Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster.
Ending the Electoral College would be the end of American democracy – and Democrats want to do away with it. WHAT? Am I suggesting that allowing the popular vote to determine the outcome of a presidential election is Undemocratic in terms of the American Republic? Yes.
In most elections, the Electoral College goes the way of the popular vote. It has only resulted in the election of a President who lost the popular vote five times out of 59 election cycles — and only twice in the past 138 years. It only happens when the election is very, very close. That is a small price to pay for all the benefits of the Electoral College in heading off a monumental and dangerous constitutional crisis every four years – and it is in those close elections when the College does its best work regardless of the popular vote.
The most important benefit of the Electoral College is that it settles close and controversial elections – avoiding a prolonged constitutional crisis as the various parties engage in endless recounts and protracted court cases. Without the Electoral College, the nation could – and would – go through prolonged periods without a President to take the reigns of government on Inauguration Day.
Would an incumbent President simply stay on the job? Would the candidate with the most votes on any given day assume presidential responsibilities? And would any action – Executive Orders, appointments, signing agreements, declaring war – be constitutionally valid without a duly elected, certified and inaugurated President?
We have never had a President who would not be inaugurated on Inauguration Day. The British invasion of Washington, the Civil War, Al Gore’s lawsuits, innumerable recounts and even Trump’s claims of vote fraud have never delayed the inauguration of a President. In every case, the Electoral College met on schedule and voted. That vote was overwhelmingly certified by Congress and the new President inaugurated on the designated Inauguration Day. The constitutional machinery set up by the Founders worked perfectly – thanks to the Electoral College.
The Bush/Gore contest was not settled by the Supreme Court. It was settled by the Electoral College. Gore lost his case before the Supreme Court, but the vote of the Electoral College made Bush the President – not the Court. Even the election of 1876 was not settled based on the popular vote, but in an agreement between Republicans and Democrats (The Compromise of 1877) over the Electoral College vote. After all the wrangling was done, it was the Electoral College that determined the winner.
Democrats proposing to eliminate the Electoral College should consider the 2020 presidential election. Legal challenges by the Trump campaign could have gone on for months and even years. Whether Trump won or lost the popular vote is academic. He lost the all-important Electoral College Vote. That settled the election. Any of Trump’s objections after that were futile.
Biden won the vote of the Electoral College and that was it – game, set, match. Without the vote of the Electoral College, it is more than likely that there would be endless federal and state-based court cases … recounts … and more recounts. The popular vote would have been officially undecided for months after Inauguration Day. America could have been without a functional President for an indefinite period. The Electoral College is the reason America had a President to inaugurate on January 20, 2021.
Then there is the issue of minority protections. We often describe America as a Republic in which the majority rule BUT with minority protections. That concept of pure democracy may work in small towns and villages, but it can be lethal to the principles of a democratic republic. It is ironic, but true … when a majority can exert power without consideration to minority views and opinions, you wind up with authoritarianism. The federal system established by the Founders was carefully crafted to resist the ever-present danger of authoritarianism.
The second benefit of the Electoral College is that it prevents permanent domination by the larger states – with major urban population centers. The nine largest states have approximately the same population as the remaining 41 states and territories.
More importantly, 11 of the largest states have enough electoral votes to elect a President regardless of the vote in the remaining 39 states, the District of Columbia and territories.
The Electoral College forces candidates to campaign in more than a few states. This is especially true when the nation is divided and the vote for President is close.
You can see the potential problem in this past election. Trump carried 31 states (plus Maine’s second Congressional District). Harris only 19 (plus the District of Columbia and Nebraska’s second Congressional District — and yet the popular vote margin between Trump and Harris was very close.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has been a longtime critic of the Electoral College. He tried to have it eliminated after the 2020 election. He said that the College hands “the presidency to candidates the majority of voters rejected.”
Officially, that is true, but the problem is not as egregious as it may seem for two reasons. While there is an official vote count, experts claim that the actual numbers are likely to be off by two to three percentage points. Just the natural result of human errors – and maybe some local vote fraud. That is why every time there is a recount the numbers change. In a close election, we can officially DETERMINE who really won the popular vote, but we cannot KNOW for sure.
Secondly, close elections never provide a clear indication of the will of the people. Whether it was Trump or Harris who won the last election, half the American people lost. Neither candidate represents the overwhelming will of the people. Closed races tend to diminish the importance and meaning of popular votes.
At this time, the calls for the elimination of the Electoral College are advanced as a political narrative with little chance of becoming a reality. For practical reasons, the effort to make the change is a non-starter. It would take the support of most states – and all those smaller states are not going to support a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College – and eliminate their influence and power.
The Electoral College is here to say. And that is a good thing.
So, there ‘tis.
“Am I suggesting that allowing the popular vote to determine the outcome of a presidential election is Undemocratic in terms of the American Republic? Yes.” Prepare for pretzel logic as the great political pundit prepares to spin at will.
“In most elections, the Electoral College goes the way of the popular vote. It has only resulted in the election of a President who lost the popular vote five times out of 59 election cycles — and only twice in the past 138 years. It only happens when the election is very, very close. That is a small price to pay for all the benefits of the Electoral College in heading off a monumental and dangerous constitutional crisis every four years – and it is in those close elections when the College does its best work regardless of the popular vote.” Or without the weasel words, we only need the Electoral College when the vote is close to avoid “a prolonged constitutional crisis as the various parties engage in endless recounts and protracted court cases. Without the Electoral College, the nation could – and would – go through prolonged periods without a President to take the reigns of government on Inauguration Day.” Really? Where do the founders make that claim? Has anyone beyond the author, beyond just at this time, ever made that claim? As does he live his own dream? Let’s see…..
I’m sorry —- 65 court cases, all lost, and a half dozen recounts, all lost, and an election that is disputed by most of the author’s own party for over 5 years and counting. On his very own site, it’s been said twas false election within a few weeks and the author said CRICKETS. And it’s reins, not reigns. Is this pot calling kettle black and apparently wanting more pot? Felony sir….. How long did it take the author to fess up that the election was legit? We know the site owner, Gilbertson, or whatever his real name is, and most of the other authors believe the election fake and the electoral college one of the reasons. And why did the author’s own party try to rig the EC, being indicted and investigated for it. Did you object? Even mention?
Then, the man who knows all things politics, the man owning his own political consultancy for 40 years, the man who helped Nixon, Friedman, Forbes, and more boldly claims: “Would an incumbent President simply stay on the job? Would the candidate with the most votes on any given day assume presidential responsibilities? And would any action – Executive Orders, appointments, signing agreements, declaring war – be constitutionally valid without a duly elected, certified and inaugurated President?”
Does the maven of politics not know: “What would happen if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes? In these circumstances, the 12th Amendment also provides that the House of Representatives would elect the President, and the Senate would elect the Vice President, in a procedure known as “contingent election.” Contingent election has been implemented twice in the nation’s history under the 12th Amendment: first, to elect the President in 1825, and second, the Vice President in 1837.”
*chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R40504/7#:~:text=If%20neither%20a%20President%20nor,a%20President%20or%20Vice%20President*
How can this expert pol consultant guy not know the path already set for inability to conclude the vote? Or is he conveniently forgetting to aid the twist of his spin?
At this point, I will let Tom take the helm as I am guessing this one will be off his spin scale.
For me, one man, one vote, makes sense to best fulfill the vision of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. My issue of raising the priority of candidates reaching out to all States, not just where the people are, is moot due to today’s communication’s technology and message reach at the speed of light. I think everyone has pretty much equal access to the candidates no matter where they reside in the USA. All of the issues the author mentioned can be avoided or mitigated via process and one-man, one-vote, outweighs any of his whining.
It’s time. There is little risk or downside.
Frank Danger … you say the most ignorant crap. The 2020 presidential election was not settled because court cases had run out. It was settled by the Electoral College, which made further court cases and recounts moot. The EC settled the election and prevented further recounts and law suits. Without an EC, there would have been no certification of the election, since the Congress certifies the EC voter. Duh! Without the EC to settle all issues, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the recounts and court cases would continue past Inauguration Day..
Court cases that could have changed the EC count did continue after the EC vote.
Wisconsin was one.
To say I say the most ignorant crap is stupid if wrong. You were wrong again Horist, but not to worry. I don’t expect you to have the balls to admit it.
Continuing the same stupidity is insane. Why do you put your foot in your mouth over and over. Why do you focus on dumb stuff? Maybe if you discuss instead of attack, you would get a more harmonious outcome. Your win-lose mentality does not serve you well.
I spell my name: danger and you have been franked. Bite me.
Frank Danger … you are obviously competing for the moron of the year. Yes … some vote counts continued after the EC voted, but they could not change the vote of the EC. The presidential election was over … decided … settled … by the EC. We had a president to inaugurate on Jan 20. FRANKly you are in DANGER of loosing you mind completely.
Thanks, let me know who wins your “moron of the year award.” I will treasure it as I do all your gifts of gab.
How would I be losing my mind? I stated some truths, you elaborated, makes sense against what I read, so thanks for the info.
Could have done without the trailer trash talk though. But that’s you. Always you. Only you.
Larry, I would retract my last post if I could; I was hasty, broke my own rules and suffered Horistian hubris to judge without appropriate proof via sourcing, plus doing Dempsey-like cut n paste of leftist opinion not based on fact. Here’s the rewrite:
I am sorry, not quite sure what you are attempting to say. Or what is has to do with what I said. After the snark, you note: “The 2020 presidential election was not settled because court cases had run out. It was settled by the Electoral College, which made further court cases and recounts moot.” I am not sure the EC renders court cases moot. As you noted, cases can continue post the EC certification, by law, in many states, especially for State elections, but often for National too. I am not sure IF this can change results. You seem to indicate, no, but provide no proof of that. You continue: “The EC settled the election and prevented further recounts and law suits. Without an EC, there would have been no certification of the election, since the Congress certifies the EC voter. Duh!” While this is true about the EC, you didn’t note that the guardrails were strengthened in 2022 via law. I am not certain the differences in pre-2022 version. Do you know? Also, this seems just not logical to assume that a certification process, with appropriate guardrails could not be applied to a popular vote. Over 50 other countries do exactly that and the US is in a special group that “indirectly” elects its President. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude a tight certification process could be applied to a popular vote. Other countries do it all the time.
To say I say the most ignorant crap is stupid if wrong. You were wrong again Horist, but not to worry. I don’t expect you to have the balls to admit it so you will just claim ad hominem attack, I am a moron, and nobody bothers you. Continuing the same stupidity is insane. Why do you put your foot in your mouth over and over. Why do you continue to focus on dumb stuff instead of the issues of the day that you brought up? Maybe if you discuss instead of attack, you would get a more harmonious outcome. Your win-lose mentality does not serve you well. Having a discussion pretty much means you don’t win all the time. Some people don’t even try, but instead, search for the win-win in almost everything done.
Frank you should quit lying. You democrats would have an orgy if the electoral college was eliminated.
Not Tom; where exactly did I lie in this thread or are you?
Where did I ever lie? Be specific. Quotes would suffice..
Come on man, here’s your chance to step up and back up your accusations.
You claim to be in favor of the electoral college but you would love for the Democrats to have an upper hand. Only a handful of states would have a voice in the elections. So don’t even lie about it
From what I have read, the GOP has already institutionalized drug and sex fueled orgies! LOL Just call Gaetz!
I never said that.
You haven’t said where did I lie?
Don’t you know?
Did you just make it up?
Off topic, but my belated Christmas gift to Larry and Joe. Merry Christmas.
As we enter the second coming of Trump, I thought a nice almost-year-end wrap up for their first four years might be instore before Horist tells you a different version with many opinions and few facts. Here’s some facts, and the order is Trump/Biden or T/B. Bottom line, Trump comes out better than I expected. Biden worse, but 2nd half of 2024 not rolled in and that should be an improvement. Pretty much explains what Harris faced and how her joy would not clear that fog.
Jobs: T+6.7M, B+15.7M Biden wins bigtime
Unemployment Rate: T-3.5%, B-4.1% Call this parity, both very low
Job Openings: T+20.9%, B+13/3% Trump wins
Earnings: T+2.5%, B-2.3% Trump wins bigtime
GDP Growth: T+2.1%, Biden 2.8% Biden wins and should be better as 2024 ends, he should get closer to 3% or better. FYI, that’s my minimum for stable growth.
S&P 500: T+47.1%, Biden 42.9% Call this parity, yet Biden trumping Trump records
Manufacturing jobs: T+487K, Biden+762K Biden wins, bigtime
Murders: T-6.9%, Biden-9.1%, Biden wins
Boarder Apprehensions: T+81%, Biden+273% Trump wins, bigtime for less crossers overall
Home Ownership: T+1.1%, Biden-.2% Trump wins
Home Prices: T+19.8%, Biden+40.5% If you own a home, Biden wins. If you are buying, it depends but probably Trump wins
Corporate Profits: T+5.6%, Biden +36% If you work big business, you win with Biden, if not, you win with Trump
Trade Deficit: T+24%, Biden +22.3%, Biden wins
Food Stamp People: T-14.8%, Biden -1.3%, Trump wins
Oil production: T+36.4%. Biden 15.3%, Biden wins because Trump did well, raised the total, but Biden hits the all time record high
CO2 Emissions: T+.5%, Biden+4.6% Trump wins
CPI: T+6%, Biden+19.2% Trump wins, bigtime.
There are also some pointed facts for each President without comparison like Trump: Coal mining jobs: +1,200, promise not kept, people losing health insurance +1.9M, Federal Restrictions -.07%, promise not kept. For Biden: Refugee admissions +117%, gas prices +40.5%, consumer sentiment -13%.
First, note that the Biden numbers are up to 1H24 and so their will be much tightening on the economic factors like gdp growth, home ownership, etc as the 2h24 was a great economic half. Second, my apologies, Trump did better than I have opined; his gdp growth number looks off to me, need to triple check my sources. 2.8% is just below OK, not Hoover territory as I keep saying. I need to triple check this one. But better in many aspects than I expected. I have some hope for the next two years. Why not. Biden fared worse than I expected and really not sure 2H24 will bail him out, think it will help. I have some hope…..
I spell my name: Danger, and I am Frank.
The electoral college is serving the same purpose now as it did 250 years ago.
If the E C is not working , it is because the politicians in charge of that state
are F ING it all up for the majority of their people!
If a state was working perfect and the people happy, they would side with
the party IN charge.
Their would be no issues.
Issues are only coming out of the states were the minority of people LOST!
Let that sink in a second!
Blame you current state administration!
Dumb asses!
This article gets a Stop The Spin rating of 5 due to an interesting blend of factless assertions and claims, as well as the degree of spin and a lot of unproven hypotheses that Larry want his readers to believe are facts.
Ending the Electoral College (EC) would end the GOP favorite practice of Gerrymandering which has caused more issues in my state. Ending the EC would mean that politicians would have to visit and invest their time in all states if they want their vote – though electronics does much of this already, but we still are a people that like to be visited. The EC is the driver of Gerrymandering which is a way of muting the minority vote so ending EC would stop Gerrymandering, which would increase the importance of the minority vote and diminish the power of white designed and white run institutions .
The Electoral College (EC) was a compromise between Congress (which was controlled by white, wealthy aristocrats) electing the POTUS and the popular vote of the people (labor class who congregated in the cities for jobs) electing the POTUS. There were so many more laborers that the founders whom were elites and aristocrats, were concerned about losing power and control because they felt the populous was uneducated and incapable of informed participation in the electoral system. Eliminating the EC might strip the aristocracy of some electoral power but in today’s modern USA with all of the ways to communicate, this would be a hard claim to support. The claim that can be supported by population statistics is that by eliminating the EC, a minority (about 15) states that are most populous would control the destiny of the other 35 states that are not so populous.
As an Independent / Unaffiliated voter, I am concerned about the balance that the founding fathers thought was so important. I would not be in favor of any arbitrarily abandonment of the EC. With AI, I recommend that we now have the capacity to re-process previous election results to model the effects of abandoning the EC. It appears that it would certainly have effected Trump in his first term in that he would not have had a first term, and a case may be made for G.W. Bush may not have had a first term, thus a POTUS Gore. So it appears that ending the EC would negatively affect the GOP more, (and they know it) and using just the popular vote may unfairly help the Dems more (and they know it) since they seem to be in control of our more populous states.
And now to the reasons why this article gets a Stop The Spin (STS) rating of 5, and may deserve 5+:
1) There is no support for the assertion that ending the EC would make our election system more undemocratic. Especially since Larry makes the claim that the EC vote usually follows the popular vote.
2) Truth is, I do not buy into the Larry fearmongering of endless recounts and prolonged constitutional crisis. If anything, the EC may be forcing more recounts that it avoids because in the instance of a close count in any state, the potential loser can demand several recounts in the pursuit of flipping the popular vote so that the EC votes can be captured – example 2020 Trump. Eliminating the EC would probably result in less recounts because there is no EC to flip. In recent recounts, the original count was confirmed to be very accurate. So fear not!
3) There is no data to support the fearmongering (fearmongering is a favorite tool of GOP) statement, “Without the Electoral College, the nation could – and would – go through prolonged periods without a President to take the reigns of government on Inauguration Day. ” This statement is an unsupported effort for Larry to read the GOP tea leaves. Larry also knows that the most likely party to cause endless recounts is the GOP – but Larry will not tell you this!
4) Larry attempts more fearmongering by hypothesizing what might or might not happen with the incumbent president, exec orders, cabinet pics etc. All of these things would still happen, and we would most likely still have a final POTUS decision by Inauguration Day. Truth is, my feeling is that there should be more time between election results and Inauguration Day, and the hypothetical challenges Larry presents are not insurmountable.
5) Larry attributes much of the electoral process success to the EC. While they certainly are due some credit, Larry’s claim may be overblown just like his ego. The argument can be made that the electoral process is elongated by the EC. Vote certification could occur at the state level by state election officials and simply transmitted to the federal level with the appropriate signed off verification sheet. And if desired, there could be joint federal and state oversight.
6) More fearmongering as Larry attempts to make the case that without the EC, the Trump election could have gone on for years. There is no data to support this. More hypotheticals from the king of hypothesis. He stated that the EC vote settled the issue. Seems to me that the EC vote is the cause of all of the Trump issues in that he initiated over 60 legal suits in a vein attempt to flip the EC college vote!!!
7) I think it is funny that Larry is concerned about minority protections! Fact is, the EC vote leads to Gerrymandering which is done to minimize the minority vote impact! If you don’t think so, check out the NC I-85 Corridor District and all of the court fights caused by Gerrymandering, all in pursuit of the coveted EC vote. The goal of Gerrymandering is to garner state and federal EC votes by consolidating the minority vote.
8) More comedy from Larry as he says, “Trump or Harris who won the last election, half the American people lost. Neither candidate represents the overwhelming will of the people.” No more than five articles ago, Larry was stating that the GOP had a mandate. I rebuked Larry in my comment stating that the election was close and neither candidate got above 50%, and 13% of the electorate did not vote. Larry did his usual name calling but has now flip flopped to my side of the street.
9) More fearmongering as Larry says, ” In a close election, we can officially DETERMINE who really won the popular vote, but we cannot KNOW for sure.” This statement is a unique blend of fearmongering and bullshit. There are several ways of making sure we know who won the popular vote. One thought, it is well known that in any state, a statistical difference of 0.5% of the vote between any two candidates is very hard for either candidate to flip. But Larry wants his readers to feel hopelessness. All states that had recounts reported that the original count was very accurate.
.
Spot on spin-master. I think Horist is force-fitting the EC to his new paradigm developed over the past few elections while, perhaps as a first, seemingly overlooking the founder’s intent which was compromise. Issues were those who did not trust the everyday citizen to vote wisely, others did not want to leave it to Congress. I love the history.com’s thought that no one stood up and said, EC, what a great idea. There was also the problem of the South being 40% non-citizen humans thus established the 3/5th’s rule of creating government.
Here’s the story replete with all the reasons, this author left out, as Tom’s spin cycle discusses: *https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention*
Your referenced article was a good easy to read article. Thank you for referencing it. There is also quite a bit of info about the electoral college on youtube.
Personally, I would like to see something different. But I am at a loss to recommend.
Perhaps the real culprit is the two party system which did not exist in 1787. When I think about it, our government has evolved from an initial EC system of independent voters and no parties to an EC system with partisanship and two dominant parties and very little independence because being in a party destroys independence. One thing that I think would help would be if it were law that all voters could vote in all primaries which I believe is called open primaries. At least mandatory open primaries might give us two candidates that we the people think are suitable choices. Lets face it, many did not like Trump and Biden running again but we the people had little choice in the matter. Another thing that could help might be that an election where neither party wins over 50% popular vote is considered an election of no confidence – and the parties must put forth new candidates and the states each have one vote in Congress to elect an interim president to serve for one year under a congressionally approved cabinet.
I think if we all took a few minutes to ponder a new system we would quickly feel exactly what the founders felt. And that might help us appreciate what we have today.
Perhaps a more perfect blend of EC and popular vote might be a mandatory apportionment of state EC votes as a percentage equal to the popular votes garnered by the candidate over the total number of votes. So the populous states will not be dominated by one party or the other. This way each party could earn EC votes in every state and the final EC vote count would be a totaling of the number of state EC votes the candidate won. This way, large states dominated by one party or the other, like CA vs. TX or PA vs. VA, or NY vs FL, would average each other out more and this would make the smaller less populated states votes more important. This would also drive candidates to spend more time in the less populated states.
Tom, It’s a Constitutional thing, a State’s rights thing, and most States are winner takes all. Modifying is probably as difficult as scrapping it, and what you are suggesting is a pure surrogate to the popular vote. So, sure, but it will never happen and just as good a chance of going to a popular vote. But it’s Constitutional so therefore a national thing that some States, red states for now, will not want. Who knows, next year maybe blue states won’t want it. Nobody likes the EC at some time in history. The framers didn’t even want it. As I noted earlier, no one steps up and says: EC, what a great idea. Even Larry can’t say: best thing since sliced toast and has to weasel word his way to acceptance using a rationale that no framer ever considered. At least according to HIstory.com.
I agree Frank. Nothing will change in our lifetime. Yeah, Larry slithered his way through this topic.