Academia, Congress, Constitutional Law

Gallup: Support For Electoral College Surges After 2016 Presidential Election

d46bffd8-7832-4835-895e-9f89680f51aeDemocratic leaders have suddenly discovered that the Electoral College is anti-democratic and have called for its elimination.  I have long been a critic of the Electoral College, though I understand the concerns of those who fear that the loss of the institution would reduce presidential elections to the choice of states like California and New York.  However, the interesting result of this election (where Hillary Clinton won the popular) was a ground swell of calls for the elimination of the Electoral College.  The hue and cry for reform gave hope for critics (despite the obvious opportunism and hypocrisy from some quarters) but a recent Gallup poll indicates that an inverse move has also occurred as many have come to appreciate the counter-majoritarian impact of institution in this election.  The net results appears to be an increase in support for the Electoral College.

According to the latest poll,  47% of Americans say they want to keep the Electoral College while 49% want to amend the Constitution to allow for a popular vote for president. (For the record, I favor a majority vote requirement much like many countries around the world where a runoff occurs between the final two candidates to insure a majority election).  What is fascinating is that there was previously a majority in favor of eliminating the Electoral College.

The shift, not surprising, follows political affiliations.  Previously 50 of Republicans favored the elimination, but now it was just 19 percent.

 

The loss of the Democrats appear to have cut off this option with all of the spoils of victory.  While a bill was introduced to eliminate the Electoral College by Democrats, the Senate is now going to be control of the same party as a president who counts his election on that very institution.

Who said that Electoral College was not actually educational?

369 thoughts on “Gallup: Support For Electoral College Surges After 2016 Presidential Election”

        1. Great point. And the rural Midwest “fly over” folks asserted themselves last month. The Democrats are east and west coast, big city, monopolies. What the MSM avoids speaking about much is how many governors and state legislatures Dems have lost in the last couple decades. Conversely, Cali now has a Dem super majority. Look for more taxes and high speed rail between Julian and Hemet!!

          2. You’re going to see a Democratic retrenchment and the rise of extremism based on the power vacuum of leadership of the far left. Pelosi and Ellison are lightweights.

      2. Look at Maryland. Pretty much a red state, except for 2 counties out of the 23–Prince Georges and Howard I believe. So we always end up Democrat.

        1. No, five or six counties: Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Howard County, Prince George’s, Montgomery, and perhaps Anne Arundel. County unit rules have bee pretty unusual in state politics (Georgia had them at one time).

          1. That’s right, but the divide is basically urban/suburban vs. rural, with the exception of Washington County, whose population exploded late ’90s and 00’s. Heavy republican area. W and Cheney made several trips out that way in their time. The amount of geography held by red is pretty impressive though for such a small, but diverse state.

  3. According to the latest poll, 47% of Americans say they want to keep the Electoral College while 49% want to amend the Constitution to allow for a popular vote for president.”

    The problem seems to be with the concept of check and balance. It is quite possible for one Presidential candidate to have ten+ million more votes and still lose the election because of the electoral college. The Senate is the institution’s check and balance system. If California and New York had gone more Democratic and Florida as well, Trump still would have won and perhaps with only thirty some % of the vote against sixty + % of the vote going to the losing candidate, Clinton.

    In a parliamentary system, or at least most parliamentary systems where there are multiple parties, if the winning candidate does not have the majority vote their rule can be challenged through votes of ‘no confidence’ on particular issues. If the minority leadership party loses a vote of no confidence as they are alone and in the minority on the issue, a new election is called. This is a far more functional system of rule than locking in a minority leader for four years.

    If a leader is elected by some quirk of the mechanics of the election system then that might come with a check and balance system.

    America’s main problem is that it is an oligarchy which is supported by the illusion of sacred and immutable structures that cannot be changed and the intransigence of the duopoly. If the first move was truly to eliminate all concentrated funding by law from the campaigning and election process, more talent would have access to the system. Bernie Sanders, someone who probably would have beaten Trump, had been unobstructed by the established oligarchy backed system he would have beaten Trump by miles. Sanders had the backing of individual contributions from voters not concentrated funding from millionaires with perverse skin in the game. Trump’s name calling, lies, and other disgusting tactics would have fallen well short of the mark against Sanders and especially if financially all either candidate could have hoped for was a maximum of a $100 or so from each registered voter.

    America’s failure as a democracy is to be found lost somewhere in its collective ego and permeating lack of interest in how the democracy really works. If we’re number one then all things must be perfect. America is the least democratic country in its club. Perhaps it’s time to peruse examples of truer and better functioning democracies. No system is perfect but the American system is the least perfect.

    1. issac – coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn’t do the trick. You’re still in denial. Move on or this will last until summer.

      1. Paul, maybe we Turley blog folks should take up a collection so Issac can get some meds.

        1. Notice on this blogs when a person actually makes sense but the dominant crowd disagrees with them they start talking about meds in order to try diminish the poster’s voice.

          1. I wonder if you notice how the liberals in the MSM and Hollywood treat anyone exposed as a Republican as a pariah and then attempt to destroy their reputations and livelihood?

            1. Even if this is true, it does not justify doing it here. Just because one person or group does a wrong does not mean it is acceptable for another person or group to do the same wrong.

          2. It might help if in his comments sir Issac didn’t condescend to and name-call those who disagree with his worldview, yes?

  5. Hillary knew how the game of Electoral votes was played, she just lost. Get used to it. I do not see any of the fly-over states ratifying an amendment that would get rid of the Electoral College.

    1. If she would have put in half an effort instead of being such a creep, it should have been a wrap. But she was stuck in the hole she dug for herself years ago. Tulsi Gabbard is a stand up gal, the Democrats should quit whining and get behind this person. Imagine–a democrat who isn’t an apologist or a whining whiner. Just hoping she doesn’t come claiming some kind of cultural appropriation for being 4.784735% Antarctican or something.

      1. Tulsi is a “woman of color” – American Samoan — and a Hindu – you’d think that would inspire the SJWs to get behind her. But NO – she disrespected the Dems by stepping down as co-chair and by nominating Sanders at the DNC convention.

      2. “the Democrats should quit whining and get behind this person”

        Tulsi Gabbard just introduced a bill to stop funding ISIS. The Democrats probably won’t get behind her because Hillary probably still wants regime change in Syria. It would also mean standing up against Saudi Arabia.

        1. I have been interested to see how that works out too, Prairie Rose. Actually waiting for the MSM to bury that story in the flood of anti-Russian propaganda. After all isn’t that why they are doing it?

          1. Buried? It hasn’t even been scooped by the MSM! Not one article by the WP, NYT, WSJ, LAT…

            Oh, wait, those “fake news” people have the story. She introduced it a week ago and…crickets.

  6. I think some people are starting to understand the rational behind the Electoral College.

  7. Before the election each and every news media, including FOX had Hilly locked when it came to electoral votes. They said Trumps attempts to challenge her were monumental almost impossible.

    I never heard anyone at that time say the electoral college should be eliminated or challenged as unfair. It was just fine because Trump just couldn’t capture the states needed to beat Hilly. Now it’s suddenly no good.

    Off topic for a bit, I’m sure you have all heard about another group of left wingers in California trying to secede and create the nation of California. What happen to that fault line that was supposed to drop most of California into the pacific

      2. Drop off or slide, they are both equally wrong. Anyone who seriously thinks this a possibility does not actually understand plate tectonics, nor the actual geology of the plate boundary that is the San Andreas Fault.

  8. Kudos to Anonemouse. Every suggestion is excellent & pretty much common sense.

    Without the Electoral College our political system would become a game of giving to the large states and starving the small ones. The U.S. has evolved in a manner that gives the federal government enormous power to dole out prizes ($$). If all that is necessary to prevail is a majority of those voting the pigs in D.C. will simply hand out goodies to the dozen most populous states to “buy” votes of its citizens.

    Right now winning California by one vote is no different than winning it by five million votes. Change away from the electoral college and the political party in control in D.C. will direct huge amounts of federal funds to California. However a huge swath of America that roughly (not entirely) equates to everything “not blue” will disappear.

    Sorry, D.C. Douches, you’re going to have to campaign in New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, etc., etc. Whether or not you care for it, your elitists butts are going to have to eat blueberry pie in Roanoke and flapjacks in Evansville. Oh, so sorry!

  9. The treatise missed the target.
    It would not be the specified states that would elect by popular vote.
    The election would be in the hands of the several cities at the expense of the vast expanse of this nation’s breadbasket. Setting up something akin to the castles and the serfs.
    Washington State’s Seattle metro-complex would overwhelm the voice of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming combined.

  11. I can’t be so whimsical about the Electoral College because I live inTexas where my vote in presidential elections has not counted for 40 years. It is a winner-take-all system here. The last time I voted for the winner in Texas was in 1976 when Jimmy Carter carried the state. And it is not because I always vote for the Democratic candidate. I’ve voted third party many times, but we don’t have proportional voting, so I have been effectively disenfranchised by the majority. I know what the tyranny of the majority feels like – it is a diminution of my liberty. The Electoral College is a relic of a racist, anti-democratic strain in the plutocrats of the 18th century. We have a Bill of Rights to protect most of our liberty interests, save the right to have our votes count equally. I have opposed the Electoral College for 54 years, since I was 18 years old, and realized how undemocratic it is.

    1. “I have been effectively disenfranchised by the majority.”

      No. You haven’t. The states created the federal government, so naturally they select its executive. This is not the United Persons of America.

  12. 1. We need Voter ID. End of story. No ifs ands or buts. Also no more early voting. Absentee with ID to get ballot.

    2.Same day voting. Paint finger to prevent return voters

    3. All ballot machines disconnected from internet. Require machines to count both electronically and by paper and generate receipt. Vote machines need to be heavily regulated to prevent misdeeds by the companies that own them and create them.

    4. Criminalize non citizens voting in any election, local state OR Federal, by Federal Law. Non-citizens have no right to have any input into govt of any level.

    5. Voter ID should require a basic citizens test comparable to a Civil Servants test. Pass the test get an ID. The worst part of the idea of a popular vote is the fact that most voters cannot even tell you what the Bill of Rights is. We have too many stupid voters of all political leans who are completely clueless on our government. People who have no understanding how our govt works should not be voting. At all.

    6. Keep the Electoral. I used to be against it but I have changed my mind. It protects us from the idiocy of states like California.

    7. Raise voting age to 21 with a military exemption

    Can anyone really tell me that the people in this video should be allowed anywhere near an election ballot?

    Hell no

    Being a citizen that can vote should at least require one simple test that you have at least a basic knowledge of the country you live in.

    1. Great video. At least there were a couple of guys with enough sense to refrain from answering a question about which they knew nothing.

  13. I used to be against the Electoral College until I realized how the largest populated states could control the outcome. And I would guess in certain states which have looser regulations in verifying US citizenship there are non citizens voting. I think it is a good system, but I think the Electors should have to vote as their constituents voted.

  14. The founders in 1787 designed and wrote a constitution to protect natural rights, not to create unrestrained majority rule.

    The Electoral College is one of a series of blocking mechanisms, along with three branches of the federal government with separate and defined powers, a bicameral legislature with staggered terms in the Senate, an independent judiciary and an executive with limited powers, to protect individual Americans from a potentially tyrannical majority. Add to all of this a federalist, rather than a purely national, structure that divides power between the central and state governments.

    History has shown that liberty yields to unrestrained democracy over time. Lovers of liberty should favor this clever structure and reject elimination of the Electoral College.

    3. The founders in 1787 designed and wrote a constitution to protect natural rights, not to create unrestrained majority rule.

      No, they took an interest in natural rights. The constitution they wrote made use of existing models in colonial institutions and then incorporated compromises to bring competing interests on board.

      There is no elegant set of principles involved in the construction of the electoral college or Congress. They are contrivances necessary in 1787 to get the attending delegates from all 12 states to sign the blessed thing. (The convention considered three different schemes for the architecture of the federal legislature, and came up with a kludged scheme to apportion seats).

      1. The major disagreements at the Constitutional Convention concerned means, not ends. The delegates compromised, of course, as in any large group endeavor to gain agreement. Still, the evidence from a reading of The Federalist and writings on the state ratifying conventions seems clear that the founders actually believed the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”. So they held that government’s very purpose was to secure the rights with which all men “are endowed by their Creator”.

        Now, I realize that Jefferson was in France at the time, not at the convention in Philadelphia. But his very close friend Madison proved to be a leader among leaders in reaching a compromise to gain his purpose, a government that would secure rights. he had pushed for a convention due to a disgust over the log rolling taking place in the state governments, to the detriment of liberty. Washington and others supported him for essentially the same reasons.

        So through compromise created a Constitution with checks and balances in the federal government, and between the federal and state governments. Not perfect, as they allowed many tyrannies, including the large tyranny of slavery, to win support. But what human endeavor has ever been perfect? The Constitution did an imperfect but pretty good job of serving that purpose until we elected a president, Wilson, who openly in word and deed rejected the founding principles. Hence, the 16th and 17th amendments and eventually our entry into WWI, and liberty’s long downhill slide from there.

        1. JR,

          There are two issues at work here and both are equally valid because of one simple fact: our 21st century body politic has no meaningful connection with those of the 18th century. Today’s generation is absolutely myopic when it comes to the role of government; at least as understood by the generation that created our form. We’ve become a utilitarian democracy and that’s perfectly acceptable if one gets what one wants. But lose an election and the end of the world is near.

          The 18th century political philosophy that gave us this form of government worked for a generation that understood the dangers of a too big central government. All of these idiosyncrasies of our constitution; 3/5’s clause, bicameral legislature, natural-born citizen and even our Bill of Rights have rational and reasonable philosophical explanations but not in the eyes of today’s electorate. In essence, we are within the stage of the 4th self-evident truth in the Declaration but the foundation for organizing government today is not remotely reminiscent of those founding principles.

          1. Olly:
            It’s a good psychological point that giving up self-reliance for government reliance leaves one devastatingly vulnerable when the government collapses. Insecurity breeds desperation and panic hence Amy Schumer. Gone are the days when, like Emerson, we thought, “The civilized man has built a coach, but has lost the use of his feet.” Now at the loss of the coach we writhe around on the ground wondering how will we ever get from place to place without our government crutch.

            1. Mespo, Davy Crockett is six generations dead.

              People who live in agrarian environments are commonly diversely skilled. As recently as 1920, about 30% of the heads of households (though not 30% of the workforce) listed a agricultural occupation to the census enumerator (it’s around 2% today). People are less self-reliant than they were in 1920. That’s because more sophisticated division of labor is dependent on technological application and division of labor. More production is derived from more specialization. All of which means you’re not self-reliant. All of that would be the case were the relative dimensions of public expenditure precisely what they were when Calvin Coolidge left office. Not much you can do about that. While were at it, per capita income in 1929 was about 15% of what it is today. There are benefits from trade in lieu of self-reliance.

              1. 15%, even after factoring in the inflation rate–that is the real inflation rate that pertains to the stuff people have to buy?

                1. Yessss. The GDP per capita at making use of chained (2010) dollars in 1929 was about $8,600. It was about $50,000 in 2010.

            2. Look at Greece – rioting because after spending all their money, and lying about their finances to get into the EU, they had to take austerity measures in exchange for a bailout for their irresponsible choices. When you blow the grocery money on entertainment, you get to eat Mac N Cheese and Ramen noodles until you are solvent. But to some, it’s unfair. They should have the right to keep partying with no resultant inconvenience. It’s no longer seen as bootstrapping it, or squaring your shoulders, to bear austerity measures and dig yourself out of the hole. You expect the rest of the world to keep bailing you out when your own government runs out of money, and then you declare that the rest of the world should also follow your paradigm as the only right, honorable thing to do.

            3. I agree Mespo. I facilitated a root cause analysis online about 6 years ago that ran for about 1 year. The question being asked was: “We have many problems with many causes but is there one root cause?” The overwhelming conclusion was there was not 1 but 3 root causes: Civics Ignorance, Civics apathy and a dependency culture.

              If we do nothing to reverse all 3 of those factors then we should not expect to significantly change the course of our country.

          2. Olly, I agree. What can we expect from an educational system that produced the stars of Jay Leno’s “JayWalking” segments?

            1. JR,
              I always have hope that these were selectively edited to reflect poorly on those we see and that many more were knowledgeable. However, based on a survey done by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), that hope faded when most of the 2,500 people surveyed failed a basic civics exam.

        2. We entered World War I for reasons of state. That has very little to do with domestic disputes over the legal-formal ambo of the central government.

          1. SSST

            The principal reason being that our head of state was an Anglophile who wanted to make the world safe for democracy. Such a reason as this represents a fundamental shift from our then traditional understanding of the proper role of the US government.

            1. Actually, if my professor was reading the public record correctly from that time, we decided to enter the war on the side of Great Britain because our commerce would be best served if England maintained its position in the world.

              1. We were nearly autarchic at the time. The ratio of exports to domestic product was about 0.05. See Hans Morgenthau. The American alignment of interests with Britain was so natural it required no formal treaty. The U.S. was butting heads with Germany over Germany’s treatment of neutral shipping and Germany’s ex parte dealings with Mexico.

              2. slohrss29 – Wilson decided that it was important that the British and French win the war since they owed us millions for munitions, etc we had been selling them.

                1. They would have owed the manufacturers.

                  People seem to default to pecuniary motives. in lieu of considering power relationships. You cannot make a business case for war, because what you get out of war isn’t priced.

                  1. Toads – ask the Germans what they got out of WWI. What was the price? Reparations until 1980. Wars always have a price. The reason we became a country is because of the French and Indian War. The price of defending that to the British was so high that they started taxing the colonies. They didn’t want to be taxed, hence No Taxation Without Representation, etc. and eventually we have the American Revolution which has its own price. Alexander Hamilton convinced the Founding Fathers that it would be best if the new country paid off it debt, which went a long way to securing its future.

                    3. Wars always have a price.

                      Sigh. The term ‘price’ may be used literally or metaphorically.

            2. The principal reason being that our head of state was an Anglophile who wanted to make the world safe for democracy.

              No, that was his rhetorical flourish, not the reason we entered the war. Wilson was invested in unworkable collective security schemes, but he was also confronting power relationships. ‘Traditional understandings’ were dependent on British naval dominance and high transportation costs.

        3. JR — “Wilson, who openly in word and deed rejected the founding principles. Hence, the 16th and 17th amendments and eventually our entry into WWI, and liberty’s long downhill slide from there.”

          You say this as though Wilson alone is responsible for these amendments. I remind you that it took a supermajority of the Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify these amendments. Furthermore, in what way are these two amendments an abandonment of the founding principles?

          Liberty’s long downhill slide from there? Just how do you justify the underlying claim here that we citizens today have less liberty than those who lived in the U.S. prior to the adoption of these two amendments. In many ways we have more liberty, particularly where it concerns the liberties enumerated in the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, and due to the 14th Amendment, the safeguards now granted us against encroachments upon our liberties by states, which are no less likely to trample our rights than is a national government. I think that today more than a few of the greatest threats to our liberty and our rights are posed by some of the state legislatures rather than the federal legislature. This certainly was also true at many times in the past, particularly during the 1950s and 1960s.

          1. “It’s Bill of Rights Day. Do you know where your freedoms are?

            Here is what the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, really stands for today:

            First Amendment: You can be persecuted for criticizing the government; prosecuted for reporting on government wrongdoing; fined and jailed for exercising your religious beliefs; tear-gassed, beaten and arrested for protesting in public; and stymied in your efforts to hold the government accountable to the rule of law.

            Second Amendment: Owning a gun can get you put on a government watch list.

            Third Amendment: Militarized police now serve as a standing army on American soil.

            The Fourth Amendment: has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers, the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors, asset forfeiture schemes, and technological advances that allow the government to spy on Americans’ activities, movements and communications.

            The Fifth and Sixth Amendments: If the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

            Seventh Amendment: Juries ignorant of the Constitution provide little protection against injustice.

            Eighth Amendment: The government’s bar for “cruel and unusual” punishment slips lower every year.

            Ninth Amendment: The power to govern no longer flows upward from the people.

            Tenth Amendment: A system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite.

            Clearly, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.”

            (From the Rutherford Institute)

    1. Could not agree more! Now if only the Clinton Crime Family would just go the eff away already.

      1. No, I think Trump will be elected. The electors are pretty much die-hard Republicans, and the establishment types are salivating to take over all three branches. I do believe it was a frustrated Democrat who leaked the stuff. If it was professional hackers, I think we would have seen much more devastating stuff. The nature of the stuff screams “amateur” to me.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. My guess is the DNC emails were leaked by an insider disgusted by what was going on. The Podesta emails were probably hacked by China, Russia, or North Korea, in that order.

          1. Interesting Nick that you divide up the emails. Maybe we should add Iran to the list? Please, will the Crooked Witch and her entourage FINALLY go away??

      3. The argument that Russisa would not leave such amaturish “finger prints” is compelling. That said,

        everybody hacks somebody sometime…
        everybody snoops a bit somehow…
        something in her server told me…
        that snooping is now…

  17. Pingback: Gallup: Support For Electoral College Surges After 2016 Presidential Election – MyLegalHelpUSA

  19. One thing puzzles me about American politics, the Electoral College. Why do they have the power to elect a minority candidate who has lost the public vote by millions? If the same thing happened in other countries there would be riots and oh, wait, didn’t we see that already?

      1. It would still be a “constitutionally limited representative democratic republic” even if we were to eliminate the electoral college. The electoral college was not established as a requirement that we be a republic. It is not a necessary component of a constitutional republic.

    2. This reminds me of Turley’s statement above: “I favor a majority vote requirement much like many countries around the world…”, which is evidence of a profound misunderstanding of America.

      There are no countries like the United States. America can only be compared to Europe; the states are essentially sovereign countries, with different cultures, some more different than others. Your suggestion would only mean anything if Europe were a single country, and the most populous countries could always win “federal” elections, lording it over the smaller ones, reducing them to powerlessness.

      The states created the federal government, and the states, naturally, choose its executive.

      1. For better or for worse, the state legislatures do not choose the federal executive, and never have. The electoral college was a contrivance which worked as intended precisely 3x. Its components have had not one moment of deliberation since 1800.

        1. That is, of course, completely beside the point. First, it is no business of the federal government how the states decide to select their electors, and neither is it the business of the federal government whether the electors deliberate.

          You say “worked as intended” as if deliberation was the point. You are probably thinking of Hamilton’s propaganda Federalist writing, which is a mistake, because he hated the states (at the Convention he actually pushed for the states to be dissolved, and new administrative boundaries drawn).

          What in fact the Electoral College was intended to do is balance the power of the more and less populous states, which it has done exceptionally well. Remember the 3/5 provision? Most slaves by the 1790s having been migrated to the Southern states, they were the most populous. Northern states would never ratify a new Constitution if all the slaves were counted in the decennial census, because they’d thus have no power in Congress, and never influence the presidential vote. The Southern states obviously were not going to nix counting all the slaves, as there is no way the people back home would replace their United States with a new one that made the Yankees all-powerful. The Southern states’ delegates must have badly wanted to overthrow the Articles of Confederation enough that they settled on a compromise: all the slaves would be counted, but two thirds would be dropped, for purposes of Congressional representation.

          It was all about getting the coup ratified, yes, but that problem (which came up a lot in the drafting debates) is as real today as it was then: without the Electoral College, California and New York would rule the country completely, just as Virginia and South Carolina would have done in the early 19th century.

          Finally, it is true that the states have steadily ceased defending their sovereignty ever since those who chose to leave the Union were defeated by Lincoln’s invading army, and they treat the Electoral College as a perk to hacks because it is assumed to be a rubber stamp. But even small Yankee states, who fought against their own rights in the 1860s benefit from the Electoral College today, because the Constitution says they cannot give up THAT right, as dearly as they might wish to do so. Which is why Trump did so many rallies in Maine and New Hampshire. They matter, in a presidential contest, whether they care about that or not. Without the Electoral College, no one would set foot in places like that in the general election.

          1. That is, of course, completely beside the point.

            No, it is the whole point. No amount of verbal chaff from you will change that.

              1. Sorry you fancy your rambles consist of ‘logical reasoning’ and ‘actual history’. Cannot help ya.

                    2. Not to get personal, Olly, I don’t demonstrate ‘humility’ when I pretend someone’s incoherent and unresponsive ramble is anything but what it is. I just pretend.

                2. “I don’t demonstrate ‘humility’ when I pretend someone’s incoherent and unresponsive ramble is anything but what it is.”

                  Agreed, and you certainly don’t demonstrate it by believing clarity is the responsibility of the sender alone. Patrick’s post was clear to me. Yours on the other hand appear incoherent and rambling. However as mentioned in another post, I won’t dismiss what your saying because I don’t understand it. I have to make an effort to decipher what you’ve said and then argue on its merits. You don’t make such an attempt.

                  The bottom line is while you might actually “know it all”, you lack the humility that comes from that actually being true.

          2. What in fact the Electoral College was intended to do is balance the power of the more and less populous states, which it has done exceptionally well.

            What it was intended to do was seal a compromise between competing interests. It does nothing exceptionally well. It hasn’t worked in over 200 years.

            1. Well, you might wish for the small states to have virtually no voice in the Congress, or in electing a president. But not liking something that does what it was designed to do does not miraculously make it ineffective.

              As I said, “without the Electoral College, California and New York would rule the country completely, just as Virginia and South Carolina would have done in the early 19th century.” The prospect of being ruled by those blue tumors consuming our coastal body politic makes my blood run cold. Thank God they can be blocked.

              1. Well, you might wish for the small states to have virtually no voice in the Congress, or in electing a president.

                You have a habit of conversing with a shadow you’ve created in your mind and not addressing the points people make. It’s a godawful bore. I really do not get paid to listen to you free-associate.

                  1. You’re another Jew-obsessive? Sorry Rob Kaplan stole your lunch money back in ’71…

    3. Hilligula did not win a popular majority, either.

      The U.S. has the world’s oldest discrete charter, though some European countries have institutions or piece-meal constitutional legislation which are older. As is, we have some relics in our charter instituted when such charters (on the scale of a territorial state) were novelties. At the time, the dimensions of suffrage in the society at large varied jaggedly from one place to another in the country, so you needed apportionment schemes for federal elections to mediate between competing conceptions of just what the body politic was.

  20. Once the federal government has minimal power and states have maximum power then we can have federal majority rule. A person could move to a different state but It is hard to move to a new country.

    1. This makes no sense. The Presidency is the ONLY elected office in which we use an anti-majority system of election. We use majority rule to elect every member of the House of Representative, every member of the Senate every Governor, every member of every state legislature, every mayor, every city or village council member, every township trustee, etc. I fail to see what the connection is between how we elect the president and the power differential between the federal and state levels, given that is the legislative branch of the federal government that determines all the laws that govern the nation at the federal level.

      1. It’s not an anti-majority system. It’s just a set of tabulation curios which can be congruent with one party winning the office absent a popular plurality. No one has ever lost the presidency winning a popular majority. All five cases on record where the electoral vote disagreed with the popular vote, no candidate won a majority.

        The electoral college is somewhat malapportioned, with the smaller states receiving a premium which averages to 21% and the larger states a penalty which averages to 9%.

Comments are closed.