The Electoral College has become the opposite of what Founders envisioned

[kentuck]

They were mostly concerned that a demagogue, a democratic populist, would impassion the people to vote against the interests of the nation. They were very much concerned about the popular vote.

However, with the evolution of political Parties, the opposite has occurred. The voice of the majority is now subservient to the mechanisms of political maneuvers and voter suppression. The electoral college is now manipulated by the minority against the will of the majority.

If the electors cannot vote their consciences in a circumstance as clear as this election has presented, then they will never vote against the corrupt system that we now have. Their votes will demonstrate whether the electoral college is something worthy of keeping.

It has evolved into something totally opposite of what the Founders imagined, in my opinion.

[putitinD]

1. its time to get rid of the electoral college

[Grey Lemercier]

21. it will never happen, the only hope is to increase the size of the House, and thus the EC

and then more equally distribute all the new seats and EV's.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028342606

[Squinch]

2. Well... actually they were concerned that the southern slaveholders wouldn't be

steamrolled by the North's greater white male population.

[kentuck]

4. I'm sure that was part of it.

But they did not want the passions of a democracy involved in choosing a leader. It is noteworthy that everytime an election has been determined by the electoral college, a Republican has won, considering that the Federalist Party was an early incarnation of Republican beliefs.

[jmg257]

3. We expect 538 electors to vote the way THEY feel? And ignore the populace they represent?

Why bother with a general election at all?

[treestar]

18. The founders thought it was to vote for the electors

that's how it has become so archaic. We don't even know who they are. The founders thought we should pick the people as electors that we trusted to pick the president in the EC. Technically, people who are leaders in the state should be running to be electors. I guess in modern times they could campaign as going to vote for Hillary for this reason and get picked on that basis.

[mopinko]

5. we do need to use it or lose it.

we shall see how much of a mess the recounts show, but really, we need to end it if it isnt going to be used THIS.TIME.
that goes double if the vote counting turns out to be as smelly as it seems. how can we possibly allow such a mess to count?

it so distorts our politics. the whole southern strategy was based on the outsized representation that is built into the system. it is time to end it, imho. first w now cheeto sporkhands? it isnt working like it was meant to, that is fersher.

[CajunBlazer]

6. Yep, but the electoral college his unfortuately here to state

The electoral college was primarily instituted as a compromise to allay the concerns of states with smaller populations that they would be marginalized by the popular vote in states with the largest populations.

That effect can still be seen today. For instance, Wyoming with three electors representing its population of 592K (1 vote for every 197K of population) is 3.6 times better represented in the electoral college than California with its 55 electoral votes representing its population of 39.35 million (one vote for 715K of population).

It would take three quarters of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment which would eliminate the Electoral College so that the President can be elected by the popular vote. The states with the smallest populations are never going to agree to give up their advantage. In addition the swing states, those that get all of the attention and attract most of the money spent on Presidential campaigns, are not going to give up their favored positions either.

Bitch all you want, but if you want the Electoral College eliminated, don't hold your breath. We need to spend our efforts on more achievable goals.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. The EC is already more than halfway to irrelevancy

with no amendment needed.

Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[CajunBlazer]

11. Interesting, but you didn't read carefully...

Very interesting concept - I didn't know this existed - I like it! However, if you had studied it more closely you would have noticed that the 165 electoral votes (61.1% of the 270 EV needed) have something in common. They are all very blue states and DC:

Maryland 10,
New Jersey 14
Illinois 20
Hawaii 4,
Washington 12
Massachusetts 11
District of Columbia 3
Vermont 3
California 55,
Rhode Island 4,
New York 29,

There are no traditionally red states involved and not one swing state has joined the compact. Can you hazard a guess why that is? Without some of those states involved, there is no way the compact will ever reach 270 electoral votes needed to become effective. And notice how the popularity of the agreement dropped from 70% to 49% after Trump lost the popular vote by a large margin.

State legislatures in Republican and swing states are not stupid. It's clear that if a candidate in the future wins the popular vote, but loses the Electoral College, it is going to be the Democratic nominee, not the Republican. And swing states are not going to give up their place in the sun during the general election process. You really don't expect these folks to adopt something that is not in their selfish best interests just because it would be fair, do you?

The chances of this agreement going into in affect in the foreseeable future are slim and none, with emphasis on the none. It is currently more than halfway to nowhere.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. Gee, thanks for the unnecessary lecture

I'm quite well aware of which states have passed it and which have not, and what a struggle it will be to get it the rest of the way. Since you didn't even know about it until yesterday, please spare me.

Since the EC has delivered unto us the Orange Asshole, I'm going to bet thar we will add a few more states to the lists.

[CajunBlazer]

14. Gee, I would have thought that ....

...if you were aware of which states had passed it and which had not and the relevancy of that situation, you wouldn't made the the technically accurate, but highly misleading statement, "The EC is already more than halfway to irrelevancy with no amendment needed". In truth it is more than halfway to going nowhere.

Try seeing you posts from the prospective of those who will read them - the folks on DU aren't mind readers.

It is precisely because "the EC has delivered unto us the Orange Asshole" that it is unlikely that many other states will join. Look at the 2016 Electoral College results map. Of the reliably blue states, only Oregon, Minnesota, and Connecticut have yet to sign on with a total of only 27 EC votes. As I pointed out before, red states and the swing states, including the new swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvanian are not going to be interested.

Heck if there were more reliably Blue state Democrats would win every Presidential election.

[ProfessorPlum]

15. You were the one boo-hooing about how it was impossible to get rid of

Imagine your surprise when you find out that with only a little effort in a few states, it could really go away.

You can see how close this effort was to passing in a huge number of states - and that was just with the precedent of Bush v. Gore.

With the EC now proving its irrelevancy once again, there will be more people who will want to do away with it, and the mechanism exists.

It will be hard, as you point out, but not impossible, as you stated in your original post.

[CajunBlazer]

19. I'll tell you what, I will give you good odds and make you a friendly bet...

... that the compact does not get the required 270 necessary to go into affect during the next ten years.

How about a bet of $1 and I will give you 20 to 1 odds, payable 10 years from today or when the NPVI compact goes into affect. The bet is payable with a dollar bill from you if I win or a $20 bill from me if you win. The loser has to write on the bill, "You were right, and I was wrong about the NPVI compact" and sign his/her name.

I for one hope I lose and will be more than happy to pay to pay off that bet, but I really don't think I will lose. I frankly don't give the NPVI a 1 in 20 chance of going into affect in my lifetime.

Is it a bet?

[ProfessorPlum]

20. that sounds great

if we aren't scratching through the rubble during a nuclear winter at that point, I'll be happy to pay you.

my point is just that this legislative work around moves it from the impossible category to the merely improbable.

[CajunBlazer]

22. I hope you're right

An I am sure that the ever logical Mr. Spock would agree.

[portlander23]

8. Who cares what the founders intended?

We have a system of government that lets us change the Constitution because the people who wrote it knew they weren't going to get everything right. It doesn't matter what the founders intended the electoral college to be. It's dumb, undemocratic, and we should get rid of it.

[Nancyswidower]

10. There is a prosess for that.."..and we should get rid of it."

Amend the Constitution....it's just that easy. As a young'in I fought for the ERA in the '70's...how'd that play out?
"It's dumb, undemocratic...."....if we were a democracy I would agree it's dumb....but we aren't.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. No amendment is even needed

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[FBaggins]

16. It really is needed. People just don't realize it because it isn't close enough to take seriously

It's far too easy for the entire thing to fall apart (likely at just the wrong time) because they're just state laws that can be changed (either through legislation or legal action). Only an Amendment provides the surety that the country needs.

Imagine the nightmare that could ensue when the courts in one state stay the implementation of the law in, say, Virginia based on a state Constitutional issue... just before an election. Now it isn't 270 any longer. The other states have language implementing it once enough states sign on... so they language reversing that?

[ProfessorPlum]

17. frankly I'd rather have an amendment as well

but I would take this scheme as a stop gap in the meantime.

[Seasider]

9. The winner take all system should at least be changed.

to accurately reflect what happened in the popular vote in a certain state. The way it works now, it doesn't matter if a candidate wins the state by 5 votes of 5 million, they get all that states electoral votes while the runner up gets nothing. I think if you devise a system where the electoral votes are calculated proportionately to the popular vote, you'll get an electoral result more closely aligned with what the overal popular vote says. Using that system in this year's election.