Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Do you support the recent push by the Democratic Party to eliminate the Electoral College?

Do you support the recent push by the Democratic Party to eliminate the Electoral College?

https://amac.us/poll/do-you-support-the-recent-push-by-the-democratic-party-to-eliminate-the-elector...

 

No, this is a Constitutional protection for America’s Heartland states to ensure they have a voice in our elections rather than large cities controlling electoral decisions.
 
19,038 Votes
 
-------------------------------------------
 
Yes, I agree that the popular vote should determine the winner in our elections
 
97 Votes
 
------------------------------------------
 
It does not matter because a Constitutional amendment requires two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate to eliminate the Electoral College and they could not get those votes.
 
366 Votes
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Not Sure
 
66 Votes
 
----------------------------------------------------------

Interesting that so many people want to keep it the way it is.  
 
0 Kudos
596 Views
37
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@fffred wrote:

I think people are confusing the rationale for the electoral college with that for having 2 - count 'em, 2! - Senators for each state, no matter how large or how small.

 

The issue of big city slickers overwhelming the good folks in the small towns is addressed by having the Representatives of the districts, based on population. But then each state gets 2 Senators. So, tiny Rhode Island gets the same number of Senators as do New York, California, Florida, and Texas (etc).

 

Note that Rhode Island has a bit over 1 million population. Houston, Texas alone has more than double that population and yet Texas still gets only 2 Senators. Of course, each state has a different number of Representatives.

 

Still, though, it seems to me that these days the states with small populations but still get 2 Senators are now holding many millions of people "hostage". Maybe the time has come to get rid of 2 Senators per state rather than removing the electoral college.

 

The electoral college allows the small states some further leverage by using their Senators. From description of the electoral college at History.com:

 

" It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation."

 

Again, we have a small group of people holding hostage many millions in the large urban areas.

 

There is the phenomena that rural residents have been heading to the cities for a long time. Farming requires fewer workers, so the younger people move on for opportunities. In the extreme process this will end with fewer and fewer people in small states holding hostage the large urban areas. I am thinking this is becoming unfair. I doubt that the founding fathers had  any idea of the population size that urban areas would become.


I have always said the the number of Senators per state should be based on population, just as the number of Representatives are. Congress would be much larger and would much more represent the will of the people. But then, Republicans aren't interested in "the will of the people", only 'the will of the Cons'.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

Electoral votes are based on population from the census... and the census counts all people including non citizens.

Representation without taxation... and that's wrong. Welcome to California, the sanctuary state.

Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
1,069 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
Electoral votes are based on population from the census... and the census counts all people including non citizens.

Representation without taxation... and that's wrong. Welcome to California, the sanctuary state.

Another use of illogical "logic".  When you look at population, multiply that  by percentage of population between 18 and 65 (working age) and multiply that by the percentage in civilian employment; you will end up with the total number "working" according to what you just said.  Take those numbers and divide by electoral votes and you will see how many "working" people it takes for an electoral vote in each state.  California is one electoral vote for 167,000 people.  Wyoming, for example, has an electoral vote for every 51,000 "working" people.  So, no matter how you look at it, a vote in Wyoming is worth 3 times what a vote in California is worth.

0 Kudos
1,064 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Well said, Fred and great points!


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
480 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Fishslayer777 wrote:
If you understand we are a (democratic) Republic, then you know why we have the electoral college. History is important and relevant. If you want the elites to run our country, and minority groups underrepresented then you want a democracy and we'd be ruled by simple majority controlled by the few.

Remember back in the day... an example of a minority group were farmers, ranchers, immigrants. They worked outside of the cities and were subject to the rules of the elites. Our whole developing nation was a minority to England. We were outside of London and the ruling class and we had taxation without representation.

You are correct, Fish.  Though, we aren't "back in the day" any longer.  This is "the day" for a younger generations and most of them want change, the electoral college is one of the issues.  Fortunately the founding fathers put in a mechanism to initiate changing the constitution,  It'll change eventually.  It abolished slavery, got women the right to vote and the right to bear arms.  More changes will come....

Representation is the key and if the dems had their way, London would be reincarnated and rule once more.  Complete and utter nonsense.

"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly


@Centristsin2010 wrote:

@Fishslayer777 wrote:
If you understand we are a (democratic) Republic, then you know why we have the electoral college. History is important and relevant. If you want the elites to run our country, and minority groups underrepresented then you want a democracy and we'd be ruled by simple majority controlled by the few.

Remember back in the day... an example of a minority group were farmers, ranchers, immigrants. They worked outside of the cities and were subject to the rules of the elites. Our whole developing nation was a minority to England. We were outside of London and the ruling class and we had taxation without representation.

You are correct, Fish.  Though, we aren't "back in the day" any longer.  This is "the day" for a younger generations and most of them want change, the electoral college is one of the issues.  Fortunately the founding fathers put in a mechanism to initiate changing the constitution,  It'll change eventually.  It abolished slavery, got women the right to vote and the right to bear arms.  More changes will come....

Representation is the key and if the dems had their way, London would be reincarnated and rule once more.  Complete and utter nonsense.

You are wrong (as usual) again. The reason "back in the day" was (is) the same as it is today. If you as a liberal, think the Constitution should be changed, by all means - take the steps to make it happen. My prediction is it will be fruitless. Now is the time to LMAO again (what liberals do).

Honored Social Butterfly

electoral college is completely antiquated and no longer serves a useful purpose. Let the general election decide the Presidential race. What are the conservatives afraid of?
Honored Social Butterfly

I always thought that   the electoral college was an impediment to any democracy.  Presidents should never be elected by a minority of any population and that is what the electoral college does.

Any president disregarding of party should the the will of all voters and not the minority of a few

no name
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png