Link to writings about this? I know it to be true I just can't recall the founders reasons. I would like to brush up and contrst that to today to see if those reasons still make sense.

Edit: Google is my friend, responded in #125

It wouldn't be based on feelings.

There are numbers for how many registered voters for each party there are in each state as well as current turn out percentages/numbers. All the information needed is there to use some math to get an idea of the impact. This kind of study is done all the time for various things.

Liberals are the biggest bunch of sore losers on earth.

Those states are blue to stay anyway. What a waste of time

So two reasons are cited in articles discussing this.

1. They didn't want a tyrant manipulating the public and gaining power. Which doesn't seem like a possibility today with the modern flow of information, and even so the only way to stop it is for electors to vote against the majority vote of their state. Don't some states have laws forcing their electors to vote with the state? Looked it up 29 states electors are bound.

Also there is the whole balance of power and checks and balances things to control a President. On top of that congress can do whatever they want regardless of the presidents wishes if they have enough cohesion.

2. They wanted to give states minimum representation in congress which I don't see how that would even change, the allocation of representatives could be independent of the vote for POTUS, why can't Wyoming have 3 representatives instead of 1 regardless of how the votes are tallied? The difference would be their representatives in congress wouldn't mirror their EVs. The amount of reps they get could still be calculated the same way with the same minimum.

the constitution isnt perfect and it's been changed 27 times. The constitution gets edited on average every 8.5 years. i wouldnt be surprised if eventually there's an amendment to abolish the electoral college.

the founders couldnt predict everything, and we need amendments to allow the constitution to be a living, breathing, CHANGING thing.

Absolutely.

The United States was founded on the principle that states with large voting populations wouldn't dominate states with small voting populations. The electoral college was the compromise that allowed for the formation of the country. Breaking up the US into separate nations makes far more sense than going towards a national popular vote where California and New York dominate 48 other states.

If anything, California already has far too many electoral votes as illegal aliens (foreign citizens) are counted towards it's total population/electors.

The bottom line - the popular vote was never even an option. It came down to the electoral college vs Congress.

AND - even when they decided on the electoral college there was nothing that deemed how the electors will make their choices - that was left to the states and the states each decided on popular vote, which is why these states can try to change it. A state could make it that their electors will vote based on the Governor's direction, or state legislatures.

But you're a racist nazi if you want a citizenship question asked on the census.


Is there any other measure we can go off to assign electors/representation? Social Security numbers?

Trump won 95% of the counties in America.

This shows the entire idea behind the electoral college perfectly. LA County and NYC should not alone dictate what happens to everyone else. Especially when those places are sancutary cities with very large percentage of votes being from illegals

Its now a standard for Liberals to try to overthrow any core pillar of american government when they lose fair and square

he'll never understand that.

Okay that kind of makes sense in that it keeps the power in the states to decide how their state participates in the election.

If the state wants their electors to base their choice off a coin flip they could legally do that.

Yup.

But their argument is that it's electoral college vs the popular vote when that isn't the case.

You're automatically assuming that a significant portion of those registered will vote will turnout simply because they're registered. My wife and my in-laws in her immediate family are all registered to vote, if we switched to a PV over the current system, only the same 3 out of 8 people would be going to the polls on election day. Similar to my side of the family, only 3 out of the 7 eligible voters in my family would continue to vote if the system was changed. You keep talking about how simple it would be to "do some math" but these states have already enacted laws based on a lot of "maybe".

If you're going to push to change the fabric of the elections that have been held in this country for 200 years you need to come up with a lot more than "WELLLLLL maybe more people would come out to vote". Its entirely possible that MAYBE only 57% of the country actually cares enough to vote period. The point I'm making is that we're already too far gone, and you're still focusing only on California. Maybe more Democrats in the Rust Belt will come out and less Republicans in CA will come out. If a bill is being passed in multiple states to change the Electoral system, I want more than speculation that its better for the nation as a whole.

meh, it seems to me that the electoral college allows the small/minority population to dominate the large voting populations. if a majority of voters want something, why should the minority get their way instead?

honestly the red rural states can be their own country for all i care. let the dems/liberals/socialists have the blue states and the republicans/conservatives/maga brahs have the red states. it would be lulzy once they realize the red states are completely dependent on the blue states to function.

we could have 2 presidents or whatever and we can all govern how we want.

Plenty of conservatives bitch about a national ID whenever it comes up too. People's opinions change depending on the purpose the ID is tied to.

I see it as an inevitable requirement if we are ever going get control of managing participation in our system/society.

I agree that it would require more than speculation and there is enough information available to formulate some good numbers, for example you could compare R and D turnout percentages in/competitive swing states vs locked states to get an idea or possible change. I get tired of people talking about how low voter turnout is when the system disenfranchises half the electorate because of its design.

Thing is, the midtermsshouldhave been a complete disaster for Democrats. I could not ever remember a party rejecting presidential election results for as long as they have been, nor could I ever remember a party becoming so unhinged after taking a loss that they drag a mans name through the mud and accuse him of gang rape in front of the entire nation in what became the most disgraceful confirmation hearing in the history of the country. Obama might have had bad approval ratings and really sucked at getting Dems elected, but he was really good at getting himself elected. Maybe it's the same for Trump, but there were some pretty big red flags that came up during this midterm. Arizona's senate seat went to Democrats, Democrats came within 3 points of winning Texas, and they came within like 1 point of winning Georgia. They're incredibly fired up and energized, and Trump just keeps firing them up and pushing swing voters away from him.

i believe this is the smartest comment ive seen you make on these forums.

a popular vote would make every vote count, swing state or not, and it would dramatically encourage voter turnout.

*blushes*

to be clear I'm not advocating for PV just pointing out it may be a better option today than it was at the inception of the EC. Do the reasons the founders say they wanted an EC hold the test of the time? Does the benefits of a PV POTUS election outweigh the benefits of an EC, etc.

One thing we can be certain of though is participation will always be low when the system disenfranchises by design. You had some of the most polarizing figures to ever go head to head in a POTUS election in 2016 and turnout was still ****.

After thinking about this a couple days I realized that MY vote now counts in 13 states. My vote can determine who wins the electoral votes in Calif, Colorado, NY, NJ etc.

Blue states are going to be pissed when Can't Stump the Trump™ wins the popular vote. But he needs to stop the gun bans and red laws or we will end up with a democrat in 2020.

Patently unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court if it were enacted. Really getting tired of this chicken chit liberals constantly bastardizing the Constitution.

That’s the whole point of the electoral college.Lmao. You just proved the whole “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” slogan.

For crying out loud the south had their own president and we ended up in the civil war. Holy ****!

the south never had a legitimate president that was ever recognized by the united states

LOL at even trying to use that statistic. Negged on recharge

On average . 002% of proposed amendments are ratified. I can make up stupid stats to prove my point too