Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

Government

This Is Why America Has an Electoral College

Nov. 6, 2012 12:30pm Billy Hallowell

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Americans will probably know who their next president is on Tuesday night or early Wednesday, but the formal process for picking a president actually extends beyond then (and, it’s more complicated than meets the eye).

The system we’re speaking about, of course, is the ever-elusive Electoral College. Before we delve into the specifics of how it works, let’s take a trip down memory lane. After all, it’s difficult to understand the system if one knows little about its history and the original intentions behind its formulation.

HERE’S THE HISTORY OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

As most Americans know, the Electoral College has the ultimate say when it comes to deciding the fate of presidential face-offs. Barring recounts or a tie between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, the exercise that is undertaken is largely academic — one that many Americans may not fully comprehend. The history, much like the Electoral College’s operations, is complex.

This Is Background on the Electoral College | Presidential Election

Voters cast their ballots November 6, 2012 in Portage, Ohio. Voting is underway in the battleground state of Ohio in the U.S. presidential election between Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican nominee former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Credit: Getty Images

The origins of the system date back to the nation’s founding. The Founders, looking for a fair method through which to hold presidential elections, weighed the odds and eventually drafted what they saw as an extremely viable framework. History.com has more about how the Electoral College came to fruition:

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered several methods of electing the President, including selection by Congress, by the governors of the states, by the state legislatures, by a special group of Members of Congress chosen by lot, and by direct popular election. Late in the convention, the matter was referred to the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters, which devised the electoral college system in its original form. This plan, which met with widespread approval by the delegates, was incorporated into the final document with only minor changes. It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation.

The Constitution gave each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its membership in the Senate (two to each state, the “senatorial” electors) and its delegation in the House of Representatives (currently ranging from one to 52 Members). The electors are chosen by the states “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct “(U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1).

As for the purpose, FactCheck.org provides an additional summary of what led to the creation of the Electoral College — a schema that was apparently viewed by the Founders as a protection against the exploitation of democracy by special interest cohorts:

The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed ”the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could ”sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

Of course, this is only a brief recap of the framework — and the system has evolved over time. You can read more about the history over at History.com.

HERE’S HOW IT WORKS

Now that we know a bit about the methods behind the system’s creation, we can take a look at how it works in practical terms. Members of the Electoral College, known as electors, meet in in state capitols or other designated spots in mid-December (yes, more than one month after the election takes place).

Each party has slates of electors, but the one aligned with the winner of that state’s popular vote is empowered to cast separate ballots for president and vice president. It is typically uneventful, but there have been instances of “faithless” electors where a ballot is cast for someone other than that state’s prevailing nominees. The ballots are sent to Washington to be formally counted in the Senate on Jan. 6 (yes, two months after the election), though the results are usually known that day.

Credit: AFP/Getty Images

If Obama and Romney finish the Electoral College process at 269-269 — or no candidate amasses the needed 270 votes because an alternate candidate scores some votes — the 12th Amendment comes into play. Under that scenario, the newly sworn U.S. House elects the president and the Senate the vice president.

Each House delegation gets a single vote. Republicans are likely to hold a majority of state delegations after Tuesday, but there could be intrigue in the unlikely event that several delegations wind up evenly split. If the Senate remains in Democratic hands, there is a possibility that the Romney could be president and Democratic Vice President Joe Biden his No. 2 (a fascinating prospect, no?).

NOTABLE ELECTIONS IN U.S. HISTORY

Among the most notable elections was 1824, when Democratic-Republican candidate John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote and was behind in the Electoral College tally but still was chosen as president by the House. There are some other intriguing examples, too, covering elections in which the popular vote winner ended up losing the race in the Electoral College. Here they are:

1876: Republican Rutherford Hayes defeats Samuel Tilden by 185 to 184 in Electoral College despite a 254,235-popular-vote deficit.

1888: Republican Benjamin Harrison defeats Democrat Grover Cleveland by 233 to 168 in Electoral College despite 90,596-popular-vote deficit.

2000: Republican George W. Bush defeats Democrat Al Gore by 277 to 266 in Electoral College despite 543,895-popular-vote deficit.

While the aforementioned examples certainly frustrated some and caused questions to emerge about the Electoral College system, the structure that the nation’s Founders put into place continues, though amended, today. On the flip side, over the nation’s history there have also been some noteworthy “landslide” victories.

Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Electoral College landslides in presidential elections over the past century, which saw the winner collect at least double the loser’s Electoral College votes, have happened on occasion (it’s unclear whether today’s election will have a similar ending). Here’s a list of past electora landslides:

1912: Democrat Woodrow Wilson defeats Progressive Theodore Roosevelt by 2.2 million votes (Republican incumbent William Taft finished third) and wins Electoral College 435 to 88.(asterisk)

1920: Republican Warren G. Harding defeats Democrat James Cox by 7 million votes and wins Electoral College 404 to 127.

1924: Republican incumbent Calvin Coolidge defeats Democrat John Davis by 7.3 million votes and wins Electoral College 382 to 136.(asterisk)

1928: Republican Herbert Hoover defeats Democrat Al Smith by 6.4 million votes and wins Electoral College 444 to 87.

1932: Democrat Franklin Roosevelt defeats Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover by 7.1 million votes and wins Electoral College 472 to 59.

1936: Democratic incumbent Franklin Roosevelt defeats Republican Alf Landon by 11 million votes and wins Electoral College 523 to 8.

1940: Democratic incumbent Franklin Roosevelt defeats Republican Wendell Wilkie by 5 million votes and wins Electoral College 449 to 82.

1944: Democratic incumbent Franklin Roosevelt defeats Republican Thomas Dewey by 3.5 million votes and wins Electoral College 432 to 99.

1952: Republican Dwight Eisenhower defeats Democrat Adlai Stevenson by 6.6 million votes and wins Electoral College 442 to 89.

1956: Republican incumbent Dwight Eisenhower defeats Democrat Adlai Stevenson by 9.6 million votes and wins Electoral College 457 to 73.(asterisk)

1964: Democratic incumbent Lyndon Johnson defeats Republican Barry Goldwater by 15.9 million votes and wins Electoral College 486 to 52.

1972: Republican incumbent Richard Nixon defeats Democrat George McGovern by 18 million votes and wins Electoral College 520 to 17.(asterisk)

1980: Republican Ronald Reagan defeats Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter by 8.4 million votes and wins Electoral College 489 to 49.

1984: Republican incumbent Ronald Reagan defeats Democrat Walter Mondale by 16.9 million votes and wins Electoral College 525 to 13.

1988: Republican George H.W. Bush defeats Democrat Michael Dukakis by 7.1 million votes and wins Electoral College 426 to 111.

1992: Democrat Bill Clinton defeats Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush by 5.8 million votes and wins Electoral College 370 to 168.

1996: Democratic incumbent Bill Clinton defeats Republican Bob Dole by 7.7 million votes and wins Electoral College 379 to 159.

2008: Democrat Barack Obama defeats Republican John McCain by 9.7 million votes and wins Electoral College 365 to 173.

Regardless of whether Obama or Romney clinches victory this cycle, inauguration day is Jan. 20. For more information about the Electoral College, click here.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (78)

Atlanticgrl
Posted on November 8, 2012 at 10:55am
Hey, could someone please answer this question for me?

How could they have called the election already when votes from absentees ballots were still coming in. I live WA state where the entire is mail-in. I know plenty of people who only mailed theirs in on the 6th. So these were not even counted yet when the election was called. This morning on the radio I heard that 90,000 new ballots arrived – they are still counting for governor.

SO HOW, even with the electoral college could the election be fairly determined when not all votes across the country were not yet in? This doesn’t seem right.

Someone please explain. Thanks.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
steveh931
Posted on November 7, 2012 at 12:21pm
The Electoral College system is not implemented or ran per the Constitution of the United States. Progressives have changed the rules over the years to remove checks and balances that the founding fathers thought necessary to prevent tyranny, study the system.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
chucksue351
Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:48am
it is the best system we have and should not adopt any other, it would be hard for a potential dictactor to control every state and every county in the country, but if we had popular vote then a large state could be co opted and tip the vote in favor of the dictator by voter fraud

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:06pm
  With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!
  
  But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
  
  Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
  
  Report this comment
ACACIA
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 8:37pm
if you like democracy so much just look at califnoria where the masses can add or delete amendments to their state constitution and see what has happened to them. their state is in worse shape than greece.there is rule by the majority. “THE MASSES ARE ASSES” to quote a newspaper.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SAF2044
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 7:05pm
2000: Republican George W. Bush defeats Democrat Al Gore by 277 to 266 in Electoral College despite 543,895-popular-vote deficit. This is a long running lie. CALIFORNIA DUMPED nearly 1.7 million absent tee ballots because Bush was behind 2 million votes, Bush was getting 75 + percent of the votes and because he was behind by two million votes they were not counted, add 250 k votes to Gore and a million to Bush and Bush wins the popular vote. Don’t mix apples and oranges. We Have an EC to keep the big poor state from ruling over the workers .

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TalkingMonkeyNot
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 2:17am
  SAF2044: Would you explain this more clearly? What you have stated here doesn’t make sense to me. If Bush was behind by 2 million votes, how could he be getting 75+ percent of the vote? And where did the quarter million more to Gore and 1 million more to Bush come from? Maybe I’m just dense, but I’m not following you here. Also, what happened to the 1.7 million absentee votes that California dumped? Thanks.
  
  Report this comment
sbenard
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 5:32pm
In my studies of the electoral college and the sentiments of the Founding Fathers on the subject, the main reason they created it was to prevent candidates from campaigning only in large cities in states with large populations! It ensures that ALL states count — even the small population states!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- smokeysmoke
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 6:34pm
  removing the electoral college would be like choosing the teams who play in the super bowl, NOT BY WINS, but by the NET POINTS… so that would make the super bowl this year between Da Bears and the ravens… my point being that winning one state by a massive amount should not count against the value of other states… and in football the size of the win is not determined by the points scored but the W in the collumn
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:07pm
  If you support the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, then you are mistaken The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.
  
  Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 80% of the states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant. 9 of the original 13 states are ignored now. In 2008, presidential campaigns spent 98% of their resources in just 15 battleground states, where they were not hopelessly behind or safely ahead, and could win the bare plurality of the vote to win all of the state’s electoral votes. Now the majority of Americans, in small, medium-small, average, and large states are ignored. Virtually none of the small states receive any attention. None of the 10 most rural states is a battleground state. 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX are ignored. That’s over 85 million voters, 200 million Americans. Once the conventions are over, presidential candidates now don’t visit or spend resources in 80% of the states. Candidates know the Republican is going to win in safe red states, and the Democrat will win in safe blue states, so they are ignored. States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential electi
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:09pm
  Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don’t matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.
  
  Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
  
  In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.
  
  In 2008, the 25 smallest states (with a total of 155 electoral votes) 18 received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. Of the seven smallest states with any post-convention visits, Only 4 of the smallest states – NH (12 events), NM (8), NV (12), and IA (7) – got the outsized attention of 39 of the 43 total events in the 25 smallest states.
  
  Report this comment
Mr. Resistor
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 5:22pm
Hey, THE CALMONE…
The UK does not have a democracy, it has a Constitutional Monarchy
Austrailia does not have a democracy, it has what they call a Federal Parliamentary Democracy with the Queen Mother as Head of State, in other words a Constitutional Monarchy. I didn’t bother to check New Zealand…I mean, who cares? But Nope, no democracy’s as you had hoped. Democracies are the worst form of government..they are mob rule…usually leading to a dictatorship (the guy at the head of the mob). For reference, see Russia, China, N. Korea, and just about any country in Africa or the middle east. Thank god for the electoral college. It levels the playing field so we all have a voice. It was the best method the founders could think of to give fair representation. How would you like it if the Congress picked the president. After all, they are your representatives. In a perfect world, it could work. States used to pick their Senators…and frankly, that was a good idea. Ciao.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
p51d007
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 5:15pm
If we get rid of the electoral college, we will be well on our way from a representative republic, to a democracy, which is what the founders feared most….MOB RULE.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:12pm
  When the National Popular Vote bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the Electoral College votes– enough Electoral College votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the Electoral College votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes.
  
  National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on 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 in the periods between elections.
  
  Report this comment
Solus5
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 5:12pm
There is wisdom in the electoral college.. I live in Arkansas.. It will go for Romney/Ryan.. I explain to people that argue their vote doesn’t matter, that we vote to make sure our E/C votes continue to go to the right people. We do not want our state to turn purple.. We vote to solidify our EC votes to firmly go Red..

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:13pm
  A survey of Arkansas voters showed 80% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
  
  Support was 88% among Democrats, 71% among Republicans, and 79% among independents.
  
  By age, support was 89% among 18-29 year olds, 76% among 30-45 year olds, 80% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.
  
  By gender, support was 88% among women and 71% among men.
  
  NationalPopularVote
  
  Report this comment
drs1969
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 4:41pm
The National Popular Vote movement looks to kill the electoral college. The blue states are currently adopting it to steal all future elections. Red states must counter with the Congressional District Method. This way fraud will be contained in urban areas and they will not be able to steal a whole state. Nebraska and Maine have the C.D. Method.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- staythecourse
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 4:51am
  I have a question about the electoral college. The way it is currently it appears as if when a state’s popular vote goes to a candidate then ALL of the electoral points go to that candidate. The result is that just the cities end up being able to throw the entire electoral college votes to one candidate which means that the other /non city areas are not truly represented. Was this always the case? My recollection was that at some point it used to be that the EC votes could be split between two candidates. If you look at Pennsylvania the entire state, except for one county in the south west and one county in the itnorth west along with the populated areas of the east (phily)went to obama. If the EC votes were split between the two candiates to reflect actual voting patterns, it would seem a more fair distribution of EC votes on the national level and could result in different national end results…. just askn’
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:15pm
  The National Popular Vote bill would change existing 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 since enacted by 48 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.
  
  The bill does not kill the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
  
  Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. That majority of Electoral College votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:16pm
  A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
  In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes,
  * 71% favored a national popular vote;
  * 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
  * 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
  ***
  A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
  In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
  * 60% favored a national popular vote;
  * 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
  * 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
  
  NationalPopularVote
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:18pm
  Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
  
  If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
  
  The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to campaign in a particular state or focus the candidates’ attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:20pm
  The leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their congressional district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
  
  * * *
  
  Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
  
  Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote.
  
  Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote.
  
  A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:23pm
  The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
  
  National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
  
  The closest popular-vote election in American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.
  
  For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be 200 times closer than the 1960 election–and, in popular-vote terms, 40 times closer than 2000 itself.
  
  Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?
  
  Report this comment
Small World
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 4:19pm
The Founders and you all are so smart….Thanks!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
watashbuddyfriend
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 4:11pm
Will my vote be stolen, again, by the political Electoral College?

It is time to change the Constitution to eliminate the EC!

After Eight (now, for the current Presiden,t Four), Must Vacate!

It is time to get out of the Horse and Buggy Days; reduce the House membership by 50%, or more.

Get the Federal Governmnet out of the Bookkeepin business; tax Gross Income, not deductions.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
THX-1138
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:28pm
Now, if we can only get the Electorate to College!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dougcoburn
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:56pm
  Additional Electoral College Benefits:
  * Vote stuffing/fraud in a single spigot city can only swing a single state’s votes.
  * Helps keep a federalism balance by requiring candidates to pay attention to state level details to get a majority of a state’s votes for them to count.
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:25pm
  The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 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.
  
  Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree, that, at most, only 9 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 80% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA).
  
  The number and population of battleground states is shrinking
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:26pm
  With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, 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 26% of the nation’s votes!
  
  Report this comment
EaglePGC
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:28pm
Blah Blah.. here it is in 4 min.. easy peasy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrFWTCvZ6yc&feature=g-user-u

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Stoic one
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 3:49am
  Now be nice…. that was informative. Thanks.
  
  Report this comment
Lloyd Drako
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:26pm
Wilson’s victory in 1912 was an Electoral College blowout, but definitely not a popular vote landslide. He only got about 43% of the popular vote. He only won because the Republican Party was divided between conservative, regular-Republican Taft voters and Progressive Roosevelt voters.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
sheriff32
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 2:14pm
So much for bring a democracy. America its such a fraud just like the founding fathers.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- nevinc
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 2:32pm
  WoW, you need to leave my country right now…
  
  Report this comment
- Konservative PUNK
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 2:38pm
  America is NOT and NEVER was a Democracy.
  It IS and ALWAYS has been a Republic.
  Learn the difference. Throughout history, Democracy fails. Republics are more successful at being free, fair, strong, and long-lived.
  
  Report this comment
- corridor5
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 2:42pm
  America is not, nor was it ever meant to be a democracy. You didn’t pay attention in school. America is a republic. There is a significant difference. “…and to the *republic* for which is stands, one nation, under God, indivisible…”
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 2:48pm
  The founder’s screwed us over? James Madison was a fraud?
  
  Report this comment
- Bracsim
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 2:59pm
  if you hate this country, leave, nobody is holding you.
  
  Report this comment
- The Gooch
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:01pm
  Don’t be too hard on Sheriff32. Apparently this is a revelation to him/her; only willful ignorance is truly shameful. Maybe this is all news to the poster in question. “WTF? Electoral College? When did this happen?”
  Let Sheriff32 process this tidbit; maybe the lesson will take. Or maybe we can be directed to that poster’s version of the perfect and guilt-free political system to which we should aspire.
  Don’t leave us hanging, friend.
  
  Report this comment
- HellPhish89
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:02pm
  we were never a democracy you ignorant turd.
  
  Report this comment
- THX-1138
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:09pm
  Engrish!
  
  Report this comment
- macpappy
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:22pm
  It’s a Demorcratic Republic, always was, and Patriots willing, will always be. If you give a True Democrocy a hand you would be horrified at the reuslts…..Just ask any Muslim country.
  
  Report this comment
- dstrider
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:22pm
  Why are you even here if you hate it so much? Take Barry with you please.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:24pm
  We have NEVER been a democracy. We’ve always been a Republic, always. We never will be a democracy. Democracy is mob rule, tyranny of the majority, 51% deciding the fate of the 49%. If you don’t like our Republic and you feel the Founders were frauds, you are free to move to a more fitting location for your ilk. North Korea perhaps?
  
  Report this comment
- izukiddin
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:28pm
  Sheriff, on top of being stupid, you can’t even spell. the word “democracy” was avoided in US government until the progressives poked up their ugly faces after 1910. The US is a Constitutional, Representative Republic. Read about it.
  
  Report this comment
- CommunismSurvivor
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:29pm
  This is a free country. No one’s holding you here against your will. GTFO if you don’t like it, you ignorant fool.
  
  Report this comment
- Halgar
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:36pm
  “So much for bring a democracy”
  What language is that?
  
  Only the mis-educated have ever thought America was a democracy, with are and always have been a Constitutional Republic.
  
  The left has tried, with some success to make us a democracy… if and when they ever fully succeed America is doomed.
  
  Report this comment
- OutOfTheAether
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 4:04pm
  SHERIFF
  
  to expand on what izukiddin said: Trying reading Cleon Skousen’s “The 5000 Year Leap”. It’s a fairly easy read, and you may learn just how utterly wrong you are
  
  Report this comment
- TheCalmOne
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 4:05pm
  Konservative Punk: Democracy fails throughout history? Can you give some examples of failed democracies? I’m not saying there aren’t any, I’m just interested to know what you mean. What you say seems counter intuitive. Australia, for example, is a democracy but doesn’t appear ever to have been close to failing since federation. The UK? Canada? New Zealand? They all are pretty successful democracies, aren’t they?
  
  Report this comment
- Montana10
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 4:30pm
  Hey dummy, this is a Republic , not a democracy! Now feel free to leave.
  
  Report this comment
The Gooch
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 2:06pm
Damn you, checks and balances! The problem we face now is not “mob rule”, it’s rule by the judiciary. Anybody got any bright ideas on how to address our continuing slide into a state that is molded and controlled by the judiciary beyond the arguable intent of that branches assumed powers?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 2:46pm
  True that. It feels like any decision the bench makes is set in stone.
  
  Report this comment
Go Glenn
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 1:46pm
The main reason the
Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College is that they have to focus their fraud and vote stealing on swing states. If they could repeal the electoral system then a vote stolen in any city would be as valuable to them. Imagine trying to investigate voter fraud in every precinct in the nation. The democrats would have widespread fraud all over the nation (well they do anyway).

Lets keep them focused on the swing states where we can focus on them a little easier.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- sheriff32
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 2:24pm
  Not all dems are liars and cheaters. Not all repubs are racist rednecks. We need to stop this “other side is evil” crap. It gets us nowhere and makes us sound ignorant.
  
  Report this comment
- macpappy
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:24pm
  Not all dems are liars and cheaters
  
  Yes they are.
  
  Report this comment
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:27pm
  If Romney wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, here’s betting you will be singing a different tune 24 hours from now.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:28pm
  Sheriff, yes, all Democrats are liars and cheaters. It’s the party that attracts the people. Birds of a feather type thing. Show me your friends, I’ll show you your future.
  
  Report this comment
- The Gooch
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 3:43pm
  Break out the sticks & knives, loyal partisans, because I have to agree with the Sheriff on this one. This is the grand game partisanship perpetuates.
  Are all Rs uneducated zealots? No, of course not. However some ARE progressives and some are very authoritarian in their stance on social issues.
  I have lots of registered Ds in my family who sure as hell aren’t leftists or progressives.
  This is EXACTLY why I want to see this day come and go.
  R or D, we’re ALL supposed to be Americans. Deal with it.
  
  Report this comment
- EaglePGC
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 4:49pm
  No ALL are liars and cheaters. Most are good honest people that are blindly following the liars and cheaters.
  
  Report this comment
- nesmond
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 5:23pm
  If your family members are registered “D’s”, then they are evil. Over 54 million babies have been murdered since Roe v Wade. Anyone who votes for a representative who promotes infanticide is just as guilty as that representative. Period.
  
  Report this comment
- The Gooch
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 6:45pm
  nesmond,
  I get what you’re attempting to assert, but your comment still amounts to a gross overgeneralization. You make the assumption that abortion is the ONLY issue people ever vote on. Also, I’m PRETTY sure there are lots of “right to choose” Rs… Fox News seems to locate them easily enough.
  The only difference I really see betwixt the Rs and Ds in my family is the Ds tend to be less open to civil discourse. From my experience (beyond even my family) hardcore partisan Ds will not tolerate any dissent. And that doesn’t mean there aren’t Rs who play the same game.
  By your assessment, Romney was at least ONCE an evil man. Is all forgiven to date?
  
  Report this comment
Individualism
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 1:21pm
either you have popular vote decided by likely ignorant masses or you have knowledge tests to insure real citizens vote which means informed people.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
olderjarhead
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 1:17pm
I would propose keeping the electoral college, with one exception; the winner of the popular vote would attain 3 “at large” electoral college votes. Just to keep it interesting.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BannedByHuffpo
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 1:10pm
The Founders wisely saw the flaw with a national “popular vote” system, and instead opted for individual STATE elections with the winner in each state getting all of the electoral votes for that state, with a couple state exceptions.

This makes sense when you look at it in terms of how the World Series winner is determined. Take the 1962 Series as an example. New York and San Francisco went 7 games, with the Yankees taking 4 games and winning the pennant, even though San Fran’s aggregate total points for all 7 games was higher than NY. Total points (i.e., the “popular” vote) doesn’t matter. It’s who wins the most individual 50 state elections and collects the most electoral votes.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:33pm
  The system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
  
  The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for candidates. Now 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founders intended.
  
  The Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
  
  The system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founders wrote the Constitution.
  
  Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founders left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” 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 a
  
  Report this comment
tcpubelle
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 1:04pm
You will hear pundits falsely tell us the the Electoral College is antiquated and necessary because there were not good ways to get news of candidates into the hands of the voting public.

I have read otherwise, that the founders understood that the ability to carry news more quickly from place to place was increasing and that they expected it to continue. Their concern was the ability that newspapers and printed media would have to sway voters one way or the other through false stories and impressions about candidates.

The idea was for us to elect men(and now women) who had a sound understanding of the principles of good government and of the Constitution, and that they would apply these against the various candidates.

Keep the Electoral College, we may yet remember how to best use it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RaydocX
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 12:45pm
Are you reading this, Mr. Moore?
I see nothing about voter suppression.
Nothing about some voters being uneducated or easily duped.
Nothing about some voters deserving greater influence.

It was put into place to protect the minority.
Funny, that that minority today uses the courts to inflict its views on the majority… maybe there should have been better controls for that.

then we could have prayer in school and nonbelievers could choose not to participate… you know, the way it used to be, instead of a fraction of the population prohibiting by law an action by the majority.

We need an electoral judiciary… no, we just need more conservative families to encourage their like minded off spring to take back the courts.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Depressed_American
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 12:44pm
As I tried to explain to my wife WHY WE NEED the Electoral College.

If we went strictly by the Popular Vote, then the HIGH POPULATION states would be electing our President (meaning: California, New York, Florida, etc…) The SMALLER POPULATION states would have no voice. The Electoral College BALANCES the election process, so the most populous states can’t DOMINATE the election……

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- cjn315
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 1:01pm
  Exactly and even more to the point – the bigger cities would dominate. I live in rural Northern NY and NYC essentially determines where our electoral college votes go. We would end up with the large cities making the agenda for the whole country.
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:36pm
  With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation’s votes!
  
  But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
  
  Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE –75%, ID -77%, ME – 77%, MT- 72%, NE – 74%, NH–69%, NE – 72%, NM – 76%, RI – 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT – 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.
  
  In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 3 jurisdictions.
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:40pm
  With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.
  The population of the top 5 cities (NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the U.S. and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15%.
  
  Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
  
  If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
  
  A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as OH and FL, 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 OH and FL.
  
  The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
  
  When every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. Now it makes no sense for a Democrat or Republican to try and do that
  
  Report this comment
HollyRye
Posted on November 6, 2012 at 12:38pm
I hate to tamper with the designs of the Founders, but I am really torn about the electoral college. I know what it is to live in a state that is so dominated by democrats that my vote really didn’t matter. Hugely frustrating.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Al J Zira
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 1:00pm
  I feel your pain. I live in New Jersey, talk about a democrat strong hold. But I wouldn’t mess with the electoral college, I believe the founders knew what they were doing more than today. Today the process and opinion are dominated by partisan politics so any change will be determined by the administration in power and laid out to benefit their party. Much like gerrymandering, which should be illegal, today’s politicians are career politicians and will do anything to benefit themselves. The founders were part time and only wanted fairness in the election.
  
  Report this comment
- FEMALL
  Posted on November 6, 2012 at 1:07pm
  That is why we can vote with our feet and why the 10th amendment (states rights) is so very important.
  
  Report this comment
- Ahochau
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 3:34am
  Nebraska has the right idea. Electoral College votes are allotted based on the popular vote for each congressional district. The remaining 2 votes are awarded to the overall winner of the state. This would allow those in places like eastern Oregon and Washington to have a say in presidential elections. As it sits now, Portland and Seattle choose.
  
  Here’s a map that shows who is being left out:
  http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_H6XW_a4TYus/Scxit_JjU2I/AAAAAAAAAh4/Pj3-SQRLt1Q/s400/US+election+map+by+congressional+district.bmp
  
  Each state has the right to choose how they award their votes. Work through your state legislature to make the changes. Maybe we can start on the path back to a representative republic.
  
  Report this comment
- Ahochau
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 3:41am
  Sorry, forgot to add the system was great in 1786 as there were only 3,453,037 people in the entire country. California alone has what, 3 cities with more people than that in it now?
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:42pm
  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 current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. It is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method.
  
  The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state’s electoral votes.
  
  Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
  
  Report this comment
- kohler
  Posted on November 7, 2012 at 5:46pm
  The leadership committee of the Nebraska Republican Party adopted a resolution requiring all GOP elected officials to favor overturning their congressional district method for awarding electoral votes or lose the party’s support.
  
  * *
  
  A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
  In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes,
  * 60% favored a national popular vote;
  * 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and
  * 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
  
  * *
  
  Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system.
  
  If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts.
  
  Nationwide, there have been only 55 “battleground” districts that were competitive in presidential elections. 88% of the nation’s congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.