Why We Have an Electoral College

Status
Not open for further replies.
LiveLife

LiveLife

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2010
Messages
33,011
Location
Northwest Coast
"Why Do We Have an Electoral College" article by the New York Times conveniently forgets to mention that our country is not a pure democracy with presidential election decided by popular vote but a Constitutional Republic with presidential election decided by electoral college and founders chose to use electoral college for good reasons - https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-electoral-college-again-164132676.html

Article treats electoral college as something bad when the founders intended for electoral college to be something good, at the time of the framing of the Constitution and which I believe still applies today.

The NYT article does not mention that the original intent of electoral college were to prevent tyrants to manipulate public opinion to come to power and prevent larger more populous states to impose their will on smaller less populous states - https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

Do we have any tyrants trying to manipulate public opinion (Media Mogul George Soros and Michael Bloomberg who used brute financial force recently in VA to get anti gun law makers elected with devastating results that prompted the 1/20/20 rally at the capitol and is trying to buy an election, etc.) and larger populous states trying to impose on the smaller states today pushing for popular vote? ;)

Who's trying to take our guns away? Yup, OUR tyrannical law makers. :eek:

Our founders anticipated what's happening today to have precisely framed our Constitution/BOR and chose Electoral College ... They were smart to have done so. :thumbup:

And thankfully, our founders also chose to have 3 separate branches of government so when executive and legislative branches fail to uphold the Constitution, the judicial branch would step into enforce the Constitution.

I mean, every president, law maker, even soldier and law enforcement officer take an oath to support and defend the Constitution ... Yet why are they writing, passing and supporting unconstitutional bills/laws? :fire:

Yes, the founders were really smart. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Tyrannical law makers, see you in court. :neener:
 
Last edited:
During my Senior year in high school, a long time ago, we had a class on our government. The instruction included how it came to be, considerations the founders used to develop our constitution, the reasons behind their decisions, the structure of our government, and why there is an Electoral College. Apparently the so-called journalists at the New Your Times never received any education on the topic.
 
Aim1 said:
The Electoral College is truly brilliant and ahead of it's time.
Click to expand...
And let's not forget separation of powers. ;):thumbup:

George Dickel said:
During my Senior year in high school, a long time ago, we had a class on our government. The instruction included how it came to be, considerations the founders used to develop our constitution, the reasons behind their decisions, the structure of our government, and why there is an Electoral College. Apparently the so-called journalists at the New Your Times never received any education on the topic.
Click to expand...
Many people do not know that the founders initially thought the Second Amendment was not necessary.

But after drafting the Constitution, likely realized whatever that was written in the Constitution didn't matter unless there was a mechanism to enforce the Constitution. So after much deliberation and discussion, Bill of Rights were added with the First Amendment boldly ensuring VOICE OF THE PEOPLE could not be suppressed and the Second Amendment was later added to ensure "We the People" could maintain the First Amendment with separation of powers to give the judicial branch, ultimately the US Supreme Court the FINAL SAY when executive and legislative branches misbehaved and wrote/passed unconstitutional laws (Already done many many times over the centuries like DC v Heller).

Justice Gorsuch is very clear and expressed the original intent of the founders when he said - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

"Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent .. Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job."

... "Neil Gorsuch, he will save people's Second Amendment rights", Gorsuch replied, "My business is your rights, ALL OF THEM, are enforced"

"I am an originalist ... We have a written constitution that our founder wrote down ... They made a charter among 'We the people' ... This is what we agreed to as to what the government's powers are and what they are not ... What our rights are. Originalists ... honor what's written there. Honor those words ... Don't make stuff up and don't take things away." (And who's trying to take our guns away? Unconstitutional law makers)

"... when it comes to the role of the judiciary, I believe that the role is to be faithful to the original meaning of the constitution."

"I want an enduring Constitution and the idea of originalism is just simply that judges should follow the original meaning of the words on the page. And, neither add things that aren't there nor take away things that are there. And, I worry that both of those things happen when we depart from the original meaning of the Constitution."

When asked what James Madison (who helped write the Constitution/Bill of Rights) would say about today's government, "Well, I think one thing he might tell us is to pay attention to the separation of powers ... the truth is that our rights, including the separation of powers, are only as good as the people who want to keep them there."
​
Yes, the founders were smart to form our government to have separation of powers so tyrannical majority's will could not be imposed on the rights of the minority. And with our tyrannical law makers wanting to take our guns away, I believe the Supreme Court justices will act as the backstop, as the founders originally intended, to not only enforce the Second Amendment but ALL of the Bill of Rights to safeguard the totality of the US Constitution. IT IS THEIR JOB to do so, as originally intended by the founders when they framed our Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Whatever reasons argued for an Electoral College in 1787, this is 2020. Time for a national popular vote for president. If the popular vote winner keeps losing the office (as happened in 2000 and 2016), it will call into question the legitimacy of the whole system. Anyway, get used to the idea, because it's coming. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
 
AlexanderA said:
Whatever reasons argued for an Electoral College in 1787, this is 2020
Click to expand...
This country was founded on a set of ideals, which served us well for 2 centuries. Those ideals are what set us apart, and what continued growing America into the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world. Now, "progressives" want to take us into the "future", by making us like all of the other failed civilizations. Progress, indeed.
 
The EC dovetails into the founder's belief that states must have representation and cannot be wholly ignored. That's why a certain political party conveniently tramples the 10th amendment (or only supports it when it suits their agenda).
 
That was an opinion piece, not a Times article.

Keep in mind the electors sent to vote do not have to vote the winner of the popular vote in their state. There have been a few who have changed their vote, usually with a chastening from their party. Some states have passed laws that the electors are required to vote as the popular vote. Some states have fined those who didn't.

A minor revolt among the electors could easily change an election result. What an uproar that would create!
 
In 2020, the thing I dislike most about the Electoral College, is the way the States implement it. 'Winner-Take-All' just seems like vote stealing to me. And in State that lean heavily toward one party or the other, it's easy for people to feel detached from the election, because their vote really does not matter.

It might be nice to see the outcome of a Presidential Election where every single voter knew their vote - no matter how they chose to cast it - counted equally. In such a case, we may all be surprised at just how big the turn out might actually be. Not to mention the results.
 
AlexanderA said:
Whatever reasons argued for an Electoral College in 1787, this is 2020. Time for a national popular vote for president. If the popular vote winner keeps losing the office (as happened in 2000 and 2016), it will call into question the legitimacy of the whole system. Anyway, get used to the idea, because it's coming. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
Click to expand...
Wow.......................

That's all I am going to say on the subject.
 
Fine Figure of a Man said:
The result would be a government elected by and for the ten - twenty most populated counties in the country.
Amazing how many people today, barely capable of managing their own lives, know so much more than the founders of the greatest country in all history.
Click to expand...
True. The electoral college still allows for more populated states to have more representation, it just gives a booster to less populated states.

IMHO, It decentralizes the election to a state by state battle. Fraud or other issues in one state only affect that state. If we went to a straight popular election you can guarantee we would end up with all sorts of voter fraud and other shenanigans. It would be a mess.
 
< Looking for "dislike" button ... Dang, THR staff, we need a "dislike" button > :D

AlexanderA said:
Time for a national popular vote for president.
Click to expand...
And let the tyranny of majority's will be imposed on the rights of the minority as originally intended by the founder?

Heck no.

Our founders framed the government so even smaller states had a voice. We cannot take their voice away, just as we cannot take voting rights from women and blacks and minorities.

And the people who want popular vote not interested in self defense? Hmmmm, last I checked, crime exists everywhere in every town and city all across the country and criminals don't necessarily discriminate whether you are supporters of popular vote or electoral college. ;)

When rape, crime and murder are abolished, I will gladly support gun control. Until then, I will fight to maintain the voice of rape/crime victims and surviving families of murder.

And smaller states should maintain their "voice".
 
Last edited:
The EC was implemented because it was the easiest way to get the job done with the technology and transportation systems of the 1700's. It has absolutely nothing to do with balance of power between heavily populated areas and rural areas. Having 2 Senators from each state regardless of population does that.

Had the popular vote been in place it would NOT have changed the outcome of either the 2000 or 2016 elections. It would have changed the campaign strategy. It is the EC that encourages cheating and misrepresentation of certain districts. You can also make a very strong argument that neither Clinton nor Obama would have won 2nd terms had the popular vote been in place. Both were below 50% in popularity polls at the election, but they had the votes they needed in the states they needed. So the EC bites both ways.

As it is now 90% of the votes cast are meaningless. Every election in my lifetime has come down to 3-5 "swing states". The outcome in the other 45-47 states are well known long before the election and all of the efforts are concentrated in those states. Everyone else loses. Neither party gives a darn about the others because they already know they will either vote for them, or against them. The EC also makes it a lot easier to steal an election because fraud can be concentrated in a small area. If 200 more votes could have been found just in the city of Miami Al Gore would have won in 2000. Trying to pull off fraud on a national level is all but impossible.

Consider this, roughly 4.5 million votes were cast in California for Trump in 2016. In a state he had no chance to win and a place where most conservatives just stayed home. That is more votes than the combined states of Alaska, West Virginia, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, Arkansas, and Kansas. All states Trump won. If you think either party cares anything about those states you're delusional. Even with the EC they concentrate on where the EC votes are.

Going to the popular vote will force all politicians to consider all states. Even states where they will lose because even if they lose those votes help the overall effort.

Another flaw with the EC is the possibility of unfaithful electors. The fact is that there is probably no one here who has actually ever voted for president. We currently vote for electors in our home states. It is those electors who go to Washington a few weeks after the election and actually vote for the president. This was the best way to do it in the 1700's with the communication and transportation available at the time.

There is no Federal law about how each state goes about doing that. Each state can do as they wish. Some states divide the electors between the candidates based on the percentage of votes each gets. And once in Washington each elector can vote as they please. We are trusting 535 people who actually get to vote for president. In 2000 it would have only taken 2 electors pledged to Bush to have changed their vote to Gore and the election would have been a tie. When that happens the congress picks the president. Only 3 more votes and Gore would have legally won.

In 2016 there were 6 or 7 unfaithful electors who changed their vote. Not enough to change the outcome, but something most people don't understand.
 
badkarmamib said:
This country was founded on a set of ideals, which served us well for 2 centuries.
Click to expand...
The single overriding American ideal is democracy. Consent of the governed. That's why we broke away from Britain in the first place.
Fine Figure of a Man said:
The result would be a government elected by and for the ten - twenty most populated counties in the country.
Click to expand...
No, everybody's vote would count -- unlike today. If you're a Republican in California, Illinois, or New York, or a Democrat in Texas, you're effectively disenfranchised. And the candidates don't even bother campaigning for your vote, since the result in your state is a foregone conclusion.
MechAg94 said:
IMHO, It decentralizes the election to a state by state battle.
Click to expand...
No, it reduces the election to a dozen or so "swing" states. The rest of the states don't matter.
 
AlexanderA said:
The single overriding American ideal is democracy
Click to expand...
We are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. A republic is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. In other words, America is not ruled by the mob of the majority, or 50.000001% of the populace. The minority's rights must be taken into account.
 
AlexanderA said:
No, everybody's vote would count -- unlike today. If you're a Republican in California, Illinois, or New York, or a Democrat in Texas, you're effectively disenfranchised. And the candidates don't even bother campaigning for your vote, since the result in your state is a foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...
First there is this;
AlexanderA said:
That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
Click to expand...
Aside from that, without the electoral college presidential candidates would campaign in about a dozen metropolitan areas exclusively. Presidents would cater to the same. Short term effect is the loss of representation for most of the country. Long term effects, loss of liberty, socialism or worse.
 
CDW4ME said:
IN.
I'm glad we have the electoral college.
Click to expand...

Me too. The EC has made sure two republicans have made it into office in the last 20 years (that more or less support RKBA) that wouldn't have happened without it. <-- there, I tied this thread back to guns right there.
 
AlexanderA said:
The single overriding American ideal is democracy.
Click to expand...
I do believe the founders considered "pure democracy" as our form of government but after consideration rejected it and decided on Constitutional Republic as this form of government better protects the rights of the "We the People" from tyranny, foreign or domestic.

AlexanderA said:
That's why we broke away from Britain in the first place.
Click to expand...
No, the majority of the colonist did not want to break away from Great Britain initially.

They wanted to remain as royal subjects under monarchy but wanted to be treated the same as other royal subjects in England. But as time went by, colonists realized that they were not being treated the same and had no voice. When England decided the colonists would be taxed to pay for the war they did not start without any representation in England, they protested and to make the long story short, declared independence from England/British tyranny so colonists could have a voice, freedom and liberty to pursue happiness.

AlexanderA said:
If you're a Republican in California, Illinois, or New York
Click to expand...
And the founders thought just choosing Constitutional Republic was not enough.

You know, there are many other Democratic Republics around the world like China (People's Republic of China) and even North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) with constitutions.

Heck, North Koreans even have the "Right to Relaxation" (Chapter 5, Article 71), but China is oppressing the rights of their own people in Hong Kong and North Korea is oppressing their own people all across their country.

How is this possible when they are Republics with constitutions?

Because they don't have the enforcement mechanism our founders framed into our constitution - Separation of powers and ultimate rule of the US Supreme Court to overrule when executive and legislative branches become unconstitutional.

Without these, we would become just another democracy/republic like China, North Korea, Venezuela, Mexico, etc. etc. :eek: Yeah, Mexico is a democratic republic too ... with a lot of corruption. :barf: So who ensures the rights of the Mexican people? ;) And how's Mexican gun laws with only ONE gun store in the entire country working out? :D

And what happened after Venezuela banned guns in 2012? Did crime disappear? Were people of Venezuela more free and happy? Economic boom?:rofl:

So original intent of the founders to ensure tyranny does not impose on the voice of the "We the People", framed the US Constitution with Bill of Rights, 3 branches of government with the Supreme Court having the final say as backstop to other 2 branches, Second Amendment to maintain the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution and Electoral College to maintain the voice of smaller states.
 
Last edited:
What we see in Illinois is what we would see nationally if it were not for the Electoral College. Illinois is almost exclusivey a red state, with the exception of the Chicago area. Chicago politicians control the entire state due to the population of the Chicago area. As a result they have forced their anti 2A policies on the entire state.

We transferred my youngest son to a private school this year. His social studies teacher is a combat veteran who actually teaches American history. They had a Constitution test last week where they learned about the reason for the Electoral College, reason for checks and balances, etc. My oldest son is out of college now and went through the public shcools here, which were excellent at the time but did not teach history. Too many public schools intentionally keep students ignorant of our history and system of government as it makes it easier to shove leftist and anti 2A nonsense down their throats.
 
Without an Electoral College we would devolve into something along the line of the French model, where the few large cities are catered to as vote farms and the rest of the country is ignored.
Since hunting and sport shooting is of little interest in these great cities but armed criminals and assassins are of major concern (especially to crooked politicians), gun rights are suppressed under these systems.
The Electoral College makes places other than major cities important.
Thus, the Electoral College is of great import to gun owners
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LiveLife
  • Locked
Latest move to impose on 2A supporters by "popular" sentiment
Replies
4
Views
482
Robert
Robert
F
  • Locked
We need more electoral layers in our elections
Replies
22
Views
943
Fletchette
F
M
  • Locked
WI: opinions on electoral college wanted
Replies
14
Views
404
slzy
S
T
  • Locked
Why do some people want to directly elect presidents?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
1K
Waitone
W
D
  • Locked
They are right...the 2A does NOT apply to "The People"
Replies
10
Views
1K
tyme
T
Back
Top