Electoral College 240 years and still going strong. What does your popular vote really mean? Legally...
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/lesso...
Direct bearing sections in parts. below.
When it came to voting for president, the framers of the Constitution decided that the states should do the voting, not the people. Remember, there was no consciousness of the United States as a single nation; it was, literally, a union of separate states. So voting for president was to take place by state, so that each state could have its say. The compromise between big and small states was extended to the electoral college, so that each state has as many electors as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives combined. Big states still have the most influence, but small states aren't completely lost in the national vote.
A work in progress
It was up to the states to decide how they ought to vote for their electors — and to a great extent still is, in fact. There is no national election for president, but rather fifty-one separate elections, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. In the beginning, state legislatures voted for electors, who in turn voted for the president and vice president. Electors were free to vote for the candidate of their choice, but over time they were increasingly elected because they supported a particular candidate. By 1832, every state but South Carolina held direct elections for president, and electors were effectively bound to vote for a particular candidate. (South Carolina held out until 1864.)
Today, of course, every state allows citizens to vote directly for electors — as represented on the ballot by the candidates with which they are associated — but the electors are still not legally bound to vote for any particular candidate. An elector could, in theory, throw his or her vote to any candidate! Since each candidate has his or her own slate of electors, however, and since the electors are chosen not only for their loyalty but because they take their responsibility seriously, this almost never happens. (It last happened in 1988, when it had no impact on the outcome of the election.) Some states have laws requiring electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote.
In addition, a state doesn't have to throw all of its electors behind the candidate that receives the most popular votes in that state. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, assign one elector to the winner of each Congressional district and the remaining two electors to the candidate with the most votes statewide. After the 2000 election, there was some debate about whether that system would be more fair than the winner-take-all system used by the other 48 states and the District of Columbia. * See NOTE at the bottom.
The original Constitution also didn't take into account the development of political parties. Electors were to vote for two candidates for president. The man with the highest number of votes that was a majority became president, and the man with the second highest number of votes became vice president. In 1800, however, the Democratic-Republican Party nominated Thomas Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president, and because there was no separate voting for the two offices, the two men tied in the electoral college. The House of Representatives had to decide the issue. Afterwards, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution was passed
In the Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton, who drafted the compromise electoral process that was included in the Constitution, explains why the president should be elected indirectly, rather than directly by the people.
The people vs. the electors (more historical perspectives)
As everyone learned or was reminded of in the election of 2000, the Constitution doesn't say that the candidate with the most popular support has any claim on the Presidency. It says that the candidate with the most electoral votes will become president. So George W. Bush won the election fair and square, by the rules set forth in the Constitution.
Actually, the last president to be elected by a majority of the voters was George H. W. Bush in 1988. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with a plurality — more than any other candidate, but less than half of the total vote — because there were three major candidates. Because the third candidate, H. Ross Perot, failed to win a majority anywhere, he didn't win any electoral votes, and Clinton was able to win a majority of the electoral votes without winning a majority of the popular vote.
George W. Bush wasn't the first candidate to become president despite losing the popular vote, either. It also happened in 1824, 1876, and 1888, and each time, a debate ensued about whether the outcome was fair or right.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most popular votes (at least in states where popular elections were held), but no candidate won a majority of the electoral votes. The House of Representatives selected John Quincy Adams as president. (Jackson won the election four years later.)
In 1876, Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden narrowly won the popular vote over Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, but twenty contested electoral votes prevented either man from winning a majority of electors. A compromise... Congress certified all twenty contested votes as having been cast for Hayes.
In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison easily won a majority of the electoral vote despite losing the popular vote to his opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland.Harrison won narrow majorities in
.
And in 2000, Democrat Al Gore initially won a narrow plurality of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Republican George W. Bush, 271 to 266. The vote was so close Gore, thinking he had lost, conceded, then retracted his concession as more votes were counted. When the dust had settled the courts ruled Bush had won both the popular and electoral votes but by a squeaky close margin.
* The winner take all system was meant to ensure a majority and thus bring the country together. Didn't work. The current status is legal but under fire and since it's the parties cal the States law means nothing. Federal trumps State.
The objection is who gave you the right to take my vote and give it to someone else? Violates a number of rights not granted and rights granted and specifically stated not the least of which is due process. Instead it has disinterested people in what they rightly view as a rigged election with stolen votes.
What matters is who takes control. If Hillary or Bernie there will be no more Constitution.
If Trump. Who knows? According to his supporters on issues are not important until after the election or after the inauguration. Kind of like Pelosiillyni's idiot remark you have to vote for it to read it except this one isn't written. In the meantime until my vote vote counts it's going to a different version of None of the Above which used to be don't vote for either one and is called 'under voting.
What Trumps people are trying to get through in violation of this years rules for selecting a candidate.Remember a majority of Republicans voted Against Trump . He's second place at best. Minus winner take all he's a candidate for becoming an un politically involved billionaire and with 46% sitting this one out there will be no majority win in popular vote which doesn't count anyway. and ....Electoral? Up to them. Federal "Trumps" State. I predict this has a chance of going to the Rep's. We'll know Jan 20th.
Direct bearing sections in parts. below.
When it came to voting for president, the framers of the Constitution decided that the states should do the voting, not the people. Remember, there was no consciousness of the United States as a single nation; it was, literally, a union of separate states. So voting for president was to take place by state, so that each state could have its say. The compromise between big and small states was extended to the electoral college, so that each state has as many electors as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives combined. Big states still have the most influence, but small states aren't completely lost in the national vote.
A work in progress
It was up to the states to decide how they ought to vote for their electors — and to a great extent still is, in fact. There is no national election for president, but rather fifty-one separate elections, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. In the beginning, state legislatures voted for electors, who in turn voted for the president and vice president. Electors were free to vote for the candidate of their choice, but over time they were increasingly elected because they supported a particular candidate. By 1832, every state but South Carolina held direct elections for president, and electors were effectively bound to vote for a particular candidate. (South Carolina held out until 1864.)
Today, of course, every state allows citizens to vote directly for electors — as represented on the ballot by the candidates with which they are associated — but the electors are still not legally bound to vote for any particular candidate. An elector could, in theory, throw his or her vote to any candidate! Since each candidate has his or her own slate of electors, however, and since the electors are chosen not only for their loyalty but because they take their responsibility seriously, this almost never happens. (It last happened in 1988, when it had no impact on the outcome of the election.) Some states have laws requiring electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote.
In addition, a state doesn't have to throw all of its electors behind the candidate that receives the most popular votes in that state. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, assign one elector to the winner of each Congressional district and the remaining two electors to the candidate with the most votes statewide. After the 2000 election, there was some debate about whether that system would be more fair than the winner-take-all system used by the other 48 states and the District of Columbia. * See NOTE at the bottom.
The original Constitution also didn't take into account the development of political parties. Electors were to vote for two candidates for president. The man with the highest number of votes that was a majority became president, and the man with the second highest number of votes became vice president. In 1800, however, the Democratic-Republican Party nominated Thomas Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president, and because there was no separate voting for the two offices, the two men tied in the electoral college. The House of Representatives had to decide the issue. Afterwards, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution was passed
In the Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton, who drafted the compromise electoral process that was included in the Constitution, explains why the president should be elected indirectly, rather than directly by the people.
The people vs. the electors (more historical perspectives)
As everyone learned or was reminded of in the election of 2000, the Constitution doesn't say that the candidate with the most popular support has any claim on the Presidency. It says that the candidate with the most electoral votes will become president. So George W. Bush won the election fair and square, by the rules set forth in the Constitution.
Actually, the last president to be elected by a majority of the voters was George H. W. Bush in 1988. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton won with a plurality — more than any other candidate, but less than half of the total vote — because there were three major candidates. Because the third candidate, H. Ross Perot, failed to win a majority anywhere, he didn't win any electoral votes, and Clinton was able to win a majority of the electoral votes without winning a majority of the popular vote.
George W. Bush wasn't the first candidate to become president despite losing the popular vote, either. It also happened in 1824, 1876, and 1888, and each time, a debate ensued about whether the outcome was fair or right.
In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the most popular votes (at least in states where popular elections were held), but no candidate won a majority of the electoral votes. The House of Representatives selected John Quincy Adams as president. (Jackson won the election four years later.)
In 1876, Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden narrowly won the popular vote over Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, but twenty contested electoral votes prevented either man from winning a majority of electors. A compromise... Congress certified all twenty contested votes as having been cast for Hayes.
In 1888, Republican Benjamin Harrison easily won a majority of the electoral vote despite losing the popular vote to his opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland.Harrison won narrow majorities in
.
And in 2000, Democrat Al Gore initially won a narrow plurality of the popular vote but lost the electoral vote to Republican George W. Bush, 271 to 266. The vote was so close Gore, thinking he had lost, conceded, then retracted his concession as more votes were counted. When the dust had settled the courts ruled Bush had won both the popular and electoral votes but by a squeaky close margin.
* The winner take all system was meant to ensure a majority and thus bring the country together. Didn't work. The current status is legal but under fire and since it's the parties cal the States law means nothing. Federal trumps State.
The objection is who gave you the right to take my vote and give it to someone else? Violates a number of rights not granted and rights granted and specifically stated not the least of which is due process. Instead it has disinterested people in what they rightly view as a rigged election with stolen votes.
What matters is who takes control. If Hillary or Bernie there will be no more Constitution.
If Trump. Who knows? According to his supporters on issues are not important until after the election or after the inauguration. Kind of like Pelosiillyni's idiot remark you have to vote for it to read it except this one isn't written. In the meantime until my vote vote counts it's going to a different version of None of the Above which used to be don't vote for either one and is called 'under voting.
What Trumps people are trying to get through in violation of this years rules for selecting a candidate.Remember a majority of Republicans voted Against Trump . He's second place at best. Minus winner take all he's a candidate for becoming an un politically involved billionaire and with 46% sitting this one out there will be no majority win in popular vote which doesn't count anyway. and ....Electoral? Up to them. Federal "Trumps" State. I predict this has a chance of going to the Rep's. We'll know Jan 20th.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Theres too much money now in cronyism. The whole government is set up to service cronyism.
I think as in the TV series Jericho, the only way is a long period of re-education of the populace, followed by complete destruction of the present government ( which might happen anyway as it falls of its own weight as in AS).
If congress passes a law and fails to add the implementing regulations then their are no implementing regulations. If they say write what you need it's ok with us then all the Prez needs do is say. Don't write anything. If they don't want to obey FIRE their sorry asses. KISS it isn't rocket science and they are not anything special except out of control employees. Can't fire them? Then why are you re-electing the same people who exempted them AND themselves at the same time. You think Congress came under Civil Rights Act, or any of the others? Still doing insider trading too. But if you enable them for another two, four, or six years whose fault is that? Maybe we need some new employers
BUT, if our government didnt redistribute my stuff and didnt take my rights away, this whole election would be a simple choice of an administrator to efficiently run the government.
If the government is going to take away my rights and money, then I can see the argument that MY vote as well as everyone elses should count- without all this nonsense about delegates and electoral college votes.
So, I go on the side of eliminating the electoral college
as excellent short book on the subject is "Two Tyrants" by A.G.Roderick
When the whole thing first started there was no tradition of country, the USA and a great fear of federalism. The Congress - at the time the largest and still is in terms of power - divided into one section directly elected and the other half indirectly elected through the State Governments. Senate the older wiser more able to leave their regular jobs, better educated, more deliberative was set up to slow the pace. the Representatives shorter term, younger went to the less educated but still became filled with the 'local' notables, less deliberative. each check and balancing each other.
Government was supposed to deal - at federal level - with foreign affairs, wars, judicial. they felt no one would want to stay forever and if they did it would be as a Senator. Cronyism for favoritism is just another term for patronage system. That was in effect until the 1960's thinking about postmasters. Recent example is Hillarys stint at state hiring unqualified people who had made huge donations to the Clinton Foundation.
None of this addressed the party system which came later and when it did was encouraged to be antagonistic and slow things down. This bi partisan and cross partisan crap didn't exist. It was felt if the country moved to overly cooperative parties why have two parties? Which is exactly what happened. We have the Government Coalition Party Democrats and Republicans acting as pretend antagonists but in reality as one one party.
That's the short version off the top of my head. It's been tested every which way and the flaws are easy to spot. Should there be another convention or a rewrite those are that would need addressing. Should 1776 part two ever happen.
Which brings up the true party system with two opposed beliefs.
Government over Citizens
Citizens over Government.
Currently we operate in the first area with a combined single party. Most of the people in government are of that mold. As long as they can bring home the bacon and disregard debt that's possible.
The single party of course uses the 1930's Socialist model of big business, big government and big labor but only the leaders of each segment. Corporatists, Statists, labor leaders.
That's your three major divisions There is no longer any similarity to the pre Woodrow Wilson form be it Jeffersonian or Hamiltonian. Most of it is a meld so we get the Corporatist/Statist the Statist Corporatist and the Labor/Statist etc. all working together.
Linked at the top and purposefully kept divided at the bottom. The divisions are largely fairy tales
However to give the College it's due it's lasted almost two and a half centuries so arguing against that part of the system is a bit late. Or against the way the parties pick their candidates.