NY Times calls for end to Electoral College

A

anatta

100% recycled karma
The New York Times is calling for an end to the Electoral College.

Americans would prefer by overwhelming majorities to elect a president using a popular vote system, the newspaper's editorial board said in a piece published Monday.

"They understand, on a gut level, the basic fairness of awarding the nation’s highest office on the same basis as every other elected office — to the person who gets the most votes," the editorial said.

On Monday, President-elect Donald Trump sealed his presidential victory, even though his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, beat him by more than 2.8 million votes.

"Yes, Mr. Trump won under the rules," the editorial said, "but the rules should change so that a presidential election reflects the will of Americans and promotes a more participatory democracy."

The Times called the Electoral College a "living symbol of America's original sin."

"When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations," the Times said.

"Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes."

Now, the Electoral College system "tips the scales in favor of smaller states."

The Times proposed a solution, saying the Constitution establishes the Electoral College but lets the states decide how to tell the electors to vote.

"Eleven states and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes, have already passed legislation to have their electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote," The Times said.

"The agreement, known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact, would take effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes, currently 270, signed on. This would ensure that the national popular-vote winner would become president."

By using a popular vote system, all Americans would be treated equally, the editorial said.

"The system as it now operates does a terrible job of representing the nation’s demographic and geographic diversity," the piece said.

"It’s hard to understand," the paper said, "why the loser of the popular vote should wind up running the country."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/311145-ny-times-calls-for-end-to-electoral-college
 
Reading the NYTimes or WaPo many times I feel like I'm reading some alt-universe where "all the news that's fit to print" ( motto)
morphs into "all the news that fits our mindset - we print"

Look at this: how can the electoral college NOT "reflect geographic diversity?" -would Wyoming or the small states ever be factored into the "will of the people" if it had the same voting power as a borough of NY city? ( no)

The college reflects the design of Congress -which reflects the will of the REPUBLIC -where states and the population are both represented. yes NY Times that's exactly WHY
the Electoral College system "tips the scales in favor of smaller states."
Click to expand...
it's no accident - The Senate does the same thing. The House reflects population -both factors are reflected in the Electoral vote.

Attempts to bypass the College thru a winner take all by the popular vote disenfranchises the voters of that state.

The founders had many reasons not to make every national decision by a pure democracy-
again the Legislative Branch reflects that dichotomy
 
It [the EC] 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.

In order to forestall partisan intrigue and manipulation, the electors assemble in their respective states and cast their ballots as state units, rather than meet at a central location.

http://www.history.com/topics/electoral-college
_________________

The EC functions as a hedge against 'partisan intrigue and manipulation' of the popular vote and ensures that smaller states aren't disenfranchised in the process.

With all the conspiracy theories about Russian influence in the past election, one would think, the left would be fans of the EC because the EC makes the election harder to manipulate. But the left cares less about fairness than winning.

As of this past election, they are documented and proven election cheaters.

No way should they be allowed to circumvent the EC.
 
The electoral college keeps us from being a monarchy! Were the dems ever to win that argument they would ensure that dead and illegal immigrant voters elected our President, look at how much they influenced this election in California!
 
What's next from the Leftwing authoritarians? ... abolish the Senate?
 
Wolverine said:
The electoral college keeps us from being a monarchy! Were the dems ever to win that argument they would ensure that dead and illegal immigrant voters elected our President, look at how much they influenced this election in California!
Click to expand...

That's basically what the founders were trying to address with the EC: preventing populous regions/states from disenfranchising smaller ones.

There's no need for the left to change the rules anyway. They've won their share of EC's. It's not like they don't know how to do it. Their problem is they don't want to because in order to win the EC, they need to compromise on some of their cherished dogmas.

Only by having the Hyper Blue precincts dictate to the rest of the country, can they succeed in keeping open immigration policy, putting global warming ahead of jobs and etc.

That's what it boils down to. It's not like the system is broken---it's that it stands in the way of them getting what they want. Think about how out of step those 4 million[!] CA voter are with the rest of the country. How is it in any way 'fair' to allow them to dictate to everyone else?

To hell with that.
 
I dont have an issue with it. Its all game theory to strategists anyway. As long as you tell people beforehand what the rules of the game are thats all that counts.

My only concern is it takes a lot of effort to ammend the constitution. I think that there are other more pressing issues we could change. Like banning Islam :D
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
That's basically what the founders were trying to address with the EC: preventing populous regions/states from disenfranchising smaller ones.

There's no need for the left to change the rules anyway. They've won their share of EC's. It's not like they don't know how to do it. Their problem is they don't want to because in order to win the EC, they need to compromise on some of their cherished dogmas.

Only by having the Hyper Blue precincts dictate to the rest of the country, can they succeed in keeping open immigration policy, putting global warming ahead of jobs and etc.

That's what it boils down to. It's not like the system is broken---it's that it stands in the way of them getting what they want. Think about how out of step those 4 million[!] CA voter are with the rest of the country. How is it in any way 'fair' to allow them to dictate to everyone else?

To hell with that.
Click to expand...
yes
 
Would the vote total have been the exact same had the candidates run knowing the popular vote was the determining factor?
 
Well, that certainly won't happen as long as Republicans are in power. Republicans don't even like it when a lot of people vote.

I wonder if we're seeing the start of a trend? Can the GOP even win the popular vote anymore?
 
Thing1 said:
Well, that certainly won't happen as long as Republicans are in power. Republicans don't even like it when a lot of people vote.

I wonder if we're seeing the start of a trend? Can the GOP even win the popular vote anymore?
Click to expand...

does it need to? :3
 
cawacko said:
Would the vote total have been the exact same had the candidates run knowing the popular vote was the determining factor?
Click to expand...
can't say obviously, it's a 2 edged sword. Some say the campaigns would expand -since every vote counts.
But others say only the large states would get campaigns.

The popular vote is a state by state vote now ( the aggregate total has no meaning). One disadvantage of only a popular vote
is any recounts would be nationwide ( instead of by state),,

for me I think the fact that Congress itself as well as elctoral college are both under the same design is the most compelling argument
for keeping it that way.
Also the over-influene of the big states would wipe out geographical diversity..but that all part of the same argument
 
What a bunch of ignorant idiots.
The EC was created by white male literate land owners, the only legal voters at the time, a time when slavery and forcible wife raping was legal and blacks were not considered whole people.
The entire point of it was to maintain aristocratic control of the government.
It is both an anachronism and an aberation as well as an insult to modern Americans.
Of course you racist dingleberry twats like it.
May the ruination be on your empty heads.
 
Rune said:
What a bunch of ignorant idiots.
The EC was created by white male literate land owners, the only legal voters at the time, a time when slavery and forcible wife raping was legal and blacks were not considered whole people.
The entire point of it was to maintain aristocratic control of the government.
It is both an anachronism and an aberation as well as an insult to modern Americans.
Of course you racist dingleberry twats like it.
May the ruination be on your empty heads.
Click to expand...

Ok. Why do we have the Constitution at all then?

Shouldn't Prop 8 and Prop 187 legally stand in California because they were voted on the majority of the people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top