People of all political persuasions have been trying to get rid of the Electoral College for decades. Not just Democrats.

Electoral College is based on population, not the vote. A state could have a population 6,000,000 but only 10,000 votes cast. The EC would represent the 6,000,000 based on the way the 10,000 vote. This was why slave states wanted slaves counted, even though they could not vote. Slaves were still not counted as a whole person, but, rather 3/5 of a person. Even after slaves were freed and Blacks and women given the right to vote, there were poll taxes and tests poll workers could give to keep Blacks from voting.

aerosreenivas wrote:

Hi all,

Only two days to go before the results will be known in this most important ever US Presidential Election in history. It will be interesting to know whether the current polls that are indicating the favor towards Biden will hold true.

Having witnessed keenly the results of the 2016 Presidential Election, I would like to ask all of you who have voted, this question.

Why the US Presidential Election Results are always determined by the 'Electoral College' and not the 'Popular Vote Only'? Coz last time Trump became president without winning the popular vote.

What if it happens again this time as well where Biden wins the 'Popular Vote' but not the 'Electoral College'?

For the same reason as to why each State gets two Senators regardless of population. Wyoming with a population of 578,000 has the same number of US Senators as California with a population of 40 Million. The founders did not want a handful of densely populated states dictating policy and law for rural areas. The Senate and the Electoral College allows smaller less densely populated States to join up in opposition to densely populated States. Thus every election the two parties battle for victory in just a handful of battleground states such as Pennsylvania which is both urban (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh) as well as rural.

One additional point about the way the Electoral College was setup - no other country on the planet at the time elected a leader by vote of the people.

Setting up the US Constitution and the Office of President was without any precedent. The communications and delivery of ballots or votes of the states was a major issue.

We did not have a common national voting day until almost 50 years into the nation, and that was driven because people realized states voting early, and reporting their votes by telegraph were causing people in other states to not vote.

The process was four months between voting day until the inauguration of the new president well into the 20th century.

The Electoral College continues to exist for two reasons.

1) Changing the US Constitution is extremely difficult. Just 12 states can stop an amendment from being enacted. A total of 38 states must vote to ratify the new amendment.

2) The US does not have a national voting procedure for federal offices. We have 51 different procedures. Everything from how people register to vote, to how they must vote as far as being present or absentee or such, to when they must vote are all done by different state laws. Even the ways votes are tabulated vary greatly within a single states because the elections are run by the local county officials in almost every state. They make the crucial decisions, and what is right in one state or county is not right in another state or county.

Now, do you want to write a national series of rules that apply to voting places in high population places like strongly Republican Plano Texas, and low population places like strongly Democrat Sussex Count Delaware? And have to make everyone agree to the same system?

I don't want that job.

rfields5421 wrote:

One additional point about the way the Electoral College was setup - no other country on the planet at the time elected a leader by vote of the people.

Setting up the US Constitution and the Office of President was without any precedent. The communications and delivery of ballots or votes of the states was a major issue.

We did not have a common national voting day until almost 50 years into the nation, and that was driven because people realized states voting early, and reporting their votes by telegraph were causing people in other states to not vote.

The process was four months between voting day until the inauguration of the new president well into the 20th century.

The Electoral College continues to exist for two reasons.

1) Changing the US Constitution is extremely difficult. Just 12 states can stop an amendment from being enacted. A total of 38 states must vote to ratify the new amendment.

2) The US does not have a national voting procedure for federal offices. We have 51 different procedures. Everything from how people register to vote, to how they must vote as far as being present or absentee or such, to when they must vote are all done by different state laws. Even the ways votes are tabulated vary greatly within a single states because the elections are run by the local county officials in almost every state. They make the crucial decisions, and what is right in one state or county is not right in another state or county.

Now, do you want to write a national series of rules that apply to voting places in high population places like strongly Republican Plano Texas, and low population places like strongly Democrat Sussex Count Delaware? And have to make everyone agree to the same system?

I don't want that job.

Nobody wants that job, man oh man

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You might look up the Connecticut Compromise during the drafting—has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with balancing small states and large states. As today, NY and VA were dominant states and small states (Connecticut, for instance) didn’t want to be ruled by Virginians or New Yorkers.

The Electoral College has everything to do with slavery, to say otherwise is folly. If it did not as you try and claim then why were slaves counted as 3/5 of a person?

LMP737 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You might look up the Connecticut Compromise during the drafting—has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with balancing small states and large states. As today, NY and VA were dominant states and small states (Connecticut, for instance) didn’t want to be ruled by Virginians or New Yorkers.

The Electoral College has everything to do with slavery, to say otherwise is folly. If it did not as you try and claim then why were slaves counted as 3/5 of a person?

To say it does, after 155 years of post-slavery, several amendments on the subject, numerous attempts at changing the .EC is to ignore a lot of history AND a predilection toward viewing everything in racist terms. Do we still have slavery, I must have missed the telegram. Get over it, the EC continues because it suits the 50 states as sovereign entities. California likes it because they have a huge portion of the votes, Wyoming likes because it gives their voters some say in the presidential elections.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

To say it does, after 155 years of post-slavery, several amendments on the subject, numerous attempts at changing the .EC is to ignore a lot of history AND a predilection toward viewing everything in racist terms. Do we still have slavery, I must have missed the telegram. Get over it, the EC continues because it suits the 50 states as sovereign entities. California likes it because they have a huge portion of the votes, Wyoming likes because it gives their voters some say in the presidential elections.

You seem to be missing the point that the reason it exists was to keep Virginian slave owners happy. So the claim that slavery had nothing to do with it is false.

No, you’re the one that needs to study the original Constitution writing. There are several good and long treatises on the subject. The fact was at the time of the convention, the South was growing faster and held lots of claims on western lands. They weren’t afraid of the North as it was t growing as fast despite having greater population, also, slavery grew strongly in the 1820s with the Industrial Age and the invention of the cotton gin. That’s long after the writing of the Constitution.

LMP737 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

To say it does, after 155 years of post-slavery, several amendments on the subject, numerous attempts at changing the .EC is to ignore a lot of history AND a predilection toward viewing everything in racist terms. Do we still have slavery, I must have missed the telegram. Get over it, the EC continues because it suits the 50 states as sovereign entities. California likes it because they have a huge portion of the votes, Wyoming likes because it gives their voters some say in the presidential elections.

You seem to be missing the point that the reason it exists was to keep Virginian slave owners happy. So the claim that slavery had nothing to do with it is false.

The 3/5th compromise was to keep the free states happy.

The south wanted every slave to count as a full person. Doing so would have increased the south’s representation in Congress and ultimately in the EC as well.

There’s more to the history of the 3/5ths and it’s got to do with taxes during the Articles of Confederations. During those days the south argued in favor of the 3/5ths because it would reduce their federal taxes. Basically they wanted slaves to be counted as property not people, thus reducing taxes by means of the taxation apportionment formula that was used back then.

But this is all pre-Constitution.

As to the OP’s question-

The US has a bicameral legislature. The US House is much like parliaments all over the world, where the members are apportioned proportionally.

The US Senate is about egalitarianism. In it, every states has two votes, an equal representation (as opposed to proportional).

The EC system is a mixture of the House and Senate systems. In fact, the Senators used to be appointed by the states and NOT directly elected. So that would have given the EC yet another “spin”.

Direct election of the President has never been the case, although it almost always ended up with the popular vote winner anyways. Probably where the confusion stems from.

fr8mech wrote:

T18 wrote:

Now its possible what I was taught was wrong, but I was also told in school that the system also made it easier to get a results as, some remote areas could have a hard time getting votes reported but that for the national level those results may not be required to determine who gets the electoral votes.

Think that through. It doesn’t make sense. The electoral vote would be reported by horseback, just like the popular vote. The tally would come in at the same time.

Your argument doesn't make sense either. "Heavily populated areas" are populated by American citizens. Why should their vote count less than people living in less dense areas ? What does population density have to do with anything ?

The electoral college is just gerrymandering on a national scale.

Aesma wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

T18 wrote:

Now its possible what I was taught was wrong, but I was also told in school that the system also made it easier to get a results as, some remote areas could have a hard time getting votes reported but that for the national level those results may not be required to determine who gets the electoral votes.

Think that through. It doesn’t make sense. The electoral vote would be reported by horseback, just like the popular vote. The tally would come in at the same time.

Your argument doesn't make sense either. "Heavily populated areas" are populated by American citizens. Why should their vote count less than people living in less dense areas ? What does population density have to do with anything ?

The electoral college is just gerrymandering on a national scale.

A few years ago a lot of Europeans were concerned that a few large countries were dominating EU policy.

Same reason the USA tilts democracy towards egalitarianism not just raw majoritarianism. Like the EU, the United States was formed partly out of a negotiation of free and individual states.

Is Germany too powerful for Europe?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/ ... for-europe

The presidency/government of the EU has much less power than the US president, and isn't even elected at all by people but chosen by the heads of governments of the 27, and OKed by the parliament (parliament that is elected proportionally, unlike the US House/Senate).

Equality between states doesn't make much sense, especially in the US with a unified culture, people moving left and right across the country... US states have plenty of powers that are decided by local politicians, why not elect the president wielding the federal power in a true national election ?

rfields5421 wrote:

Setting up the US Constitution and the Office of President was without any precedent. The communications and delivery of ballots or votes of the states was a major issue.

If I may add an assumption:
There were no easy communications like planes or at least highways. People from the Northwest couldn't judge if votes from the Southeast are realistic. Just adding up votes invited to manipulation.
A more local system was required.

PPVRA wrote:

A few years ago a lot of Europeans were concerned that a few large countries were dominating EU policy.

Same reason the USA tilts democracy towards egalitarianism not just raw majoritarianism. Like the EU, the United States was formed partly out of a negotiation of free and individual states.

That makes sense.

Representation is the holy grail of democracy. If one takes it serious all Greek public infrastructure should have been sold to the highest foreign bidder to settle foreign debt. After all people voted for governments that took foreign debt.

Representation is far less important than pluralism.
Germany has a chamber elected by people and another one elected by state governments. To pass laws, they check each other.

China did well without democracy. But it's not a one man show.
"The ruling Communist Party committee at each level plays a large role in the selection of appropriate candidates for election to the local congress and to the higher levels."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_China

Sounds just like the party high commands of Indian parties. With the difference that nobody forces Indians to vote for parties with high command. They do it by themselves.

The IMF has no democratic legitimation whatsoever, but is a real blessing to the world.

With few exceptions politicians will always decide according to their interest/ the interest of their donors. Pluralism prevents the worst.
https://youtu.be/rXxjSrfjGH4&t=26s

Aesma wrote:

The presidency/government of the EU has much less power than the US president, and isn't even elected at all by people but chosen by the heads of governments of the 27, and OKed by the parliament (parliament that is elected proportionally, unlike the US House/Senate).

Equality between states doesn't make much sense, especially in the US with a unified culture, people moving left and right across the country... US states have plenty of powers that are decided by local politicians, why not elect the president wielding the federal power in a true national election ?

The Federal government/President of the USA used to also have a lot less power than it does today. A lot less.

PPVRA wrote:

There’s more to the history of the 3/5ths and it’s got to do with taxes during the Articles of Confederations. During those days the south argued in favor of the 3/5ths because it would reduce their federal taxes. Basically they wanted slaves to be counted as property not people, thus reducing taxes by means of the taxation apportionment formula that was used back then.

But this is all pre-Constitution.

Correction: the tax thing remained an issue under the Constitution as well.

Wow...everyone is painting the Founders as suuuper smart marble shitting men...1) Most of the smaller States did not want to get steam rolled by the larger geographic sized States and 2) They did not want the dirty, unwashed, non land owning mob masses to decide. Remember, these were Classically Educated men; merchant princes that wanted to look out for their interests that they had just won from George III, they did not want a reprise of that rule here. Same reason there was not a standing Army or Navy, took another war with England to get a Navy!!

LMP737 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You might look up the Connecticut Compromise during the drafting—has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with balancing small states and large states. As today, NY and VA were dominant states and small states (Connecticut, for instance) didn’t want to be ruled by Virginians or New Yorkers.

The Electoral College has everything to do with slavery, to say otherwise is folly. If it did not as you try and claim then why were slaves counted as 3/5 of a person?

There was absolutely nothing in the debate over the formation of the EC during the Constitutiinal Convention that had to do with slavery. In fact, the EC was pretty much an after thought to the delegates. The above is just clap trap. The 3/5s compromise impacted the South's representation in the EC, and the EC set-up was a motivator for them to push for the compromise, but the EC itself had nothing to do with slavery. Should we ditch the whole legislative branch too now since it existed during the slavery era? There's certainly some good points in favor of abolishing the EC, but trying to delegitimize it by tenuously claiming "it had everything to do with slavery" is just ridiculous.

DL717 wrote:

The founders would be saying. “See. We were right!”

About what? Slavery? Women's Suffrage? White men needed to own land to be able to vote? The Electoral College? All came from the general mentality of the time and certainly don't reflect the changes over the generations.

PPVRA wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The presidency/government of the EU has much less power than the US president, and isn't even elected at all by people but chosen by the heads of governments of the 27, and OKed by the parliament (parliament that is elected proportionally, unlike the US House/Senate).

Equality between states doesn't make much sense, especially in the US with a unified culture, people moving left and right across the country... US states have plenty of powers that are decided by local politicians, why not elect the president wielding the federal power in a true national election ?

The Federal government/President of the USA used to also have a lot less power than it does today. A lot less.

Knowing why it was being done like that centuries ago is fine, but the question is why the same system is still in use today ?

Aesma wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The presidency/government of the EU has much less power than the US president, and isn't even elected at all by people but chosen by the heads of governments of the 27, and OKed by the parliament (parliament that is elected proportionally, unlike the US House/Senate).

Equality between states doesn't make much sense, especially in the US with a unified culture, people moving left and right across the country... US states have plenty of powers that are decided by local politicians, why not elect the president wielding the federal power in a true national election ?

The Federal government/President of the USA used to also have a lot less power than it does today. A lot less.

Knowing why it was being done like that centuries ago is fine, but the question is why the same system is still in use today ?

Ah, because we’re on our first Republic, not our fifth one. The EC serves both small and large states, so it’s an equilibrium.

Popular vote for the presidential election, sounds like a transparent, fair, smart system really.

Because America is stuck with an antiquated electoral system that makes the rest of the (civilized) world boggle its mind. ''

America is truly the most industrialized third world nation.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The EC serves both small and large states, so it’s an equilibrium.

It's only an equilibrium as far as an equilibrium always settles itself regardless of the system in use. It doesn't mean it's fair.
An equilibrium would also be created around a universal suffrage system, just with slightly different kinds of candidates.

As it stands, that equilibrium creates a government that disproportionately represents some Americans more than others.
A federal government, and especially the President of that federation, ideally should represent all Americans equally.
As for State representation, it can still be done as it is now, with locally elected representatives defending the voice of their state's constituents in DC.

Aesma wrote:

PPVRA wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The presidency/government of the EU has much less power than the US president, and isn't even elected at all by people but chosen by the heads of governments of the 27, and OKed by the parliament (parliament that is elected proportionally, unlike the US House/Senate).

Equality between states doesn't make much sense, especially in the US with a unified culture, people moving left and right across the country... US states have plenty of powers that are decided by local politicians, why not elect the president wielding the federal power in a true national election ?

The Federal government/President of the USA used to also have a lot less power than it does today. A lot less.

Knowing why it was being done like that centuries ago is fine, but the question is why the same system is still in use today ?

Do you think the smaller countries in the EU would go for a system where the president of the EU is elected by a direct vote of the citizens of the EU?

Math Against Tyranny

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... st-tyranny

910A wrote:

A certain political party has won the popular vote once since 1992. Having a minority party in control over a period of time can cause lasting damage to the institutions and the citizens faith in the government.

George W. Bush and Donald Trump both lost the popular vote but won in the Electoral College.
Both were disasters.
That alone is reason enough to abolish the let EC the people decide directly.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Why did they set up the Electoral College in the first place?.

You might look up the Connecticut Compromise during the drafting—has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with balancing small states and large states. As today, NY and VA were dominant states and small states (Connecticut, for instance) didn’t want to be ruled by Virginians or New Yorkers.

It had everything to do with slavery:

The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they’d already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. With about 93 percent of the country’s slaves toiling in just five southern states, that region was the undoubted beneficiary of the compromise, increasing the size of the South’s congressional delegation by 42 percent. When the time came to agree on a system for choosing the president, it was all too easy for the delegates to resort to the three-fifths compromise as the foundation. The peculiar system that emerged was the Electoral College.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ns/601918/

Many electoral college advocates cite its anti-democratic nature as a benefit, explaining that the institution serves as a bulwark against the so-called “tyranny of the majority.” In reality, however, the institution enables a tyranny of the minority, allowing political factions to entrench their rule by appealing to a small group of voters. It’s mathematically possible to win the electoral college with less than 22 percent of the popular vote. That’s an extreme case, but the fact remains that, under the electoral college, a voter in Wyoming has nearly four times the power of a voter in California.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... l-college/

Do you think people in California want to be ruled by people in Wyoming?

Speaking of the electoral college is there a chance that the PA senate can make the electoral college votes go from Biden to Trump? Even though Biden is leading in the popular vote in PA? It seems extreme but something the Trump campaign would not be afraid to push for that.

keesje wrote:

Popular vote for the presidential election, sounds like a transparent, fair, smart system really.

It does, but how do you get small population states to give up their political power willingly?

PHLspecial wrote:

Speaking of the electoral college is there a chance that the PA senate can make the electoral college votes go from Biden to Trump? Even though Biden is leading in the popular vote in PA? It seems extreme but something the Trump campaign would not be afraid to push for that.

NO.

To see why, we need to dive into the details of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 — which addresses how to resolve a dispute about presidential electors in the Electoral College.

Simplified for present purposes, it says that if two slates of electors arrive from a state, then the two chambers of Congress vote separately about which one to count. If they agree, then that slate counts. But if they disagree, then the slate that was certified by the state’s governor counts. And that last part, the so-called governor’s tie-breaker, disarms the threat posed by Wisconsin’s or Michigan’s state legislature directly appointing electors.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/legi ... work-trump

For over a century, every state’s laws have set a popular election as the “manner” of appointing the electors. That wasn’t always true in the early days of the Republic, however, and in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court said that the state legislature, “after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors.” But the Court also made clear that once a state grants people the right to vote in presidential elections, that right is “fundamental” and subject to federal constitutional constraints. As the National Task Force on Election Crises has explained, a state legislature trying to yank back the power to appoint presidential electors after an election because it didn’t like the result would probably violate the Constitution.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/legi ... le-courage

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Do you think the smaller countries in the EU would go for a system where the president of the EU is elected by a direct vote of the citizens of the EU?

There is no president of the EU. The closest thing, the president of the commission, doesn't decide things like a US president, for example her "government" isn't chosen by her. Nor the agenda, really.

In an hypothetical future "United States of Europe" I would expect there would still not be anything like the US president. The most likely is a parliamentary system, with parliament choosing a leader for the USE. This is how the majority of EU countries are run today. And of course the parliament is elected proportionally, already. There would maybe be a ceremonial president but I doubt it.

9Patch wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Why did they set up the Electoral College in the first place?.

You might look up the Connecticut Compromise during the drafting—has nothing to do with slavery and everything to do with balancing small states and large states. As today, NY and VA were dominant states and small states (Connecticut, for instance) didn’t want to be ruled by Virginians or New Yorkers.

It had everything to do with slavery:

Yeah no:

protect slavery. Critics charge that because three-fifths of the slave population was included in the representation tabulation, it supposedly gave Southern states a political advantage with more Electoral College votes. Significantly, though, when the proposal for the Electoral College was voted on during the Constitutional Convention, Northern states with a lower slave population, unanimously voted for the proposal; yet, with the exception of Virginia, the Southern states, with a higher population of slaves, voted against it.7

Moreover, when the Constitution was drafted, slavery was practiced in every state, and the number of slaves did not give the Southern states a particular advantage. According to the 1790 Census, New York and Virginia were the largest slave-holding states north and south of the Mason–Dixon Line.8 If you subtracted the entire slave populations present in each state, Virginia still had a larger population of free people (over 136,000 more) than New York and still would have had more representatives in Congress and a larger electoral vote.

In fact, the Electoral College “contributed to ending slavery, since Abraham Lincoln, having only earned 39.9% of the popular vote in 1860, nevertheless won a crushing victory in the Electoral College—leading many Southern slaveholders to stampede to secession in 1860 and 1861. They could run the numbers as well as anyone, and realized that the Electoral College would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents.”
https://www.heritage.org/the-essential- ... nformation

Want to have a debate about the usefulness of EC and whether or not it should be abolish, that's fair, but pulling the race card isn't useful.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Math Against Tyranny

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... st-tyranny

Thanks for sharing.

9Patch wrote:

keesje wrote:

Popular vote for the presidential election, sounds like a transparent, fair, smart system really.

It does, but how do you get small population states to give up their political power willingly?

Via the house.

[quote="flyingclrs727"][quote="Aesma"][quote="PPVRA"]

The Federal government/President of the USA used to also have a lot less power than it does today. A lot less.[/quote]

Knowing why it was being done like that centuries ago is fine, but the question is why the same system is still in use today ?[/quote]

Do you think the smaller countries in the EU would go for a system where the president of the EU is elected by a direct vote of the citizens of the EU?[/quote]

For crusial function often people/ locations of the smaller members are chosen for a reason. Socialism ideology in Europe is well present in most parties, even christian and conservative ones, meaning the majority is willing to spend / invest in areas not directly for their own benefit.

Thank you all for your response to my question.

From all the points that I have read so far, I feel it is similar to that of a 'Parliamentary System Of Government' that we come across in other democracies in Europe, Asia and other countries.

Because in the US system as well, they are electing new members of Senate, and Congress during the 'Presidential Election'.

The only difference in this system is that the 'Presidential Candidate Of Each Party' is already known before the election day. Unlike in other democratic countries where the 'Party With The Majority' after winning the 'General Election' nominates its Prime Minister or Presidential candidate.

Correct me if I'm wrong here guys.

aerosreenivas wrote:

Thank you all for your response to my question.

From all the points that I have read so far, I feel it is similar to that of a 'Parliamentary System Of Government' that we come across in other democracies in Europe, Asia and other countries.

Because in the US system as well, they are electing new members of Senate, and Congress during the 'Presidential Election'.

The only difference in this system is that the 'Presidential Candidate Of Each Party' is already known before the election day. Unlike in other democratic countries where the 'Party With The Majority' after winning the 'General Election' nominates its Prime Minister or Presidential candidate.

Correct me if I'm wrong here guys.

There's a big difference.
All representatives of a party are elected and none from the other when a majority in the whole state is reached. It means that the minority, even if the difference is like (50.1/40.9) is not represented at all in the count.
It ends up with a minority governing the country, like with Trump. Pure nonsense.

keesje wrote:

9Patch wrote:

keesje wrote:

Popular vote for the presidential election, sounds like a transparent, fair, smart system really.

It does, but how do you get small population states to give up their political power willingly?

Via the house.

The House alone can't amend the Constitution.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).
https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-sta ... ution.aspx

Getting 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify is a very high bar to clear. Small population states will never give up their perceived advantage.

aerosreenivas wrote:

Thank you all for your response to my question.

From all the points that I have read so far, I feel it is similar to that of a 'Parliamentary System Of Government' that we come across in other democracies in Europe, Asia and other countries.

Because in the US system as well, they are electing new members of Senate, and Congress during the 'Presidential Election'.

The only difference in this system is that the 'Presidential Candidate Of Each Party' is already known before the election day. Unlike in other democratic countries where the 'Party With The Majority' after winning the 'General Election' nominates its Prime Minister or Presidential candidate.

Correct me if I'm wrong here guys.

Germany: Voters vote a mix of direct representative / proportional vote reps into the Bundestag.
Intermission: Short or extended talks on what coalition arrangement gets set up and expects to present a majority vote.
The full Bundestag members vote on a Bundeskanzler ( usually the Kanzlerkandidat of the majority party.)
Candidate historically gets the votes from the majority coalition members ( missing some from the home team and/or gaining some from the future opposition. causing consternation

Voila, a new Bundeskanzler.
Bundeskanzler presents his set of ministers ( usually also fixed up in the previous coalition talks.)

job ends with the voting period ( 4 years ) or a "Konstruktives Misstrauensvotum" is voted on replacing the sitting Chancelor with a new one ( see transition from Schmidt to Kohl.) or not ( see Barzel vs Brandt foundering )

aerosreenivas wrote:

Thank you all for your response to my question.

From all the points that I have read so far, I feel it is similar to that of a 'Parliamentary System Of Government' that we come across in other democracies in Europe, Asia and other countries.

Because in the US system as well, they are electing new members of Senate, and Congress during the 'Presidential Election'.

The only difference in this system is that the 'Presidential Candidate Of Each Party' is already known before the election day. Unlike in other democratic countries where the 'Party With The Majority' after winning the 'General Election' nominates its Prime Minister or Presidential candidate.

Correct me if I'm wrong here guys.

Senators are elected for six year terms. Every two years 1/3 of the senators are up for reelection, so only 1/3 of the Senate will be new next January.
House members serve two year terms. Every two years the entire House of Representatives is up for election.

Members of the House and Senate are not members of the Electoral College.
The composition of the EC is determined by the outcome of the election in each state. Most are winner take all. (Maine and Nebraska assign their's proportionally.)
If the Democrats win a state their slate of electors will convene in the state's capital city to vote in December.
If Biden wins Georgia, 16 Democratic electors will vote for him in Atlanta on December 14. If Trump wins Georgia, a slate of Republican electors will vote for him instead.
Electors are prominent party members. For example, Hillary Clinton will be one of New York's electors this year.

flyguy89 wrote:

Want to have a debate about the usefulness of EC and whether or not it should be abolish, that's fair, but pulling the race card isn't useful.

Too late for that, the race card was played in 1787.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The EC serves both small and large states, so it’s an equilibrium.

There are many ways to prove this is false:

1. States do not get the same attention. States of all sizes are equally ignored. Until this cycle, the largest state to get any attention was FL, followed by PA and OH. From the smallest states, only NH's 4 votes get any attention; all other 3 vote states are ignored. In 2016, people claimed that the EC worked because CA alone cannot determine the election. This time, larger states became more predominant, as TX, AZ, and GA joined the fray; however, NH was pretty much largely ignored, as was IA. So this election skewed attention to larger states at the expense of smaller and medium states. What's the rationale this time when AZ and GA, along with WI, MI, and PA are the ones that decided the election?

2. States do not have equal weight in the EC. WY gets 3 EC votes and serves as the base for all others. Given that the number of electors fluctuates based on the number of representatives, CA's 55 votes are uneven with what WY gets. A House where states are represented as ratios to the smallest state is a better way to serve all states.

3. Even if we take #2, states are still uneven in HOW their population is represented per EC vote. Currently, using WY as an example, each WY EC elector represents roughly 192k residents; the state least represented (currently) in the EC is actually TX, with each TX EC vote representing roughly 763k residents, so TX has roughly 3 times as many people represented per EC vote than WY. TX would need about 150 EC votes so that each EC vote matches what an EC vote in WY represents.

4. Even taking all of this into consideration, many people are essentially invisible when it comes to the election. The WTA approach means that the 4M+ Republicans in CA had no say except a fool's hope to give their candidate some votes. The same thing happens with the hundreds of thousands of Democrats in OK, overwhelmed by the state's conservative leaning. All of which leads again to point 1: some states, by their nature, under a WTA system, get absolutely no attention.

9Patch wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Want to have a debate about the usefulness of EC and whether or not it should be abolish, that's fair, but pulling the race card isn't useful.

Too late for that, the race card was played in 1787.

Hey I get it...it's much easier to just declare it racist and delegitimize it that way than to have a discussion on the merits of a popular vote, but unfortunately the facts aren't wholly supportive of that notion.

flyguy89 wrote:

9Patch wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Want to have a debate about the usefulness of EC and whether or not it should be abolish, that's fair, but pulling the race card isn't useful.

Too late for that, the race card was played in 1787.

Hey I get it...it's much easier to just declare it racist and delegitimize it that way than to have a discussion on the merits of a popular vote, but unfortunately the facts aren't wholly supportive of that notion.

Sorry, you don't get to limit the scope of the discussion.
People are asking how the EC came about.
Discussing the role slavery played is legitimate and should not be dismissed as 'playing the race card.'