An even better sports metaphor. The 1960 World Series between the underdog
Pittsburgh Pirates and the heavily favored New York Yankees.The
Yankees scored 55 runs to 27 for the Pirates in that World Series. Yet the
Yankees lost the series to the Pirates 3 games to 4.Due to the
differential in runs scored, the Yankees should have won the series based on
just the score alone, but they didn't.Trump winning the
Electoral vote while losing the popular vote is akin to Mazeroski hitting the
game winning home run in the 9th inning that won game 7 and the series for the
Pirates.Oh by the way, Vern Law should have been the MVP of the
Series, not Bobby Richardson.
I support keeping the electoral college.
It is time to quit deifying the Founding Fathers and looking at the Constitution
as infallible. In fact, it is time to stop looking at the Founding Fathers as a
group that engaged in monolithic thinking.First of all, the
Constitution counted slaves as three-fifths of a person but didn't give
them any rights or citizenship.Women could not vote.Slavery was preserved. This issue and the federal vs. state thing power thing
nearly ended our country.Well guess what, the one genius aspect of
the Constitution was its flexibility. It isn't easy to change things in the
Constitution, but it is possible.It is arguable with two of the last
five elections where the popular vote didn't yield the winner in the
electoral college that the system might need to be tweaked or perhaps abolished.
This type of result should be a rare thing, not something with 40% frequency (2
out of the last 5). When it happened in the 1800's (1824 and 1876), it
wasn't exactly good for our country. If we keep having the elections like
in 2000 and 2016, people will lose faith in the system itself. We may be there
Mike Richards, I think you might be confusing two of our early documents. One of
them begins, "To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned
Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting." The other one
starts out, "We the people of the United States." The first governed
the country for 10 years and was replaced by the second. The first, among other
things, had no provision for a president. Your division of the role of Senate,
House, and President is cute, but non-factual. Only one (actually 2 since the
fiasco of Jefferson and Burr) offices are elected on a national basis. The
process was substantively changed over time by state legislatures mandating
winner-take-all assignment of EC votes.Additional evidence of national
rather than parochial citizenship can be found in a passport. I don't know
how yours reads, but mine says United States of America on the cover, not
Utah.As citizens of the United States we should vote equally for
President. If we took a national total, it wouldn't matter where we lived,
each would get one vote. Your vote in Utah would be just a important as one in
New York, California or Wyoming.
The states with the greatest populations should govern the rest of us. That is
only right because the smartest of us prefer to live in the most highly
"Along those same lines, make the Electoral College even simpler.Win a state, get 1 point. With Wash. DC, that brings to a possible 51 votes
and no tie."Actually that's what would happen if no one won
a majority in the EC (270). The race gets thrown to the House of
Representatives, but each state only gets one vote.
In addition, James Madison who is considered to be the "Father of the
Constitution" was originally in favor of proportional representation in both
houses of Congress. Meaning the "big states" (population wise) would
have the most representatives in each house. The big states would control the
agenda to support their own interests. That was part of the original Virginia
Plan. Madison thought it fair to have proportional representation.Good for us that the other states didn't see it that way and made Madison
compromise on the Senate. Each state is represented by the same number of
Senators. That was supposed to keep things honest and has largely done so. It
gave a small state like Utah a lot of pull over the years with Senators like
William King, Reed Smoot, Ted Moss, Jake Garn, Wallace Bennett and of course
Orrin Hatch. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, and
in doing so, made the Constitution hard to change.
The writers premise is entirely wrong. Kalifornia has 55 Electoral votes.
North Dakota has 3.Kalifornia represents over 20% of the Electoral
votes needed to win the 270. North Dakota represents just over .01%. Seems
like winning Kalifornia gives a presidential candidate a way better chance of
winning the 270 than North Dakota does.I think our Founding Fathers
made the right choice when they enshrined the Electoral College into the
Constitution. Their wisdom and foresight benefit us all.I
personally don't want Kalifornia and New York's votes overriding
Utah's votes for President. Were the Electoral College done away with, by
Constitutional Amendment by the way, Utah would totally lose their voice in such
elections. Our vote would truly not count. I can't wait until
a Democrat candidate wins the Electoral vote without winning the Popular vote.
They will be crowing how great the Electoral College is and why we should keep
it at that point.True Democracy is nothing more than mob rule and
never, in the long run works out for the good.
@No One "There are a lot of elected officials who affect our individual
lives much more directly that the US President, ..."Baloney.
@Observator,Not a basketball fan, but I like the analogy.Along those
same lines, make the Electoral College even simpler.Win a state, get
1 point. With Wash. DC, that brings to a possible 51 votes and no tie. Trump won 30 games to 21 (counting D.C. for HC), even though HC scored more
@Frozen Fractals: "The saying is usually that we tend to export democracy
around the world. We don't export the electoral college around the
world."What many nations considering a "democratic"
voting system do is follow the English Parliamentary system. The voters get to
choose a bunch of Members of Parliament (MP) who select the Prime Minister from
among themselves, based on which party has the most seats. So it's more
like we imported the Electoral College than exported it. In our version though,
the States select the President instead of the Congress. It seems a bit of an
improvement.There are a lot of elected officials who affect our
individual lives much more directly that the US President, starting from local
school board members, sheriffs, city and county council members and on up to our
US Senators and Representatives. And we should not forget that the most powerful
people in the country are the local and national political party officials who
have so much influence over who gets on the ballot in the first place. Way too
much fuss and bother goes on about who is President and how she/he gets
@Ernest T. Bass: "The EC is a right wing power grab, nothing more."A right wing power grab set up more than 200 years ago? That is amazing
foresight.The electoral college is part of what was necessary to get
the small States to join a union with larger States. How soon before you attack
the US Senate for giving smaller States equal voice with the larger?@Frozen Fractals: "It's not California deciding the election with a
popular vote, it's everyone, 1 person 1 vote."And so do you
also oppose the US Senate? Should we have proportional representation in that
chamber? Or simply eliminate it in favor of a single House representing the
people?Propose an amendment to eliminate the electoral college and
watch 35 non-coastal States reject it immediately.If it is 1 person,
1 vote, then marriage should be 1 man 1 woman in at least the 31 States
(including Cali) whose citizens overwhelmingly voted that way. Elective abortion
should have far more limitations in about 25 to 30 States that want to protect
the unborn.If you want pure democracy, you've got to accept the
good with the bad. It is dishonest to support democracy only selectively, when
you like the results.
@husker: What? When the electoral college was implemented it wasn't a left
wing conspiracy. Not at all. It's been nearly two generations since a
republican won the White House with a majority vote. The GOP knows they would
likely only win with a majority vote once every few generations. The EC is a
right wing power grab, nothing more.
Not even a noteworthy football team? What kind of college is that?
@ Reasonable Mormon"Why not: 1. Fix Gerrymandering
(taking the power away from partisan state legislatures no matter what side of
the proverbial aisle they are on)2. Follow the example of Nebraska
and...Maine (?) I think, that takes into account the proportional vote and
allocates its electoral votes accordingly, and not in a winner-take-all fashion.
Let's do those two things and reassess the fairness
factor."I'm for this. POTUS is the only office we vote on
that represents every one of us. Let everyone's voices be heard. If 54%
of Texas goes R and the rest D, then the electoral votes should be apportioned
accordingly. I bet the folks in downstate Illinois would be grateful. Due to
Chicago, their voices haven't been heard in a presidential election
We elect Senators and Governors using the popular vote of the state. We elect
representatives using the popular vote.We even used to have Senators
chosen differently so it's not like things are the same as they have always
been. The saying is usually that we tend to export democracy around
the world. We don't export the electoral college around the world.It's not California deciding the election with a popular vote, it's
everyone, 1 person 1 vote.
Well, according to Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68, The electoral
college was to ensure: "...that the immediate election should
be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station
and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious
combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their
choice." Strike one."...to afford as little
opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder."Strike two."...a moral certainty, 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."Strike three.Oh, and then
there's that Three-Fifths Compromise needed to get the slave states sign up
for the constitution.
The EC was designed to keep large states from dominating small states, and it is
doing just that. If those in urban areas want the advantages of living in North
Dakota, they are welcome to move there.Kent Voter suppression,
like blank panthers intimidating white voters in Philly in 2010? and eric holder
ignoring it. Is that what you mean?UnrepentCompromise with a
liberal means giving up 99.9% for the promise of receiving 0.1%, then not
getting it.ErnestTake away gerrymandering and the MSM and
democrats would be without power. They can't win without cheating the
system.There, I fixed it for youSASIn 1859 2+2 =
4. Since that was 160 years ago, does that mean math changed? When did Adam
Smith write the Wealth of Nations? Some principles have passed the test of time
@ Mike Richards:The people of 1859 sent a telegram. They would like
their political theory back.
I'm more concerned about the power of two political parties over our
government than about the Electoral College. If the Democrats are upset about
our current President they should be asking the Democratic party leadership why
they gave us Hillary Clinton as a candidate when she only won the vote at the
convention by using "super delegates". If Republicans are unhappy with
our current President they should ask their party why they didn't get
behind a "more suitable" candidate.Instead of abolishing the
Electoral College we should be talking about returning selection of Senators to
the State Legislatures where it belongs.
Kent C.When a candidate can lose the popular vote by almost 3 million and
still win, something is wrong with the system.And when Hillary
Clinton loses just short of 9 million (Non Voters) there is something wrong with
the system.According to the statistics, 112 million registered
voters did not vote for the President... So does that mean "Non of the
Above" won?That is another reason for the electoral college, it
balances out the non voters.
@Kent C. DeForrest "When a candidate can lose the popular vote by almost 3
million and still win, something is wrong with the system."No,
it shows that the system is doing exactly what it was designed to do -- helping
to equalize power between the states.
The Electoral College is neither antiquated nor a quirck. It is a deliberate
anti-democratic mechanism that protects minority interests. It is as legit as
the bicameral congress and the makeup of the US Senate. It is as essential as
the anti-democratic judicial branch.Those who celebrate the courts
creating the nationwide right to elective abortion and to same-gender marriage
(despite 31 States--100% that voted on the issue--defining marriage in their
State consitutions as man-woman), cannot with any honesty take offense with a
small bit of anti-democratic function occassionally preventing a few coastal
cities from electing the President contrary to the concerns of the vast number
of other States.Mass communications have no more to do with the
Electoral College than they do with the courts. Pure democracy run roughshod
over minority rights. Urban liberals not only know nothing of rural conservative
concerns, but far too often hold all things rural in utter disdain and contempt.
Atheists hate men of faith. The races don't always get along.To
protect minority rights requires anti-democratic mechanisms including the US
Senate, the courts, and the Electoral College.
continued...MacMama - Sandy, UT" Get rid of the
Electoral College, stack the Supreme Court- what would be next?"Yes, that is what Republicans are doing, stacking the Supreme Court with at
least 2 people that have committed sexual assaults and harassment. Thomas and
Kavanaugh."I am opposed that having this country run by Los
Angeles and New York. The signers of the Constitution knew what they were doing-
we need to stick to the way it was written."Yes, heaven forbid
that someone be elected by the majority that would be downright Democratic!One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the
fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient
information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential
candidates.Mike Richards - South Jordan, UT"The
President of the United States is not the President of the People. He represents
the States to the nations of the world."Trump represents himself
and the wealthy only."At no time does he serve as the President
of the People."That is probably the truest statement you've
DontTR3@DonM3 - Tooele, UT"The Electoral College was created so that
the individual states would have a process for electing the President."trekker - Salt Lake, UT"The founding fathers put the electoral
college in place for a reason. We should strive to keep our republic the way
they set it up."OK guys, the electoral college was created
because there was no mass communications back then. It took time to count votes
and get the results to DC. It was done to expedite the election. One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that
ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to
choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.This objection rang true in the 1780s, when life was far more local. But
the early emergence of national presidential parties rendered the objection
obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and
@unrepentant progressive: I would make a bargain with Liberals.
Within the limits of the constitution, run your States as you see fitm leave
conservatives free to run ours. Let's all condemn judicial activism. The
constitution and laws mean what they were intended to mean when drafted and
adopted. If and when changes are appropriate, congress and legislatures will
make changes via legislation or via ConAmd. No more legislating from the
bench.Liberal States can have all manner of welfare including
socialized medicine if you want it. You can impose whatever environmental
controls you like. You can use State tax monies to fund abortions. Define
marriage as you see fit. Ban discrimination. But you must respect the 2nd amd
and my rights not to promote events that offend me.Conservative
States get free markets. We impose limits on elective abortion respecting the
life and health of the mother. We define marriage as we see fit. We don't
get to create a state sponsored religion, outlaw offensive magazines (1st amd),
nor outlaw private conduct between consenting adults.This is called
federalism. It is what the constitution requires. Abide it, and we can discuss
Because of current state-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws for Electoral
College votes, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution . . . Almost all small and medium-sized states and almost all western,
southern, and northeastern states are totally ignored.Our
presidential selection system has cut out 4 of every 5 people living in America
from the decision. Presidential elections shrink the “sphere” of
public debate to only a few thousand swing voters in a few states.Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or
care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely
ahead or hopelessly behind. With the end of the primaries, without
the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all
Americans was finished for the presidential election.
@Ernest "Take away gerrymandering and the electoral college and the
republicans would be without power. They can't win without cheating the
system."The electoral college is the system, so it's the
Left that is trying to change or cheat the system. The Left wants a popular
vote and they don't want people to have to prove citizenship when voting.
It's obvious why they want these changes.
The National Popular Vote bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral
College and state control of elections.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING to do with gerrymandering. Every voter,
everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in
every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts
and national count.
Ernest T Bass, Kent C DeForrest,Your comments have spoken a lot
toward gerrymandering, so I have a question.Please describe how one
gerrymanders a presidential election? The only thing I see doing the
gerrymandering is the NPV, from a presidential election perspective.
Aren't we all just citizens of the United States? Does the President
represent individual states or individuals? If it is individuals, then he/she
should be elected by individuals. The Electoral College is a quirk in the
constitution that needs to be abandoned to drive stronger democracy.
Take away gerrymandering and the electoral college and the republicans would be
without power. They can't win without cheating the system.
The Electoral College was created so that the individual states would have a
process for electing the President. Our presidential elections were never meant
to be one vote across the entire country, but 50 individual state elections for
president. This is why the Electoral College makes sense, and why the National
Popular Vote is a sham.
In 2013, the Miami Heat beat the San Antonio Spurs in the NBA finals 4 games to
3. However, if you add up all the points in all the games, the San Antonio
Spurs scored 684 points to 679 points for the Heat. Why then did Miami win the
series when the Spurs scored the most points?The answer is that it
doesn't matter how many points you score, it's how many games you win.
Likewise, we do not have a national election for president, we have 51 state
elections for president. What matters is how many of those elections you win,
not how many votes you score, subject to a weighting factor for each election
based on the states' populations.A national election for
president would allow a candidate to large swaths of the country in favor of
racking up votes in just urban areas. A candidate who can win the top 10 most
urban areas of the country (84.3 million people in 2017, spanning only 16
states) with >70% of the vote can completely ignore the rest of us.If we think otherwise, then why doesn't the NBA have the Finals
winner just be the team who racks up the most points over seven games? Same
I would make a bargain with Conservatives.Keep the antiquated notion
of the Electoral College. Keep it.But, give the majority of us the
right to be represented properly in Congress. No gerrymandering! And make
voting accessible to all those who have the franchise.It's
called compromise, but Conservatives don't like it.
Those who just can't understand that we are NOT a democracy are turning
themselves inside out to explain why the President of the STATES is not elected
directly by the people.The President of the United States is not the
President of the People. He represents the States to the nations of the world.
With Senate approval, he makes treaties with other nations. At no time does he
serve as the President of the People. The People are represented by the House.
The States are represented individually by the Senate and collectively to the
world by the President.Each STATE decides which candidate it wants
to have as its representative to the world. Each STATE is allowed to have
representation in the electoral college equal to the total number of members
that it is allowed to have in Congress. The interests of the States,
collectively, are forwarded to the world by the President of the States.It's a simple concept, but it is beyond the grasp of those who want
another form of government.
Why not: 1. Fix Gerrymandering (taking the power away from partisan
state legislatures no matter what side of the proverbial aisle they are on)2. Follow the example of Nebraska and...Maine (?) I think, that takes
into account the proportional vote and allocates its electoral votes
accordingly, and not in a winner-take-all fashion. Let's do
those two things and reassess the fairness factor.
In other words, if you can’t win playing by the rules that have been on
place for 232 years (since the Constitution was signed in 1787), then you
obviously need to change the rules- right? Get rid of the Electoral College,
stack the Supreme Court- what would be next?Harry Reid tried that in the
Senate- changing rules of debate and number of votes to confirm a candidate. It
has totally backfired on the Democrats.I am opposed that having this
country run by Los Angeles and New York. The signers of the Constitution knew
what they were doing- we need to stick to the way it was written
When a candidate can lose the popular vote by almost 3 million and still win,
something is wrong with the system. The bigger problems, though, are
gerrymandering and voter suppression, which benefit the minority party in
America, a party that claims only about 1/4 of American voters.
What is worse than a few smaller states holding more power is a few large cities
holding ALL of the power. Take out the Los Angeles vote and we have a very
different popular vote count. Heck, just slit the LA vote.Conservatives
don't want LA deciding the fate of the country any more than liberals want
Utah deciding their fate.
This letter is just a big pile of circular logic, that boils down to support for
the idea of california deciding our presidential elections.
The founding fathers put the electoral college in place for a reason. We should
strive to keep our republic the way they set it up.