If Hillary had won would electoral college but questioned still?

[Lamb]

The House democrats want to eliminate the electoral college. If Hillary Clinton had won the Presidency, would they still want to eliminate the electoral college?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The House democrats want to eliminate the electoral college. If Hillary Clinton had won the Presidency, would they still want to eliminate the electoral college?

Maybe. On principle it ought to be removed.

 

[psalms 91]

I do think popular vote should have something to do with the election but I doubt that the will of the majority will win out despite the constitution

 

[Lamb]

Were the Democrats ever contemplating removing the electoral college when Obama won?

 

[Lamb]

I'm not really looking to have a thread about whether or not the electoral college should be removed. I'm looking to discuss the Democrat's decision. Would they have wanted it removed if Hillary had won? Or is this because they are still upset that Trump won? Are there articles from the past showing that they wanted the electoral college removed (before Trump ever won)?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Were the Democrats ever contemplating removing the electoral college when Obama won?

Yes.

 

[Lamb]

Yes.

Could you provide some links for that please? Thanks!

 

[Albion]

The House democrats want to eliminate the electoral college. If Hillary Clinton had won the Presidency, would they still want to eliminate the electoral college?

I think so. They have been working on it since before 2016, so I doubt that a victory for Hillary would have changed that. Not only are they still smarting over Hillary's loss but also Bush vs. Gore.

They are well aware that they can insure a long-term dominance if they make a few electoral changes, so it's not just about the 2016 election. Most of their maneuvering goes on without the media publicizing it, of course, and most people are not into politics enough to be aware of what is going on.





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Could you provide some links for that please? Thanks!

I could but so can you. Bing and Google searches will yield a wealth of material if you want to see it. It's been a project since at least 1969.

See here https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-electoral-college-history-20161219-story.html

 

[MennoSota]

The Democrats would love to eliminate the electoral college. Their strength is in the east and west coast where more people live. The middle section of the US would become irrelevant to electing the President and the Democrats would win every Presidential election. The Midwest would feel disenfranchised and revolution would likely fester in the bread basket of the US.
Progressives would turn the US into a socialist country and farmers would be forced into a co-op where government controls all aspects of society.
It is the electoral college that makes the Midwest and all lower population states relevant in choosing a President. Toss it out and no one in a small population state has any incentive to vote.

 

[Josiah]

The House democrats want to eliminate the electoral college. If Hillary Clinton had won the Presidency, would they still want to eliminate the electoral college?

Of course, everything the libs do is pure politics..... and typically hypocritical.


But this will go NOWHERE and the libs know it. It's just politics, it's just pandering to their base, and of course the press will do everything they can to not challenge anything the libs say but just parrot it. Because it's what they do.


Truth is, the electorial college has helped both parties, neither wants it eliminated. Doing away with it will simply mean that elections will be decided by urban cities (where the Dems NOW have an advantage) and rural and small town and suburban America will be irrelevant (and right now, the Republicans have an advantage there). So right NOW, it works to the Dems favor but they know all that could change.


But this requires a two-thirds approval of the STATES. That means that a LOT of states would have to agree to become irrelevant, to no longer play a role in presidental elections since the candidates will put all their effort in a few big cities where the majority of Americans live. They will ignore the needs and views of those who live in the suburbs and towns and rural areas of American (you know, those white, Christian, gun owners) and pander exclusively to the groups that live in a handful of big cities. Yes, this would NOW benefit the Dems - but why would it benefit 2/3's of the states so that they'd approve the amendment? Why would Montana and New Mexico and Oregon and Vermont and SO many more states agree to become irrelevant? Sure, California, Texas, New York and Illinois would gain enormous new power (all but one is strongly Democrat) but they aren't 2/3's of the 50 States. But even if the Dems could pull this off, it could backfire... they'd be wise to remember 1960 when Nixon came VERY close to winning the popular vote but overwhelmingly lost the electorial vote; had it not been for the electoral college, Nixon would have asked for a recount and because so many dead people voted in Illinois and Texas, likely would have won. Several other cases like that where the Dems benefited from the current arrangement. And of course, what if the Democrat party splits (as it almost did in 1968), what if Bernie Sanders and the socialists and communists leave and form a new party, one that would better appeal to the few big cities that would then be the electorate? Ah. Smart Dems would think broadly on this ....




.

 

[Albion]

We should be aware that changing (meaning eliminating) the Electoral College is almost impossible to do legally. As a result, the Dems are working--and have been working for years now--on "end runs" around the Electoral College.

Hardly anyone pays any attention to them, although they are much more possible of success than any move to eliminate the Electoral College.

 

[Lamb]

Al Gore was a strong proponent of the Electoral College...until he lost his election. That's the type of thing I'm finding in my search. Whenever a Republican has won an election despite the popular vote showing otherwise then then the Democrats cry for reform.

 

[Josiah]

Al Gore was a strong proponent of the Electoral College...until he lost his election. That's the type of thing I'm finding in my search. Whenever a Republican has won an election despite the popular vote showing otherwise then then the Democrats cry for reform.

Of course, it's just pure hypocritical politics on the part of the Libs....

And of course, every Democrat running for President has run their campaign to win NOT the popular vote but the electoral college vote, just as the Republicans do.

Some conclude this is actually good, since it tends to make for a NATIONAL election rather than just an urban election decided by 10 cities. It means the Dems HAVE to pay at least some attention to those Christians in the midwest and south, they at least have to pretend they've read the Constitution for all those gun owners out west, they have to acknowledge that food comes from farms for all those farmers, they have to at least pretend to know about suburbia... even if those don't represent 50% of the voters. As it is, candidates travel to most states and listen to folks all around the country. Due away with the electoral college and they'll campaign in a dozen big cities and the rest of the county will be unaware they have a president but aware their vote doesn't matter.

 

[tango]

Maybe. On principle it ought to be removed.

Why should it be removed? It's doing what it was intended to do.

 

[tango]

Al Gore was a strong proponent of the Electoral College...until he lost his election. That's the type of thing I'm finding in my search. Whenever a Republican has won an election despite the popular vote showing otherwise then then the Democrats cry for reform.

If I recall MarkFL mentioned some statistics when he was regular here. I forget the exact numbers but I think the electoral college vote yielded a different result to the popular vote something like four times since it was set up, and in every case the electoral college vote put a Republican in the White House where the Democrat won the popular vote. It's not really that surprising, given that Democrats tend to have greater appeal in urban areas and Republicans tend to have greater appeal in rural areas.

When you look at how the country voted state-by-state it's a patchwork of blue and red. When you look at it county-by-county it's an enormous sea of red with a few small pockets of blue. And that's why we have the electoral college - it's bad enough that entire states can be governed based on the inhabitants of one or two big cities in the state but to make that national would be a terrible thing.

 

[Albion]

If I recall MarkFL mentioned some statistics when he was regular here. I forget the exact numbers but I think the electoral college vote yielded a different result to the popular vote something like four times since it was set up, and in every case the electoral college vote put a Republican in the White House where the Democrat won the popular vote. .

However, there have been several instances of the Democrat winning without getting the majority of the popular vote. Carter and Clinton were both in that category.

Going by the most common arguments raised against the Electoral College, these outcomes ought also to be prohibited. I have not heard of any Democrat plans to do so, though.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why should it be removed? It's doing what it was intended to do.

It's intention is not good. It is also outdated. It ought to be removed just like a steam engine ought not be under your car's "hood". Both the steam engine and the electoral college work but they work very poorly and do much less good than their absence would. Let the popular vote be the means by which a president is chosen. That is what a democracy is intended to be - election by the most (hopefully the majority) of votes - but the electoral college puts a body of unrepresentative people in the middle and allows them to decide how they will vote for the candidates in the presidential election. It is only by convention that they vote according to the instructions given by their respective states.

Just become a democracy; it will not hurt, honest.

 

[Lamb]

It's intention is not good. It is also outdated. It ought to be removed just like a steam engine ought not be under your car's "hood". Both the steam engine and the electoral college work but they work very poorly and do much less good than their absence would. Let the popular vote be the means by which a president is chosen. That is what a democracy is intended to be - election by the most (hopefully the majority) of votes - but the electoral college puts a body of unrepresentative people in the middle and allows them to decide how they will vote for the candidates in the presidential election. It is only by convention that they vote according to the instructions given by their respective states.

Just become a democracy; it will not hurt, honest.

The United States is not a direct democracy and nor should it be. It's a Constitutional Republic.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The United States is not a direct democracy and nor should it be. It's a Constitutional Republic.

That reads like gibberish.

Electing representatives means that the USA is not a "direct democracy". It's a representative democracy like many other nations. But being a "constitutional republic" has nothing whatever to do with the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy.

The USA constitution does impose the anti-democratic electoral college on the nation. It's a bad provision for 21st century USA. It allows elections to be "stolen" by the "college" and, of course, the "college" is itself unrepresentative because some tiny states have disproportionate 'representation' in the college and most states send all their college representatives in to vote for one candidate even when about 50% of the voters in the state voted for the other candidates - why not send in representatives in proportion to the votes they received in the popular vote?

The electoral college has not served the nation well for a very long time. It's time to get rid of it. Try being a democracy instead.