HawkShack.com

Time for a new topic, one that might evoke fewer and less dramatic emotional responses.

The Electoral College was created back in the 18th century for two basic reasons: One reason was the logistics of voting. It could take many months to tabulate all the votes as information could travel only as fast as a horse could run. Having representatives vote in lieu of a popular vote was much simpler. Secondly, the feeling back then was that the common man was not smart enough to make an informed decision. When I read stuff like 29% of adults can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map, it makes me wonder the same thing about contemporary American citizens.

Since we've had two of the past five POTUS elections where the successful candidate did not win the popular vote, there's been a lot of discussion about abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with a popular vote. In my opinion, a lot of this is just plain sour grapes out of Dems and liberals due to their having lost a couple of close elections. If you can't win the game, let's change the rules.

We cannot assume that HRC would be President if the Electoral College didn't exist. If the winner of the popular vote was awarded the presidency, the campaign would have been run much differently. Trump would have spent way more time on the west coast than he did in the battleground states, so who knows which candidate would have influenced more voters.

Secondly, even though the electoral college favored the R's in the two elections where the popular vote and electoral vote didn't agree, it's not necessarily a stacked deck for the R's. In 2004, George W. Bush won the popular vote by over 3M votes yet he barely won the electoral college. Had Ohio fell to Kerry, it would have been Bush that lost the electoral vote while winning the popular vote.

Personally, I want to keep the electoral college. It forces the candidates to appeal to the entire country rather than just the large population centers. Many of us out here in the west would feel a huge effect if candidates didn't have to pay attention to the small states. However, there's two changes that I'd make in the current system:

1. Make the electoral college vote automatic. No more of these "faithless electors" that see fit to place their own opinion over the judgment of those they are supposed to be representing.

2. Rather than the current winner-take-all, I would like to see the winner of the individual congressional districts get 1 electoral vote and the winner of the overall popular vote in the state awarded the remaining 2 votes. For us here in this state, that would force candidates to campaign state wide instead of simply concentrating on the Puget Sound area. It would also vastly reduce the importance of the "battleground states." California and New York, won handily by Clinton, and Texas, won handily by Trump, all would have all been in play for a lot of electoral votes.

Comments?

One person one vote. As a nation.

c_hawkbob wrote:One person one vote. As a nation.

Only true in a pure democracy, which we are not. We might as well throw away the whole constitution and start over if that's going to be the premise.

RiverDog wrote:Only true in a pure democracy, which we are not.

Exactly- we're a country of United States. Small states have much less sway on elections, but it was designed to be non-zero. It's why the Senate is configured the way it is, as well as part of why we have the EC.

I've said this elsewhere, but I do think proportional allocation would be a more just way to configure the EC, and that also has the added benefit of being realistic- the states could decide to do it outside the Amendment process.

The electoral college is way out dated, as is the 2nd amendment. Our forefathers had no idea of what they thought were muskets turning into assault rifles.

Largent80 wrote:The electoral college is way out dated, as is the 2nd amendment. Our forefathers had no idea of what they thought were muskets turning into assault rifles.

I think they're both as relevant today as the day they were drafted.

Our system of "united states" (which the EC supports) has proven almost supernaturally well-conceived, and today, people who support 'gun rights' have a *much* stronger argument for their side than the anti-2A side does IMO ('no gun' zones don't come *close* to being effective, and the safest places are those protected by guns, and that's not even getting into the meatier arguments).

Largent80 wrote:The electoral college is way out dated, as is the 2nd amendment. Our forefathers had no idea of what they thought were muskets turning into assault rifles.

Let's stick to the topic, which is the electoral college, not the 2nd amendment.

I agree that it's a little outdated. In today's age of instant communications, there is no need for actual electors anymore. I see no need for a set of electors meeting and holding a vote. But voting as one homogeneous mass rather than our current voting by area (ie states) would render large swaths of the country irrelevant. It was the same big state vs. small state argument that led to a compromise between the interests of the small states (the Senate) and those of the large states (House of Representatives) and resulted in the formation of our legislative branch.

If you can justify a purely popular vote to elect the POTUS, then following the same principle you might as well do away with statewide elections in both houses and simply vote nation wide on 535 positions without regard to what area of the country they come from. And while we're at it, why not do away with state and municipal governments altogether and be 100% governed by the All Knowing, All Seeing federal government?

burrrton wrote:I've said this elsewhere, but I do think proportional allocation would be a more just way to configure the EC, and that also has the added benefit of being realistic- the states could decide to do it outside the Amendment process.

I'm not sure what you mean by "proportional allocation", unless you're saying the same thing I am when I suggested that we give each Congressional district 1 EC vote.

RiverDog wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "proportional allocation", unless you're saying the same thing I am when I suggested that we give each Congressional district 1 EC vote.

Proportional allocation isn't a new concept (although it's late- maybe I'm confusing terms?).

It refers to doing away with the 'winner take all' allocation and awarding electors proportionally based on the % of the vote they won. If you win 60% of the popular vote in the state, you get 60% of their electors.

It would mean Republicans might pay attention to California again, that sort of thing.

burrrton wrote:Proportional allocation isn't a new concept (although it's late- maybe I'm confusing terms?).

It refers to doing away with the 'winner take all' allocation and awarding electors proportionally based on the % of the vote they won. If you win 60% of the popular vote in the state, you get 60% of their electors.

It would mean Republicans might pay attention to California again, that sort of thing.

OK, I understand what you mean. However, although on a nation wide level it would work better than the current winner-take-all system, I don't think a simple allocation based on percentages is the best option for the states, particularly diverse states like our own that have both a low density agricultural region and a top 20 metropolitan area. In our case here in E. Washington, it would still keep the influence over in the Puget Sound area, where there are more votes to mine. IMO my suggestion, apportioning one EC vote per Congressional district, would be more likely to force candidates to appeal to voters on a state wide basis rather than sticking to the population centers.

In an electoral college vote, do the Seahawks beat the Patriots in 49?....

Why yes, because if Trump can win that way, then so can the Hawks. In other words they lost but actually won. It's f'n bullsht.

I agree with RD for the most part although I quibble on the assertion the electoral college makes the candidates compete nationally.How it is now is the absolute opposite.
As RD suggested proportional representation would fix a lot of that but the best way to make them compete in 50 states would be one person one vote.
Id also like to see the primaries flipped and shuffled so my vote in washington isn't completely wasted by having two utter pieces of human excrement, well dog excrement actually already selected as my only real option for an electable candidate.
I'm sick and tired of having New Hampshire etc decide my front runner and a bunch of liberal northeastern states give he or her a commanding lead.

And then having a bunch of idiotic rednecks in Iowa decide Ted Cruz saying basketball ring after campaigning for probably 24 hours without sleep is worse than Dumpster fire saying its Ok to grab a pu$$y and John McCain isn't a war hero because he got captured.
Really America?What a disgrace.

Very very pi$$ed about the current state of affairs with our POTUS selection system.
Of course its never going to change. the power brokers like their rigged system just fine.

Hawktawk wrote:I agree with RD for the most part although I quibble on the assertion the electoral college makes the candidates compete nationally.How it is now is the absolute opposite.

It's not the 'absolute opposite'. Now candidates compete mostly in the battleground states, which this year was FL, MI, PA, and WI, all won by Trump, and NH and MN, won by HRC. But they still have to have nation wide appeal. If we went to a pure popular vote as some have suggested, there would be no reason for the candidates to venture out of the large metro regions like the northeast and their appeal would be urban and suburban related. Rural interests would be marginalized if not completely ignored. That's been the basic argument since way back during the forming of the Constitution.

Proportioning out the electoral votes, either my way or burrton's way, would suddenly put back into play a number of regions, such as TX, NY, and the entire west coast.

I do agree with you about our current primary system. IMO we got better candidates via the smoke filled rooms than we have in the 3 ring circus that's part of the system now. But there is some value to it. John Kennedy, a man that even though he grew up in the Great Depression, never even heard about it until he was in college, learned of poverty and despair first hand when he had to campaign in the West Virginia primaries. The primary system does force candidates to at least tour the country.

The other thing that peeves me about our current voting system is that there are so many frigging morons in this country. I don't like the idea of being led by the ignorant masses or mob rule. Although it's admittedly a pipe dream and would be completely unworkable, I'd like to see some sort of basic test given as a means to qualify as a voter.

The other thing that peeves me about our current voting system is that there are so many frigging morons in this country. I don't like the idea of being led by the ignorant masses or mob rule. Although it's admittedly a pipe dream and would be completely unworkable, I'd like to see some sort of basic test given as a means to qualify as a voter.[/quote]


We can't even require a person to show ID to prove they are who they say they are and that they should be voting. Best would be to eliminate ALL parties and just have a giant vat of teeming candidates battle it out through a series of elimination elections. No money allowed from outside sources. We can recoup some of the billions of dollars the government is wasting and use ir to fund it. Would be great theater and would give otherwise qualified but underfunded or third party candidates an equal opportunity to be heard. (I'm only half joking)

vahawker wrote:The other thing that peeves me about our current voting system is that there are so many frigging morons in this country. I don't like the idea of being led by the ignorant masses or mob rule. Although it's admittedly a pipe dream and would be completely unworkable, I'd like to see some sort of basic test given as a means to qualify as a voter.

We can't even require a person to show ID to prove they are who they say they are and that they should be voting. Best would be to eliminate ALL parties and just have a giant vat of teeming candidates battle it out through a series of elimination elections. No money allowed from outside sources. We can recoup some of the billions of dollars the government is wasting and use ir to fund it. Would be great theater and would give otherwise qualified but underfunded or third party candidates an equal opportunity to be heard. (I'm only half joking)[/quote]



I like the suggestions of the last 2 posts quite a bit. As I've said though to be fair not all the people who voted for bad or worse are stupid. Most definitely aren't including most of my large group of siblings and in laws. Also my best friend in the world of 40' years. They are busy and uninformed and don't truly research their candidate.

I'm stunned by the amount of Trump voters who have no idea what the access Hollywood tape is or believe it was a setup despite the man being on tape and film
Much as Hillary voters blame Comey for the loss when it was her distrust and control issues that led to her server debacle.
Hopefully after this utter sh1+ show people will pay a little more attention next time around.

Not holding my breath though.

Here's an example of how many pure morons we have in this country:

About 11 percent of young citizens of the U.S. couldn't even locate the U.S. on a map. The Pacific Ocean's location was a mystery to 29 percent; Japan, to 58 percent; France, to 65 percent; and the United Kingdom, to 69 percent.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... urvey.html

Looking at those numbers, it should be no surprise how a babbling moron like Donald Trump could get elected when there's so many people that are of his likeness.

We've made it too easy to vote in this country. People used to have to go to quite a bit of effort to vote, some standing in lines for hours. But now with vote by mail, you don't even have to get off your couch to cast a vote.

With the exception of the handicapped, old, or those that file for an absentee ballot ahead of time, I feel that we ought to return to voting in person and with verifiable, government issued identification. I mean, think about it: We won't let a person board a plane unless they can prove who they are yet we will let them vote for our leaders? Then you would weed out a lot of the morons as if they can't find the U.S. on a map, they aren't smart enough to find their polling place.

Largent80 wrote:The electoral college is way out dated, as is the 2nd amendment. Our forefathers had no idea of what they thought were muskets turning into assault rifles.

The 2nd Amendment is only outdated if you believe that citizens are not an additional check on government power including the right to violently revolt. Or perhaps you believe the government will never become tyrannical again and we're going to have peace forever. Both never going to happen.

Sorry, buddy. No matter how you try to spin it, the 2nd amendment is as valid today as it ever was. If any change is made, it should be a change like Switzerland where there is mandatory military service and a requirement you maintain armament in your home to ensure you are ready to fight if required.

The 1st Amendment to sum it up is "You can believe in whatever version of god you like and we'll talk first." The 2nd Amendment is the, "The talking done. This will be settled with battle." United States citizens should never, ever give up their right to violently revolt should the nation suffer tyranny foreign or domestic.

This is not a kumbaya world. The government can't hire cops or secret service for every citizen. If a citizen should so feel it necessary, they should be able to arm themselves.

Now I'm not some lunatic that thinks we should be able to have weapons unregulated because any type of registration leads to tyranny. I'm definitely a believer in the check and balance provided by the 2nd Amendment. The people should be able to arm themselves with the small arms of a soldier including an assault rifle. If someone applies and proves trustworthy, with heavier weaponry.

Fact is that 99.99999999% of American citizens are responsible gun owners. The gun control advocates trying to take away a right based on an extremely small number of irresponsible, evil, and insane people is not right in any way. It would be the equivalent of taking away freedom of religion because of Islamic radicals. It's wrong. It will always be wrong.

If the Federal Government left more up to the states in regards to laws, I may be ok with a removal of the Electoral College. With the Federal Government dictating morals and philosophy as they do, it would allow states with more liberal agendas that will not be changed to become the dominant power in the country leaving conservative states absolutely screwed in representation as President. It would like Washington State where liberal Western Washington dictates to conservative Eastern Washington how they will be taxed and what laws will be enforced forcing upon the populace a one-sized fits all morality and philosophy that should not be.

Whining b**** liberal Democrats want to bring to bear the tyranny of the over-populated welfare state known as California. I would not like that at all. We don't need the entire nation dictated by the likes of California and New York due to the size of their population and liberal brain-washing they push in their schol systems.

With the exception of the handicapped, old, or those that file for an absentee ballot ahead of time, I feel that we ought to return to voting in person and with verifiable, government issued identification. I mean, think about it: We won't let a person board a plane unless they can prove who they are yet we will let them vote for our leaders?

Ur rayciss.

Aseahawkfan wrote:If the Federal Government left more up to the states in regards to laws, I may be ok with a removal of the Electoral College. With the Federal Government dictating morals and philosophy as they do, it would allow states with more liberal agendas that will not be changed to become the dominant power in the country leaving conservative states absolutely screwed in representation as President. It would like Washington State where liberal Western Washington dictates to conservative Eastern Washington how they will be taxed and what laws will be enforced forcing upon the populace a one-sized fits all morality and philosophy that should not be.

Whining b**** liberal Democrats want to bring to bear the tyranny of the over-populated welfare state known as California. I would not like that at all. We don't need the entire nation dictated by the likes of California and New York due to the size of their population and liberal brain-washing they push in their schol systems.

One of my favorite examples of Washington state's liberal left dictating to conservative Eastern Washington involves studded tires. For decades, Western Washington, where they don't get very much snowfall, was trying to dictate to Eastern Washington, particularly the Spokane area where the winters are much worse, to ban the use of studded tires. Sounds trivial, but that's an example of a centralized power from a large metropolitan area dictating to a low population density region.

That's part of the problem with replacing the electoral system with a pure popular vote. It gives more power to the bureaucrats working for the federal government that never venture outside the Beltway and less to state and local governments that are closer to the people whom the laws affect most.

But it still needs to be modified. Currently it's a joke. One third of WA's electors in this past election placed their opinions above the will of the voters. It needs to be automatic and not subject to these "faithless electors". Can you imagine what would have happened if the election was reversed due to one of these faithless electors?

Can you imagine what would have happened if the election was reversed due to one of these faithless electors?

*THAT* would be the Constitutional Crisis so many have been predicting around every corner. That issue really does need to be resolved.

burrrton wrote:*THAT* would be the Constitutional Crisis so many have been predicting around every corner. That issue really does need to be resolved.

Yes, it would be a blood bath, especially if the election were between two extremely divisive candidates like we had in Trump vs. Clinton. Bush vs. Gore was nothing compared to those two.

RiverDog wrote:W
One of my favorite examples of Washington state's liberal left dictating to conservative Eastern Washington involves studded tires. For decades, Western Washington, where they don't get very much snowfall, was trying to dictate to Eastern Washington, particularly the Spokane area where the winters are much worse, to ban the use of studded tires. Sounds trivial, but that's an example of a centralized power from a large metropolitan area dictating to a low population density region.

That's part of the problem with replacing the electoral system with a pure popular vote. It gives more power to the bureaucrats working for the federal government that never venture outside the Beltway and less to state and local governments that are closer to the people whom the laws affect most.

But it still needs to be modified. Currently it's a joke. One third of WA's electors in this past election placed their opinions above the will of the voters. It needs to be automatic and not subject to these "faithless electors". Can you imagine what would have happened if the election was reversed due to one of these faithless electors?

I think the President would take office and not much would change. We're on cruise control until economic or social circumstances dictate otherwise. I think it would take a massive level of unemployment, poverty, or general criminal activity to reach the bloodbath level. There are far too few people willing to engage in armed revolution in the modern day. I doubt they are even in good enough physical shape to do so. I think California and Washington liberals would let the gangs and criminal poor eat each other alive, while limiting police involvement as long as they didn't have to feel bad about cops coming down too hard on them. It's ok when the poor are killing each other or the middle class, it's not ok when the cops are taking tough measures to stop them. Modern society is more concerned about how things look in the media, especially social media, than in questioning the truth of what is causing these types of behaviors to begin with such as the extensive violence in urban minority communities, an unwillingness to teach people that the world is a tough, imperfect place to live, and a general weakening of the American people into reliance on government institutions to create an equitable environment, while in the private sector it is as cutthroat as ever. It creates unrealistic, unsustainable social goals that lead to the appearance of equity versus real equity.

If you want to me to put it much simpler, Americans are too lazy and electronically addicted to mount a real revolution for change. First time a revolution started and the power went out putting their phones out of commission, the revolution would end.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I think the President would take office and not much would change. We're on cruise control until economic or social circumstances dictate otherwise. I think it would take a massive level of unemployment, poverty, or general criminal activity to reach the bloodbath level. There are far too few people willing to engage in armed revolution in the modern day. I doubt they are even in good enough physical shape to do so. I think California and Washington liberals would let the gangs and criminal poor eat each other alive, while limiting police involvement as long as they didn't have to feel bad about cops coming down too hard on them. It's ok when the poor are killing each other or the middle class, it's not ok when the cops are taking tough measures to stop them. Modern society is more concerned about how things look in the media, especially social media, than in questioning the truth of what is causing these types of behaviors to begin with such as the extensive violence in urban minority communities, an unwillingness to teach people that the world is a tough, imperfect place to live, and a general weakening of the American people into reliance on government institutions to create an equitable environment, while in the private sector it is as cutthroat as ever. It creates unrealistic, unsustainable social goals that lead to the appearance of equity versus real equity.

If you want to me to put it much simpler, Americans are too lazy and electronically addicted to mount a real revolution for change. First time a revolution started and the power went out putting their phones out of commission, the revolution would end.

I don't think there'd be a revolution, but there'd be a lot of riots and protests of the type that were present during the '60's.

And I'm right there with you about Americans being too damn lazy and electronically addicted, which is one of the reasons why I think we ought to do away with voting by mail and force people to make a modest effort to get to a polling place and cast their vote in person.

For a "college" they sure are some dumb asses.

Largent80 wrote:For a "college" they sure are some dumb asses.

The electors? How so?

burrrton wrote:The electors? How so?

He's probably referring to the 'faithless electors', but I would call them something other than dumb or stupid, something on the order of being morally bankrupt.