Can you cite even one compact that did not have to be approved by Congress?
You realize that is the majority of the voters correct?
The Uniform Commercial Code.
The Electoral College is garbage, which is actually impressive because the single non-transferable popular vote is already a garbage method of selecting a leader.
I appreciate the idea of not just acquiescing to mob rule, but the system in question is incredibly suspect in a world as connected and mobile as we are nowadays. Regional representation is one of the lowest of my interests I need represented at the federal level. Regionally I’m pretty well taken care of by my local government.
While regional representatives at the federal level have some utility in terms of interstate commerce, national parks, and some funding, it doesn’t adequately represent a large swath of interests such as race, profession, gender identity, or anything else except by sheer chance. If you’re a liberal queer black person living in Savannah, Georgia, the only congress people you can write a letter to are actively adversarial to most of your views and interests, because you happen to live in Savannah, Georgia.
We’re defined by what we are, what we do, and what company we keep in both virtual and physical space far more than where we live than we were when this system was made. With the internet, we’re no longer that parochial. (Or rather, we’re parochial in a completely different way, given our own personal media bias bubbles).
There have been some attempts to address this with majority minority districts, but that only works for certain racial minorities that live in concentrated areas. It doesn’t do anything for other types of minorities, or other racial minorities that may be more evenly spread about the US.
One “fix” to the Electoral College system (and, arguably, the Senate) is to keep regional representatives (except for the Senate), but pare them down significantly in number and make them even more local than they are now. Then you assign electors (/senators) to various interest groups (professions, races, genders, queer status, etc) to give them a louder voice in the face of mob rule. You could even assign proportionally based on the individual members’ votes. One person’s vote can be tallied in multiple interest groups.
This is better, but is still an awful plan, because exactly which groups (and which subdivisions of groups, should LGBT be one bloc, or should different queer subcommunities have their own voice?) deserve a voice and how many electors they get is a very dangerous question, which is subject to fiddling by the people in power. Codifying it in an amendment is liable to move too slowly and be too inflexible to enfranchise emerging new interest groups that should have their voices heard. You could essentially call it the identity politics variant of gerrymandering.
Exactly who is allowed to declare themselves as part of a electoral group is dangerous too, and risks internal animosity such as “you’re not REALLY black so you can’t vote with us”.
While I appreciate the desire to give disproportionately large voices to certain groups to prevent mob rule, in practice the electoral college is not a well formed execution of that and doesn’t address many, arguably most, of the unrepresented groups in the US at the mercy of said “mob”.
The popular vote is better (or rigging the Electoral College to follow the popular vote), but comes with the standard First Past the Post problems. If it’s all we can get with that compact, it’s better, but nationwide proportional and ranked systems would be a much better improvement.
TL;DR version: the Electoral College is a noble idea, but fails at preventing “mob rule” in any sane way that’s relevant to most modern interest groups. Enhancing the power of “flyover states” is one possible interest group of many, and probably not anywhere close to the most relevant one at the national level for most voters.
Jragon, what you describe is effectively what happens in parliamentary systems like in Britain. Typically what happens is a more or less even split between the Yeas and the Nays, with splinter parties then being in a position to negotiate who they’ll give their swing votes to in exchange for consideration of their special interests.
Sort of? I don’t think the UK’s government is a great example because of some of the electoral weirdness they’ve been having recently (since their MPs are elected in a bunch of regional FPTP elections like our representatives), and they’ve had something close to two-party rule for a while now.
But yes, in proportional systems like Germany and New Zealand being able to have a multitude of smaller parties that form coalitions (even if some larger parties also emerge) can give a louder voice to various minorities or underrepresented groups. It’s not quite the same thing as I was saying which is to keep the EC but instead of regionalism use identity-based representation, though I noted that the proportional systems are much better. It was more of a way to rig the Electoral College and Senate to do what they purport to do (giving a larger voice to the otherwise underrepresented and prevent mob rule).
Did you in fact or would you have been able, on Nov. 7 to say “If Hillary wins states totaling 271 Electoral votes, and then some of her electors feel that she is unqualified for the role and switch their votes for Trump, then I will accept it, because that is the point of the Electoral College.” ?
If you didn’t/can’t, then aren’t you in effect saying that you, BPC, should be decisive in the election? And if you reply “No, of course not. We all select from the reasonable set of people.”, one can ask who defines reasonable? We obviously can’t have a vote on it, by your argument, so what are we to do?
This post reads like I wrote it! (Which may or may not be a compliment, mind you. 
)
But I agree completely: unless I am confused, it sounds like BPC is saying that rule for the Electoral College is: it should act against Donald Trump, but if the vote totals were reversed, not against Hillary Clinton.
That can’t be right. I’m confused.
FYI, I quoted this bit, out of context to begin this thread. The OP is not directed at you, but your quote gave me the excuse I needed to ask a question that I have had for a while.
As I mentioned in another thread, the original intention of the Founding Fathers was to keep women from voting and slaves to be counted a certain way. The Constitution can be changed if the will is there. Again, look how fast Prohibition was repealed.
Seriously? I have it backwards? Has education system in this country fallen that far? You don’t understand how we elect our president in this country? And you vote? :eek: Fuck.
Let me review high school government class for you. Pay attention this information will be on the final.
Teacher: How do you get elected to be the president?
Student who studied: You get 270 Electoral College votes
Teacher: That is correct. 270 Electoral College votes. Nothing else counts.
So as you should have learned in high school, but apparently didn’t, all that counts is 270 Electoral Votes. That is the finish line.
So the candidate that gets 270 Electoral College votes has crossed the finish line first, and is the winner.
It does not matter if your race car had more horsepower (candidate / popular vote), or had a vagina, or was your favorite, or any other fucking thing. All that matters is the finish line, which is 270 EC votes.
Trump got there, Hillary didn’t. Second place is the first loser.
Neither Gore nor Hillary got a majority vote.
To take the race car analogy a bit further:
Despite losing in the preliminary race the last two time this series has been run Hillary Racing Team (HRT) is confidant that they have what it takes to win the championship this time. HRT is sure this is their year. They are sure that in the race for the chase, they can win easily.
In the preliminary race, HRT did win, but their was accusations of cheating against them. These would later prove to be true, but the sanctioning body for the preliminaries took no action, it is now widely thought that they were in on the cheating.
In the final HRT found them to pitted against a rank amatur in his first professional race.
HRT did have some problems in the preliminary races that continued to plague them even into the finals. One problem was their race car was misfiring, this was finally traced to a misfiring, not legal for use in the federal series email server. Despite frantic efforts by the pit crew, the misfiring email server continued to dog HRT throughout the final race.
Despite this misfiring email server, the team continued to be confidant, perhaps over confidant. They insisted that the misfiring email server was of no consequence, they were heard to say “At this point, what difference does it make?”
Race officials assessed HRT a stop and go penalty for 30,000 spilled emails during a pit stop early in the race. This would cost HRT dearly, but once again the team was heard to say “At this point, what difference does it make?”
In the closing stages of the race, HRT was predicting victory by at least one full lap, as were the members of the press in the press box. It was later discovered they were drunk. further analysis of the timing and scoring showed HRT to be one full lap down at this point.
Then in the final two laps, disaster struck. Another racer, a real Weiner, went wide in a corner and dumped a load of email on the track. Coming into the corner HRT went wide to try and pass the rookie challenger in an attempt to regain the lap they were down. Unfortunately In going wide to try and pass, they spun out on the spilled emails and and lost another lap trying to get restarted.
In the end HRT lost by two laps, but did finish ahead of the Green team which used a pedal powered race car.
But the HRT car had more horsepower!
You sound like you had too much fun writing that, Rick.
(Even I, an Aussie girl 12,000 kms away got it the first time around).
Anyway, I just wanted to say thank you, ladies and gentlemen - all of the election threads have been riveting and a real eye-opener. Please continue!
Are accusations of fraud and voting machine hacking going to seriously challenge the electoral college vote?
If demonstrated to be true (unlikely) and significant enough to flip the popular vote they could change electors, or at least convinct the currently selected electors to vote for someone other than Trump. At this point, a vote that goes to the House of Representatives which elects someone more competent and less hateful, .e.g. Mitt Romeny, would be preferable to four years under the Infantile Vulgarian and his Merry Band of Fuckwits.
It’s an unlikely scenario, and the reality is that we need to think about coping with four years of a Trump and then Pence once Trump gets himslef mired in too much scandal for even a GOP-dominated Congress to ignore, or throws his hands up in frustration that he can’t just fire people who disagree with him. It’s a frankly appalling prospect but the executive powers of the office of President do have limits, and it may well be the time to start seriously challenging some of those executive privileges that are a matter of precident rather than specifically denoted in Article 2 of the Constitution by pressing lawsuits and amicus curiae to any Constitutionally questionable actions and pressing legislators that if they don’t stand up and oppose corruption and threats by Trump now, their seats will be on the chopping block when they come up for reelection.
Stranger
Accusations won’t and shouldn’t change the electoral college vote. Proof of fraud should but won’t change the electoral college vote.
So was the election of Donald J. Trump.
Why might the Electoral College choose Clinton as President? Not because of voter fraud, but because she was the overwhelming choice for President by the voters, by over two million votes.
“The Constitution lets the Electoral College choose the winner”
My bold.