patrick.net

Because the Founding Fathers did not trust the common mob.

Because the constitutional "Scholars" likes it that way.

It's a way to balance states rights with individual's preferences. It's the same reason that we have a Senate and House of Representatives. It gives people from small states more representation. The reason that this is needed perhaps, is that otherwise, the small states could get abused by the large states. For example, if you consider a two state country where one state is very big and the other is little. If a bill was introduced that took $100 from everybody in small state and gave $10 to everybody in Big state, the bill might pass, if it were put to a majority vote. So, the Senate is there to help the small states get representation and the house is there to give proportional representation. The electoral college just reflects this compromise in representation.

Read the thread on NPVIC. The electoral college has always provided a firewall, containing election fraud within each state and preventing any one state from overwhelming all the others with fake ballots. You could think of a better solution, and a genuine democratic (note lowercase d) party would have enacted one in 2009, but that did not happen. Instead, Democrats at the state level are enacting NPVIC, with no safeguards against fraud, thereby subjugating their own states' human voters to paperless, proprietary Diebold/PES machines in Republican states.

What's also interesting is that if you do the math, one scenario puts Trump ahead by one electoral vote by splitting Maine.

BayArea says

Can someone please explain to me why we have the electoral college instead of electing presidents using a straight USA popular vote?

The founding fathers were corrupt. Most of them were slavers, so ethics wasn't exactly their strong suit.

The electoral college is a mechanism to make sure the people don't get too much power and that the ruling class can always wrestle control when needed.

The founding fathers thought democracy was a bad idea. That's why they didn't implement one.

The early YesYNot says

It's a way to balance states rights with individual's preferences. It's the same reason that we have a Senate and House of Representatives. It gives people from small states more representation. The reason that this is needed perhaps, is that otherwise, the small states could get abused by be forced to free their slaves by the large states.

Much of the Constitution was put together with an eye to protect the states most dependent on slave labor, and give them disproportionate power within the union (3/5 compromise was a big sop to them).

YesYNot says

For example, if you consider a two state country where one state is very big and the other is little. If a bill was introduced that took $100 from everybody in small state and gave $10 to everybody in Big state, the bill might pass, if it were put to a majority vote.

The opposite has effectively happened: small states, thanks to their disproportionate representation in Washington, get more military and federal spending per capita than states like CA, TX, NJ and NY. This allows their state governments to cut state taxes and pretend they're self-sufficient and industrious yeomen.

Thanks a bunch, founding fathers!

BayArea says

Can someone please explain to me why we have the electoral college instead of electing presidents using a straight USA popular vote?

Google "electoral college Madison slaves" and you'll get your answer.

With electors, it's easier to add a layer between the popular vote and the choice of the president, and it's also possible to weight slave populations into the number of electors for slave states, without giving those slaves the vote directly.

It was a cute way of making sure that slave states had more power without giving any actual power to the slaves within them. Blacks are scary.

BayArea says

Can someone please explain to me why we have the electoral college instead of electing presidents using a straight USA popular vote?

That's what D & R voters want,because they haven't changed it.
Guess stupid can,be forever.

Teachers unions.
They want control of everything, including YOU.

BayArea says

Can someone please explain to me why we have the electoral college instead of electing presidents using a straight USA popular vote?

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
No more handful of battleground states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with 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 was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both GA (16 electoral votes) and MO (10).
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes.

HydroCabron says

BayArea says

Can someone please explain to me why we have the electoral college instead of electing presidents using a straight USA popular vote?

Electoral college helps prevent selfish groupthink from populous states like CA, TX and NY from overrunning the rest of the states.

This thread makes interesting reading vis-a-vis how some started whinging about the electoral college only AFTER the Vote.

Without the electoral college, the constitution would have never passed muster. Not saying that slavery wasn't a reason, but there weren't a lot of slaves in Rhode Island or Delaware. There were plenty of slaves in Virginia but they were on the "Big State" side of the arguments.

Because states have rights, we have 50 states.

Straight popular vote and you'll have CA/NY electing everyone, causing many small states to secede from the union as they'll have no reason to stay. Not to mention if Republicans win with straight popular vote, Democrats will scream that electoral college is needed to prevent "majority oppressing minority".

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

The 6 million vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, 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.

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes.

Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 70-80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaign polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits. Their 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.

In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions. 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.

The 12 smallest states are totally ignored in presidential elections. These states are not ignored because they are small, but because they are not closely divided “battleground” states.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population

Before this election, in Gallup polls since they began asking in 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, they matter to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

@otto the shill, NPVIC as written would end democracy in America. Those easily hacked, paperless, proprietary Diebold/PES machines would hand every election to the highest bidder and/or most brazen hacker. Outside candidates like Bernie would have no chance. Quit shilling for that disaster until it is rewritten to protect against fraud, hacking, etc.

The electoral college is the only firewall we have against shenanigans in one state overwhelming the legitimate votes from other states. Until you build a better firewall, you would be reckless and undemocratic to remove the one we have. You refuse to think through the disastrous consequences of your proposal, in your short-sighted greed to get paid for copying and pasting talking points.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida elected the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes.