liberals were loving the electorial college in mid-October. Hmm ...I wonder what
changed? Oh right -- the "Blue Wall" voted for Trump. Just can't
trust those darn folks that "cling to their guns and religion" can ya.
If you have a friend who thinks Obama is an alien orMichelle O is really a man,
then it's difficult to accept anything they say as thoughtful or truthful
or worth pondering. Because you can't get past their obvious craziness.As it is, the fact that Daniel thinks that we Mormons should adopt the
platform that killing and dismembering children in the womb, even when they feel
pain, as a proud and liberating platform for women, gives me the same red flag
feeling. It is difficult to take his thoughts or arguments seriously.If you look at the district maps and how they voted, Hillary voters came from
broken down cities like Oakland, Detroit and LA. Thank goodness the Founding
Fathers knew more about self-serving human nature than liberal pundits.
The electoral college is a cancer on the Constitution and is overdue to be cut
out to save the life of the patient. Unfortunately, it’s imbedded in
ill-conceived traditions that have kept it on life support for two centuries.
That’s no way to honor ones ancestors.
The Electoral College also lets those of us in "fly over country" to
have a say. If you look at the election map by county the country went
overwhelmingly for Trump. If you take away HIllary's vote from just 2
states Trump won the popular vote more than 3 million. The Electoral College
saves us from being ruled a couple of big cities.
It is funny how Democrats are now quoting the original intent of the
Constitution, now that it fits their needs.If we are going to go
back to the original intent, as the writer suggests, lets return the choice of
Senators back to the State Government.Lets get rid of the alphabet
soup agencies that are not specifically listed in the US Constitution.Lets get rid of the income taxes, since that was never part of the original
intent either.The question that many are asking is why are Democrats
wanting to go away from the Constitution since they lost the election? Why is
it that this year there is a problem with the Electoral College?A
great article that fully refutes the points brought up here is "Electoral
College: the Founders’ Intent, and Modern Reality" in The New
What Daniel describes is "Pure Democracy".Google "Pure
Democracy is"... see what results you get.Pure Democracy is...
mob rule, anarchy, bad, etc. Google "Founding Fathers on pure
democracy"...Read things like "Why Our Founders Feared pure
Democracy"..."Madison & Jefferson on Democracy"..."Direct democracy", AKA "Pure Democracy", has been
described as... you have 5 people in a room if 3 vote to eat the other 2 they
can... that's Pure Democracy.It's people so extreme and
wanting Clinton so bad they are willing to throw out the Constitution to get
what they want.It's too late folks. Even if you throw it out
now, doesn't change this election. Just means next election we can have a
few big cities vote, and if they vote to make the rest of middle-America send
tributes to the capital... they can.Our government was formed
protect all... even the minority. Google "tyranny of the
majority"or "Mechanisms For Preventing Tyranny of the Majority in
Making every vote count equally sounds good but what measures do we have in
place, and what measures are we willing to put in place, to ensure only
legitimate votes are being counted? Voter ID laws in every state??Also, counting every vote equally would give all the power to a handful of
states. In other words, it would take electoral power away from most states.
is that what we want??Lastly, if the Founding Fathers wanted to
ensure only qualified people could be President, they should have written that
into the requirements for the position. Too late now.
Those who care nothing about our Constitution and our way of governing demand
that the Electoral College be abolished. They want mob rule. We've seen
their followers rioting, looting and burning. We've seen their leaders
telling us that Russia was the reason that Hillary lost, but the Left can't
seem to remember how the Russians gave Hillary the debate answers, or how the
Russians got Hillary to break the law and install an unsecure server in a
bathroom, or how the Russians got Hillary to have her files erased, or how the
Russians got Hillary to send secret and top secret emails from that unsecured
server, of how the Russians got Hillary to stop campaigning.Look at
the map of the precincts that voted for Trump. Almost all of America picked
Trump. The STATES picked Trump to represent them to the world, which is the job
of the President. He does not represent the people. We have Representatives to
be our voice in government. The federation of states have the President to be
their voice. That's why the STATES send electors to represent them as the
STATES pick our President, just as the Constitution requires.
"Clinton was not easily goadable, so Russia interfered in our election with
the express purpose of electing Donald Trump."I'm sorry,
you lost me there. Putin interfered with the election because he - like
everyone else - thought Clinton would win, and he wanted to try to damage her
legitimacy and credibility from the get go. Russia has always wanted to damage
our trust in our democratic institutions, and has nearly always made efforts to
do so, as the intelligence report has made clear. The
"interference" consisted mostly of releasing e-mails that showed the
inner workings of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, to their detriment. If we
had journalists who were doing their job they would have been doing exactly the
same thing.There were no "hacked voting machines". Putin
didn't fool hundreds of thousands of people who had voted for Obama twice
to change their vote from Clinton to Trump. In fact, it's very likely the
leaked e-mails didn't change anybody's vote. Russia's interference was in fact completely irrelevant to the outcome of
the election. Period.
@lost split hairs all you want lost but the only way CA (o other larger
states) does "not have undo influence" is to not count or even more
severely undercount thier votes then is the case with an electoral college
States can choose how they allocate electors, so they have the option of
deciding to assign all of their electors to the winner of the national popular
vote. If a group of states with a total of 270 or more of the 538 electoral
votes decided to do this, we would effectively have a popular vote for
president. No constitutional amendment required.This is the
National Popular Vote bill, and it's already got 165 of the requisite 270
tolstoyI am sorry you seem to be misunderstanding my comments in this
thread and therefore continue to put words in my mouth.in this
thread I have said nothing about the popular vote as you accuse me of doing
(until this comment). I said, and I repeat, I do not want the state of CA having
undue influence on presidential elections. That is very different from not
counting their vote at all as you accuse me of saying. If we had had a straight
popular vote, trump would have spent time and resources in CA, and neither he or
hilary would have spent any time or money here. who knows? had he campaigned in
CA the outcome of the popular vote could have been very different. but he
understands the system, and operated accordingly.really, though, if
you guys cannot come up with a candidate capable of beating someone as flawed as
trump, you need to look closer at yourselves than at the system that's been
around for over 200 years.we will likely repeat this discussion
because you want popular vote, and I want each state to have a say. I want a
republic and you want a democracy.
In principle, the EC is a great mechanism for safeguarding the office of the
presidency. What has killed it, in my opinion, are political parties and the
power they wield. Sadly, I don't think that we'll ever get back to a
place where the EC can function as intended. We'll either end up with a
popular vote (mobocracy) or continued party dominance in the EC. Before anyone
goes off on the popular vote/mobocracy, remember that our presidential election
was never meant to be one national election, but 50 state elections. We are a
representative republic, not a democracy. One million extra votes for Hillary
in CA is all well and good, but those votes should never speak for the people of
Maine, Iowa, Wisconsin, or anyone else not living in that state.For continued
party dominance of the EC, I'm afraid that this election will portend a
harsher political future for all of us, regardless of affiliation. The only
way I see to slow it down is to stop being part of the political flocks; this
goes for both R's and D's. Don't register with the parties,
don't give them your money.
I am a fan of neither the electoral college, nor of Trump. However, I feel the
author spent the great majority of the article articulating why he doesn't
like Donald Trump instead of listing a variety of sound reasons why the
electoral college should go. It thus came off sounding like a partisan
hack-job, when there are also many Republicans who don't like the electoral
college but who may disagree with the diatribes against Trump.
In an age when votes can be electronically tabulated with great accuracy, the
Electoral College makes no sense at all. The Constitution vests
sovereignty in "We the People" (see the Preamble) NOT "We the
States." Either the people are sovereign or they are not. The reasons for an
Electoral College are now obsolete. It's time for the people to express
their full sovereignty and select their own president by the time-honored
principle that every person's vote equals every other person's vote.
Besides, what kind of a college doesn't have an alumni
association and a giant fundraising campaign? It ain't a college
@lostJust like the last time we had this discussion I did not place words
in your mouth, you talk about if you don't take CA voters into
consideration then Trump wins the popular vote. The electoral college does
not insure every state has a say many states still are fly over states, what
Happened in this past election left ant just fly over states but a majority of
the voters without representation. Why must we always cover the same
ground over and over again, the DN is like a bad soap opera, you can tune out
for years and come back and the conversation has not moved forward and all.
10ccthat putin is more trustworthy than dems says more about the dems than
anyone.tolstoyyou and I have not often agreed, but I thought
you were above straw arguments, or putting words in my mouth. nowhere did I say
we should elimate votes that did not go trump's way. I do posit that CA
should not have undue influence, nor should NY, IL, or UT for that matter.agrarian society or not, the electoral college ensures ALL states have
an appropriate say. perhaps you would rather the election had gone to the
house?perhaps you are disappointed hilary had more faithless
electors than did trump.
@10CC "...you assume the writer is a Democrat. You may be wrong."Yes, he may be one of those unusual people who, according to his byline,
"is a member of LDS Dems and the author of 'Why More Mormons Should be
Democrats.'", and yet has neglected to join the party.
Here is an issue that is not at the forefront today that we should deal with for
exactly that reason.What constitutes a Natural Born Citizen? Surely
this issue would have been YUGE if Cruz had won the GOP nomination as he was
clearly not born in the USA (by his own admission).And the debate
would have been nothing but partisan.We should clarify that, while
it is not advantageous to either side and we might actually be about to have a
logical, reasonable and non-partisan debate.Wouldn't that be
I am fine with the electoral college but gerrymandering is the real problem.
People need to pick their representives, not the other way around.
Two reasons we are considering this;1. Trump's obsessions with Putin
and Russia is tipping the scales to TREASON!2.The un-constitutional
gerrymandering by REPUBLICANS so they can cheat working Amerians of their vote.
The Founding Fathers likely didn't envision corrupt American men allowing
illegal aliens to overtake California in sufficient numbers and over a
sufficient period of time, such that they just about could vote the country out
of existence. The Mexican Carlos Slim-owned New York Times claims that illegal
aliens didn't vote. Yeah, right, and they don't use stolen or fake
ID's, either; nor do any of their American-born children and grandchildren
vote in opposition to American values.Thank God for the Electoral
College, which prevented it from happening.Of course there now is a
push among corrupt Democrats and Republicans to do away with the Electoral
College -- because they know how those many millions of illegals and their
children and grandchildren will vote, and they know that this is the way to oust
Trump in 2020. The Democrats want the raw, political power, and the
Establishment Republicans, drunken in greed as they are, want a perpetuation of
their supply of cheap, illegal-alien labor. Other special-interest groups
likewise selfishly want a perpetuation of illegal immigration, for their
gain.Hence the push to do away with the College.
Why can't we keep the EC, but move away from the winner takes all approach
within each state? (I think Maine and Nebraska already do something like this.)
For instance, if 16 of Texas' 36 legislative districts went blue (44.4%)
and the other 20 went red (55.6%), then the state's 34 electoral votes
would be apportioned 44% to 56%, or 15 and 19 votes, respectively. This seems
more representative to me.
Re: JoeBlow:As you have stated, these issues have devolved into
partisan politics. Both the Electoral College, the Antiquities Act, and other
institutions are used by both parties to get their way, and to demonize the
other side as traitorous, despicable, etc.It is a real shame that
Pres. George Washington's prediction for a two-party system have come to
fruition. Instead of focusing on our commonalities as Americans, despite our
differences, we now act like any "others" are the enemy. We shout each
other down, and ignore other thoughtful arguments, instead of being able to
have a civil, constructive discussion. This is truly unfortunate, to say the
Re: JoeBlowI have nothing against National Parks or National
Monuments in Utah. They no doubt have helped sustain our economy here.
Conservation is important, and a noble aspiration, no argument here.What I DO have a problem with is the completely UNdemocratic process that
allows presidents unilateral authority to do as they please, attacking the
livelihoods and rights of locals without any regard. And sadly, the two recent
Democratic Pres. Bill Clinton and Pres. Barack Obama have used it to restrict
millions of acres in Utah without Utah locals having ANY real say in the issue.
That is why I specifically picked those two presidents out, because they have
directly affected local Utahns, which this local paper serves.Sadly,
these EXACT two presidents have exemplified just how this tool, when unjustly
wielded, is used for biased and partisan politics, tainting its original
intentions. To quote Shakespeare: "There is something rotten in the state of
Denmark". That is why I feel the Antiquities Act needs some serious
adjustment, to allow for more vetting and say in this process that today seems
increasingly (and admittedly sadly) wielded as a tool of a tyrant.
Democrats are still whining about their crushing defeat. 10CC you might want to
read all of the letter and then the line below that lets everyone know the
writer is part of LDS Dems.Clinton was the most flawed and corrupt
candidate in history. Americans said enough of the Clinton Crime Family and
voted for Trump. It's great to have someone in office who actually loves
America. After putting up with the America-hating Obama for 8 years one would
think that Dems would like that as well.The Constitution worked
perfectly. Not one word would be said from Dems if the positions were reversed.
They'd be silent. And you wouldn't hear Repubs whining because we
actually love the Constitution. It's a great day in America
where our new POTUS actually loves, not shows anger and disdain for,
Americans.God bless America!
The fact that Ms. Clinton ignored much the nation to campaign on both coasts
cost her the election, as Bernie Sanders recently noted. Without LA County and
New York City Trump would have won the popular vote. The remainder of the nation
should not let these far left one party enclaves determine the presidency. The
Electoral College has done well to protect the nation's interests.
Cosmo writes If "democracy" and "intent" truly are our
goal, shouldn't "consistency" be as well?Well, yes it
should. Yet, while you take issue with the Antiquities Act, you only list two
presidents for your wrath. In reality, all but a few presidents have utilized
the act and lots were Republicans. Uh, Where is your consistency?And one thing of note. Utah has LOTS of national parks with help to sustain
Utahs largest industry - Tourism.You can bet that if left
unprotected, Zion, Bryce, Dinosaur and Arches etc etc would not be the tourist
draw that it is today. According to the US National Park Service, Utahs
National parks and monuments drew almost 11 million non local visitors (2014).
Tourism is Utahs number one industry. In large part because of
National Parks and National Monuments.
If we are to change the Electoral College, it should be done with the
understanding that it will not change this election. Also, that whatever we do
must be looked at in the context of the next several decades or even the next
century. It should not be done with any consideration to party. The only way
to do so is via Constitutional Amendment. I think it unlikely the smaller
states want change.The Electoral College is no longer an independent
body deciding who to elect. It is still Federal in that it represents the vote
of the states (which is significantly weighted by population). In that capacity
it still does one of the things the founders intended - protecting the smaller
states from being overpowered by the larger states. In the current context,
this means the more urban states overpowering the more rural states.In practice, this means a president has to be able to win a mix of states.
There is no barrier here to Democrats or Republicans (though there is to third
parties). In my lifetime, the Presidency has changed hands from one party to
the other in a back and forth like a tennis match. This shows that either party
can win the Electoral Vote.
Daniel Friend does a wonderful job of pointing out how the Electoral College
does not operate any where near how the Founding Fathers envisioned it. I
wonder, might we not consider what a great thing the founders created, if we
would just embrace it? Mob rule is the danger of democracy, but the Founding
Fathers set forth a way to avoid it. They created a system that would take the
politics out of politics. Rather than throwing away their marvelous creation,
calling it antiquated, I wish we would use what has happened with Trump's
election to turn us the other way, to prompt us to try running the election the
way the Constitution says it should be ran. Why not Utah decide that it
will? Why not Utah make itself the only state in the Union to run the
presidential election the way the Constitution outlines?
Thanks for a thoughtful, well-informed Op-Ed.Those who say the
Electoral College gives extra clout to voters in small states are wrong. In
today's presidential elections, an individual vote has the greatest clout
in states where the candidates are running neck and neck. In the recent
election, that included such states as Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio
and Florida. Getting rid of the Electoral College would make every
vote equally important. It would cause presidential candidates to campaign with
little regard for state boundaries, instead of concentrating on swing states.
The parties exist to maintain power. Steering America in the right direction is
far down on their list of priorities.How do they maintain power? By
convincing the public that they are far better than the other guys. In reality, (and most cannot begin to admit it) the country runs similarly
regardless of which party is running it. Yes, there are a few definable
differences, but not in the really important areas.The parties, both
R and D have played us for chumps. And we gladly follow along.
@anti bushSo instead what we get is smaller states dictating to larger
states and more people with less representation. @lost Seriously? once again claiming if we simply eliminate the votes that
didn't go Trumps way would give him the popular vote is not an argument
for keeping the electoral college and yes the elctorial college may have made
sense at one time but societies change. They lived in the agrarian society at
the time the electoral college was conceived but just as the agrarian lifestyle
outgrew it's usefulness so has the electoral college.
The author's complaint that the Electoral College isn't
"democratic" enough is dubious, to say the least, and self-serving at
best. If "democracy" and "intent" are truly the author's
goal, then consider this: When you speak of supporting
"democracy" by eliminating the institution (used since our
country's founding) that led to your presidential candidate's loss,
yet also ignore one of the grossest undemocratic policies to exist in the U.S.,
you come off as biased.I'm referring to the Antiquities Act,
and its most recent abuse by the last two Dem. Presidents to hold office.
What's less democratic than one person (the POTUS), w/ a wave of a pen,
locking away millions of acres of land, in the name of conservation? When you
ignore that, and the intent that such areas should be limited to the
“smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects
to be protected,” it's easy to see how that intent is being willfully
ignored (1.35 Million Acres in Bears Ears NM, anyone?).If
"democracy" and "intent" truly are our goal, shouldn't
"consistency" be as well?
It's interesting to read the constitution, and Hamilton's words on the
matter. The idea that the electoral college was to be a totally non partisan
body to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of
any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite
qualifications.” is interesting, reasonable, and not where we are today.
Today we brand any elector who actually does the job as described as
'faithless'. Never before have we had a president elected as
this one who is most decidedly "not in an eminent degree endowed with the
requisite qualifications". If this could not be prevented by the electoral
college, it's time for it to go. Either we see it for the rubber stamp
process it is, or elect the president by vote count, the same as every other
elected position in the land.
What you will have as a result, is smaller states or populations, declaring war
on bigger states or populations in order to get a say in the election
Speaking of our Founding Fathers and their aspirations for America... This morning I read that a top Russian lawmaker is boasting that Russia's
efforts to sway the election worked so well that American Republicans now trust
Vladimir Putin more than they do American Democrats.Those who
identify as Republicans should ask themselves if that fits how they view their
fellow Americans who are Democrats.The Founders would be aghast at
how we've turned on each other.
we just suffered through the worst POTUS in history who barely had held elected
office, never led any business or governmental body, and clearly disdained the
constitution. Why was this piece not written 8 years ago when it would have made
more sense? actually the electoral college worked exactly as it
should by not allowing one large "People's Republic of California"
to have undue influence on the election. We are a collection of states, a
republic. We are not a democracy.
The saddest thing about this issue is the hypocrisy. Electoral
college or no electoral college. That typically depends on their party
affiliation and when you ask it. Because todays answer could easily change
tomorrow.We have become so partisan that most people have a fluid
opinion depending on whether or not it helps their party today.Peoples core beliefs blow with the political winds. We are a collective bunch
of partisan hypocrites.
@Rikitikitavi - you assume the writer is a Democrat. You may be wrong.One of the biggest problems in our political system - in 2017 - is the
party system. Our "electors", those sages who the Founders
presumed would be above party politics and the simplistic thinking our party
system funnels citizens into... in 2017 are really nothing more than favored
party operatives.If we're not employing the Electoral College
in the way the Founding Fathers intended, why keep using it?
The writer is correct. After over 200 years, the circumstances have changed,
most notably due to the Civil War and the legacy of Lincoln. We are not a
country of nation States, but one nation. Besides, the way the
Electoral College has turned out not to operate as intended by the Founding
Fathers. The Electoral College is really nothing more than an extension of the
political parties. Rubber stamps. If the tables were turned, Republicans would
be making the same argument. Are we one nation or not?
As you read this article, be aware that in today's political world if the
electoral college was taken away five states will decide who will be president
every four years. The presidential election is not a junior high school
election. It is a serious election with all 50 states being given a voice. The
electoral college was set up for that very purpose.
"America should graduate from the electoral college" simply so that you
Democrats can get the result that you wish for. The electoral college worked
just as it was designed this time but you are unhappy with result. Both
candidates knew the rules and one chose to ignore, Trump knew California and New
York would not go his way and did not campaign there. Clinton did not campaign
in the states she needed to but instead she went to friendly states.Clinton appeared extremely tired toward the end and I am guessing she has more
health issues than we know.Harry Reid changed the rules of the Senate to
get things through and now those rule changes are about to come back and bite
the Democrats, one must have a long term vision and not just the short to better
have what is best.These were two horrible candidates this time, Obama was
a bad candidate before this. We need to start selecting better candidates and
voting them in, Romney was a better candidate and I am pretty sure the author of
this piece did not vote for him.
The writer of this piece is completely out of touch with America 2017. His own
party is so flawed by such problems as "super delegates", not to mention
having nominated the most seriously "integrity -challenged" candidate
possibly in modern memory. The un-precedented losses of Democrats in the
last six years clearly is the motive for his proposed make-over of the election
format. I totally agree with a discussion viewed recently where two prominent
commentators stated that they could find nothing of merit during the two-term
tenure of Pres. Obama. Trillions of debt left in the wake of Pres. Obama says it
all.No, the flaw is not in the "system" but in the lack of vision
among Democrats. Look no further than the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Clinton as
stellar examples. The far left candidates trotted out by Democrats, plus the
corruption so deeply imbedded in the Clintons has left Democrats with little
appeal to anyone outside the hard-core party faithful. As for Pres-elect
Trump, in spite of his flaws, your attempts to dismiss him as not Presidential
material are laughable given the supposedly more suitable candidates of the