I think that you will still need a compromise and popular vote is not necessarily better.

I only ever talked about a "compromise" in the context of the Three-Fifths compromise.

And it is true to say that we no longer have slaves.

It is also true to say that we have unequal representation in our government and that is ultimately the reason I would wish to abolish the electoral college.  I agree that areas of the country with lower populations shouldn't just be ignored, but neither should they have disproportionate power to influence our elections.

Everyone talks about one person one vote but that's not what we have.  We have, in California, 718,000 people one vote.  In South Dakota, 290,000 people one vote.  In Arizona, 639,000 people one vote.  In Wyoming, 139,000 people one vote. In New York, 683,000 people one vote. In Florida, which has the same number of electoral votes as New York, it's 723,600 people one vote.

That's crap.