# The Presidential Electoral College



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dear all, or especially, dear Americans,
as some of you will know, I teach the Politics of the USA to 17-18 year old students in the UK (as well as History). I am currently struggling with teaching them how the Electoral College works in different states in a presidential election, as they find it really confusing no matter how I try to explain it. Could any of you offer a concise and succinct explanation that I could use to help my students to understand?
Thanks.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The electoral college is basically made up by combining the total number of house members and members of the senate. The senate represents the states and each state has 2 senators, thus 100.

The house represents the people in the states and is apportioned by population. Setting aside district mapping and all of the other political nonsense used to identify a district within a state, that number is currently 435. Including DC which I believe gets 3, the tally is at 538.

There are long philosophical arguments for this system and you may want to urge your students to read the Federalist Papers. 

Basically the system is designed to even the playing field and to allow the republic to work as a republic. To allow a simple majority to take the election is akin to direct democracy and would put too much emphasis on the large population centers. 

Each state is sovereign. The states are united as a republic but in the electoral system, each state gets a more equitable share in who shall govern the republic. 

The electoral college is an attempt to overcome the tyranny of the majority as Madison put it. 

That's the succinct way. Obviously there is much debate about it but I always defer to the wisdom of the founders as opposed to some of the nincompoops in high office today.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> The electoral college is basically made up by combining the total number of house members and members of the senate. The senate represents the states and each state has 2 senators, thus 100.
> 
> The house represents the people in the states and is apportioned by population. Setting aside district mapping and all of the other political nonsense used to identify a district within a state, that number is currently 435. Including DC which I believe gets 3, the tally is at 538.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your very prompt answer! May I ask a couple of other questions? 
How are the members of the electoral college chosen? Do all of the states select their electoral colleges in the same way? Do the electoral colleges in the states return the state vote? Or a proportionate vote? ie If Maine has 12 electoral college votes, does it give 12 to the winner of that state, or the proportion of the popular vote that each candidate got?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

It is proportional in only two states, Maine and Nebraska.

DC gets 3, which is nice because otherwise we are ignored. Puerto Rico has none, which helps explain why the Fed Gov ignores it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> It is proportional in only two states, Maine and Nebraska.
> 
> DC gets 3, which is nice because otherwise we are ignored. Puerto Rico has none, which helps explain why the Fed Gov ignores it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Again, thank you for your prompt reply.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The electors are selected by the political parties in the states. In many states, they are obligated by law to cast their vote according to the popular will. Whether obligated by law or not, they do. 

Upon completion of the vote, the Governor of each state certifies the vote and the candidate with the most votes gets that states number of electors. 

This is obviously simplified and there are many cases in law and precedent which have contributed to this development.


----------



## oldgulph (Oct 25, 2015)

*No state uses "proportional" method*



tocqueville said:


> It is proportional in only two states, Maine and Nebraska.
> 
> DC gets 3, which is nice because otherwise we are ignored. Puerto Rico has none, which helps explain why the Fed Gov ignores it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is not "proportional" in any state.

Maine (since 1969) and Nebraska (since 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

DC, Maine, Nebraska, California, and Texas are among the 80%+ of states that are ignored and politically irrelevant in presidential elections, because the winner is not in doubt in the districts (ME and NE) or states.


----------



## oldgulph (Oct 25, 2015)

The number of electoral college votes per state is the combined total number of the US House members (435) and members of the senate (100). DC has 3 electoral votes. The total = 538.

The state-by-state winner-take-all rule is not in the Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, nor mentioned in the Federalist Papers. The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in 1789 (and all three repealed it by 1800, a strong reminder that winner-take-all is nothing more or less than an ordinary state statute).The winner-take-all rule became widespread after the Founders were long dead (and became universal between 1896 and 1968). Political machines controlling the states didn't want their state's minority to have a voice, and didn't want to reduce their state's clout relative to other states that had adopted winner-take-all. Replacing state winner-take-all statutes does not require a federal constitutional amendment, because the winner-take-all rule is nowhere in the Constitution.

The system does not ensure a level playing field or "allow the republic to work as a republic."
From 1992- 2012 
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

If this pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states. 
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

To allow a plurality of votes by the people to determine the presidential election would not be akin to direct democracy, and would not put too much emphasis on large population centers.

Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly. 
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether agovernment is a republic or democracy. 

*One-sixth of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities, and **they voted 63% Democratic in 2004. *

*One-sixth lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and **rural America voted 60% Republican. *

*The remaining four-sixths live in the suburbs, **which divide almost exactly equally. 
*
The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

States control their presidential elections.
*The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. 80% of states' votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind. *In 2012, more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states. There are only expected to be 7 remaining swing states in 2016.

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don't even bother to poll them.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors&#8230;." 
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

By state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-270 of 538. 
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)-thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes - 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

NationalPopularVote


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ We are a republic of sovereign states. In the original conception of the United States, laid out by Hamilton, Madison and Jay in the Federalist Papers, the federal government's primary role was to allow for a common defense and foreign policy as well as establish guidelines for a basis of law that would apply to everyone across the states. 

That's why there is nothing in the Constitution regarding marriage, criminal statues and commerce within the state. Issues of taxation as well as the organization of the states government were left to the people of the individual states. 

To get rid of the electoral college would concentrate undue influence to the large population centers where machine politics will then have a field day. 

You complain of the battleground states? Imagine if LA, NYC, Miami, Chicago and Dallas were allowed to choose the POTUS every 4 years.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

The system was designed to avoid "popular" elections. The President was to be elected by the States, not the people. And it was left up to the States to decide how the votes allocated to the States were devised. The Founding Fathers feared popular elections, democracy, more than anything except royalty because they believed that the end of democracy was always tyranny. Likewise, Senators were supposed to be elected by the representative governments of the States, not directly by the people of the states. The trick was to give the power to the people, but to temper that power and keep it "arm's length" from democracy, or mobocracy, through a hierarchy of representative filters. 

I will try to surface the US Government training manual that details all this. Published in the 1920's it was, of course, collected and destroyed by FDR when he took office. it would make interesting reading for your class.


----------



## oldgulph (Oct 25, 2015)

*Only 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities*

With the National Popular Vote bill, we would still be a republic of sovereign states.

It does not get rid of the Electoral College.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)-thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill ensures that _every_ vote, in _every_ state, will matter equally in _every_ presidential election, while preserving the Electoral College and state control of elections.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

Big cities do not always control the outcome of elections. The governors and U.S. Senators are not all Democratic in every state with a significant city.

In a nationwide election for President, candidates would campaign everywhere-big cities, medium-sized cities, and rural areas-in proportion to the number of votes, just as they now do in only the handful of battleground states.

A nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention-roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Just a few points:

a) The electoral concept in Article II Section One was designed to grant States a preeminent role in selecting the chief executive. In addition, the Framers thought that it would be lunacy to allow the general population to decide such an important matter when they had almost no knowledge of the candidates for that office.

b) Every State had (and still has) the right to choose electors any way it wishes. Most initially decided to allow the State legislature to make the choice; the move to "democratization" eventually allowed the voting population to make the choice (Americans don't vote for presidential candidates; we vote for "electors" who are pledged to particular candidates of political parties). Of course, this system overturns the logic adduced in a) above!

c) Hamilton, Madison, and Jay are not the "authorities" on the U.S. Constitution, nor do they represent its "original conception"; they pushed for ratification of the document in a series of articles that we now call _The Federalist Papers _because they supported a particular view of general government. For nearly every argument made by that trio, there are corresponding counterpoints by those opposing ratification - the "authorities" known as Anti-Federalists.

d) The electoral process as currently utilized is a flagrant distortion of the Framers' and ratifiers' intent (again, see a) above).

e) The "National Popular Vote" scheme mentioned above destroys all semblance of the Framers' intent, i.e., the Constitution allows states to determine how electors are _selected_, not compel them to vote in a predetermined manner. Such schemes attempt to pervert the text of the Constitution by inverting the order (and role) of electoral votes.

Hope that helps!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I realize the role played by the Federalist Papers in support of the constitution. It was an attempt to distill the arguments and the philosophical underpinnings of the constitution. 

Regarding the original intent of the chief executive of the Federal Govt. It would be wise to remember that the POTUS and the executive branch was not supposed to have an intrusive role on the lives of individual Americans. 

It was the legislative branch, the House in particular, that was supposed to be closest to the people.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Yes; in fact, every part of the general (federal) government was to be selected by the States or the officers chosen by the States, except for the House of Representatives, which was directly answerable to the general populace.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Again, my thanks to those who have contributed to this. If nobody objects I will pass your posts on to my students.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Again, my thanks to those who have contributed to this. If nobody objects I will pass your posts on to my students.


Absolutely fine with me, Chouan - any effort to arrive at truth and clarity is a worthwhile undertaking!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Absolutely fine with me, Chouan - any effort to arrive at truth and clarity is a worthwhile undertaking!


Clarity? This system seems entirely predicted upon obfuscation. Whilst we are on the subject- Federal Reserve, legal or not?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I think Rand Paul has hacked into Shaver's AAAC account!


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Chouan, Here is a link to a page featuring the Citizenship Training Manual from 1928. It should be interesting reading for your students. While not expressly about the Electoral College, Lesson 9, Paragraphs 118 - 135, give a good summary of exactly why we don't have direct elections, direct legislation, or even a "direct judiciary" (lynch mob).

https://www.barefootsworld.net/tm_2000-25.html


----------



## oldgulph (Oct 25, 2015)

*U.S. Supreme Court*



Tiger said:


> . . .
> 
> e) The "National Popular Vote" scheme mentioned above destroys all semblance of the Framers' intent, i.e., the Constitution allows states to determine how electors are _selected_, not compel them to vote in a predetermined manner. Such schemes attempt to pervert the text of the Constitution by inverting the order (and role) of electoral votes.


Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors&#8230;."

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The National Popular Vote bill ensures that _every_ vote, in _every_ state, will matter equally in _every_ presidential election, while preserving the Electoral College and state control of elections.

The bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.

Analysts already conclude that only the 2016 party winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So, if the National Popular Vote bill is not in effect, less than a handful of states will continue to dominate and determine the presidential general election.

9 states determined the 2012 election.
10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. They aren't polled or visited. 
None of the 10 most rural states matter
24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.
4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.
Candidates do not bother to advertise or organize in 80% of the states.

Over the last few decades, presidential election outcomes within the majority of states have become more and more predictable. Only ten states were considered competitive in the 2012 election.

From 1992- 2012 
13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
19 states (with 242) voted Democratic every time

If this pattern continues, and the National Popular Vote bill does not go into effect,
Democrats only would need a mere 28 electoral votes from other states. 
If Republicans lose Florida (29), they would lose.

Population shifts have converted states that were once solidly Republican into closely divided "battleground" states.

There do not appear to be any Democratic states making the transition to voting Republican in presidential races.

Some states have not been been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.

· 41 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2012
· 32 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2012 
· 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
· 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
· 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988 
· 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. 
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

oldgulph said:


> Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
> "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors&#8230;."
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
> ...


Thanks for this. some really interesting, and useful, statistics.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

I believe that posting excessively long and duplicative posts doesn't answer my objections to the National Popular Vote scheme.

Again, the plan eviscerates the concept of States choosing electors for the purpose of then choosing a chief executive; additionally, it destroys the power of the States and makes the process akin to a national referendum - decidedly not what the Framers and Ratifiers wanted!

The current adaptation of the electoral process is certainly flawed, but the correction must emanate from the States returning to the original concept. Any new ideas would require a constitutional amendment...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Clarity? This system seems entirely predicted upon obfuscation. Whilst we are on the subject- Federal Reserve, legal or not?


Not obfuscatory at all, once we understand what was created, and why. (Albeit more difficult for someone from outside of the United States.)

I believe the FRB is a central bank, and as such no power exists in the U.S. Constitution to create one. This is a Jeffersonian position; Hamiltonians will invariably (and incorrectly!) disagree...


----------



## oldgulph (Oct 25, 2015)

Tiger said:


> I believe that posting excessively long and duplicative posts doesn't answer my objections to the National Popular Vote scheme.
> 
> Again, the plan eviscerates the concept of States choosing electors for the purpose of then choosing a chief executive; additionally, it destroys the power of the States and makes the process akin to a national referendum - decidedly not what the Framers and Ratifiers wanted!
> 
> The current adaptation of the electoral process is certainly flawed, but the correction must emanate from the States returning to the original concept. Any new ideas would require a constitutional amendment...


National Popular Vote changes nothing in the Constitution. Article II, Section 1 gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors&#8230;."

The bottom line is that there is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

The founders did not intend that *women, black people, and native Americans vote.*
Most of the founders intended that *only white men with money could vote.*

In the nation's first presidential election in 1789 and second election in1792, the states, by enacting state laws, employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidentialelectors, including
● appointment of the state's presidential electors by theGovernor and his Council, 
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature, 
● popular election using special single-memberpresidential-elector districts, 
● popular election using counties as presidential-electordistricts, 
● popular election using congressional districts, 
● popular election using multi-member regional districts, 
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice, 
● appointment of the state's presidential electors by theGovernor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all method

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

In 2012, 38 small, medium, and large states were politically irrelevant. Presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion.

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy or referendum. 
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly. 
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

By state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes, and thus the presidency, to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by replacing state winner-take-all laws for awarding electoral votes in the enacting states.

"The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. . . . There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President." 
- Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

oldgulph,
Are you in any way affiliated with this organization:

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php


----------



## oldgulph (Oct 25, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> oldgulph,
> Are you in any way affiliated with this organization:
> 
> https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php


National Popular Vote is a nonpartisan coalition of legislators, scholars, constitutionalists and grassroots volunteers.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Oldgulph once again posts organizational propaganda disguised as personal opinion. However, he still has yet to answer my objection(s) - partially quoting from Article II Section One but ignoring the balance of it is deceptive. I trust those of us without an agenda will be able to read the entire passage and understand that the role of electors was something much more than oldgulph wants us to believe.

Note: The Constitution does not determine voting qualifications; States do. Oldgulph's argument there is thus moot.

Electors are supposed to volitionally vote for a candidate, not simply be forced to rubber stamp a candidate who wins the popular vote. States are to choose electors (in a manner they so choose) so that those electors can make a knowledgeable (and actual!) choice. States do not choose *how* the electors vote! Again, if you disagree with the intent and mechanism of those who framed but especially those who ratified the Constitution (explained briefly earlier), you are free to lead a movement to amend Article II Section One.

The idea that the American people - the vast majority of whom don't follow or understand history, politics, current events, and the issues facing the United States - should wield such political power is absurd. Heck, most don't even know the names of their two U.S. Senators, yet oldgulph wants them making such an important choice. The desire to have the popular vote determine presidential elections has become a mantra of almost religious proportions, but it was a terrible idea in the latter part of the 18th century, and it still is.

I wonder, would oldgulph want an uneducated person performing surgery on him? A fast food worker repairing his car engine? A bartender flying an airliner on which he was a passenger?

Please, stop posting the same propaganda repeatedly. It is certainly permissible to have an original thought...


----------



## oldgulph (Oct 25, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Oldgulph once again posts organizational propaganda disguised as personal opinion. However, he still has yet to answer my objection(s) - partially quoting from Article II Section One but ignoring the balance of it is deceptive. I trust those of us without an agenda will be able to read the entire passage and understand that the role of electors was something much more than oldgulph wants us to believe.
> 
> Note: The Constitution does not determine voting qualifications; States do. Oldgulph's argument there is thus moot.
> 
> ...


The Constitution does not determine voting qualifications; States do.
And with National Popular Vote the role of the states in presidential elections does not differ from the Constitution in any way.

The intent and mechanism of those who framed but especially those who ratified the Constitution is in Article II, Section 1:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors&#8230;."

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century. 
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted winner-take-all, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. 
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

Now, electors are dedicated party activists, chosen for their loyalty to their party's candidate.
State laws do determine which electors will vote, and *how* the electors vote!

● Each political party in each state nominates a slate of candidates for the position of presidential elector. This is most commonly done at the party's congressional-district conventions and the party's state convention during the summer or early fall. It is sometimes done in a primary. 
● Typically, each political party chair certifies to the state's chief election official the names of the party's candidate for President and Vice President and the names of the party's candidates for presidential elector. 
● Under the "short presidential ballot" (now used in all states), the names of the party's nominee for President and Vice President appear on the ballot. 
● When a voter casts a vote for a party's presidential and vice-presidential slate on Election Day (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November), that vote is deemed to be a vote for all of that party's candidates for presidential elector. 
● Under the "winner-take-all" rule used in 48 states, the presidential-elector candidates who receive the most popular votes statewide are elected. In Maine and Nebraska, the candidate for the position of presidential elector who receives the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote).
● Each state's winning presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

Electors not voting according to state law has not been an issue.
There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. 
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The bottom line is that there is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves theElectoral College and state control of elections. It again changes the way electoral votes areawarded in the Electoral College. Thecandidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other electionin the country.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Another robotic propagandistic response, and no longer worth contributing to this thread...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Please, stop posting the same propaganda repeatedly. It is certainly permissible to have an original thought...


He's basically cutting and pasting straight from the website with a few modifications and re wording.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Not obfuscatory at all, once we understand what was created, and why. (Albeit more difficult for someone from outside of the United States.)
> 
> I believe the FRB is a central bank, and as such no power exists in the U.S. Constitution to create one. This is a Jeffersonian position; Hamiltonians will invariably (and incorrectly!) disagree...


Hmm.... I have little patience for a system which lacks sufficient elegance to be described in terms which do not require endlessly recursive clauses, sub-clauses and the whatnot, such text being the preferred territory of the slithering men (politicians, lawyers, bankers and so on) who may be relied upon for just one thing (and that objective never being the interests of those that they allege to represent).

Oh, and, FRB _is_ illegal then?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Hmm.... I have little patience for a system which lacks sufficient elegance to be described in terms which do not require endlessly recursive clauses, sub-clauses and the whatnot, such text being the preferred territory of the slithering men (politicians, lawyers, bankers and so on) who may be relied upon for just one thing (and that objective never being the interests of those that they allege to represent).


I agree with your instincts, my friend, but I do not think that the electoral system as specified in Article II Section One of the U.S. Constitution is byzantine at all...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Hmm.... I have little patience for a system which lacks sufficient elegance to be described in terms which do not require endlessly recursive clauses, sub-clauses and the whatnot, such text being the preferred territory of the slithering men (politicians, lawyers, bankers and so on) who may be relied upon for just one thing (and that objective never being the interests of those that they allege to represent).
> 
> Oh, and, FRB _is_ illegal then?


Hmmm...elegant like the British written constitution? ;-)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Now, now. There's no need to be defensive. 

At least, however, we enjoy a broad common consensus as to what our (uncodified) constitution actually means in application.



SG_67 said:


> Hmmm...elegant like the British written constitution? ;-)


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> Hmmm...elegant like the British written constitution? ;-)


I think Shaver wishes to re-colonize us!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> I think Shaver wishes to re-colonize us!


No need, we've already created your nation! By 1776 our job was done!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> No need, we've already created your nation! By 1776 our job was done!


I think we need a tune-up...or maybe a complete overhaul?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> I think Shaver wishes to re-colonize us!


_*Re - *_colonise?

Hmm.. are you aware of the suppressed 13th Amendment aka Titles of Nobility?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

We won't need to address you as "King Shaver", will we?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Liberty Ship said:


> The system was designed to avoid "popular" elections. The President was to be elected by the States, not the people. And it was left up to the States to decide how the votes allocated to the States were devised. The Founding Fathers feared popular elections, democracy, more than anything except royalty because they believed that the end of democracy was always tyranny. Likewise, Senators were supposed to be elected by the representative governments of the States, not directly by the people of the states. The trick was to give the power to the people, but to temper that power and keep it "arm's length" from democracy, or mobocracy, through a hierarchy of representative filters.


Interesting smoking-out of partisan politics here! (Not the above...)

Note that royalty per se was not a universal concern. There was a fairly large sector of revolutionary patriots who wouldn't have minded a stronger king-- in order that Parliament could be kept in its place and stop stepping on the various colonial assemblies as they negotiated with the Crown. They didn't get anywhere before 1776, as even King George thought that was a nutty idea. But it included quite a lot of important figures, many of whom became Federalists later on. It was the Jeffersonian faction, by and large, that thought the monarchy was the source of all corruption in res publica. See Eric Nelson's "Royalist Revolution" for more color. In his view, the anti-democratic character of the Constitution was not so much a pushing back against the values of the revolution, but a revival of the portion of it that wanted a stronger executive who could check and balance Congress's powers.

As for the anti-Federalist arguments, you have to remember that the Constitution was written very largely by Federalists--i.e., people who wanted a different (generally stronger) government of a more unified nation. The Federalist papers aren't perfect representations of intent, written as they were by a few men after the fact to persuade voters, but they're still useful in that way. While anti-Federalist arguments may be valid and were often widespread, they were almost by definition not reflective of what the Constitution's authors had in mind. [Some of their concerns, of course, did get get soothed by the Bill or Rights, however.]

As an addendum, Senate elections were changed to direct popular votes only in 1913, by the 17th Amendment.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

A bill of rights was certainly one concern of the Anti-Federalists, but there were many others. I believe history has proven that their prescient arguments had incredible weight to them...


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Thank you, everyone, for a wonderfully informative discussion. The knowledge and eloquence of members of the Ask Andy are one of the many benefits of participation. 

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> Thank you, everyone, for a wonderfully informative discussion. The knowledge and eloquence of members of the Ask Andy are one of the many benefits of participation.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Thank you for your very kind and generous words, Gurdon. I'm sure they are appreciated by all of us!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Once again, thank you for all of your posts. My students appreciated not only an explanation of the process, but also how divided American opinion is on the method. Mind you, they're still understandably confused!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Once again, thank you for all of your posts. My students appreciated not only an explanation of the process, but also how divided American opinion is on the method. Mind you, they're still understandably confused!


You can always assuage them by explaining that most Americans have no idea what electors are, an enormous majority has no idea how the system was supposed to work (or how it's currently used), and most don't give a damn about anything of political or historical importance.

We do know much about what games are on television tonight, what Kim Kardashian likes to wear, and that new rap song by whichever "artist" happens to be the flavor of the month...


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Pardon me if already mentioned, but the original intent was that 
a) there were to be no parties and 
b) no tickets
There were to be solo candidates, and the one the most electors voted for became president, the penultimate became vice president. Somehow this rationality got screwed up in short order.

The private bank (Federal Reserve is as governemental as Federal Express), not being congress, has no power to set the value of money. Clearly this is their main function, beyond the scam of loan-sharking fake money, all unconstitutional.


----------

