Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » PET will replace the AHCA. Why not the Electoral College too?
RosieG

PET will replace the AHCA. Why not the Electoral College too?

PET has something "better" in mind than the AHCA. Well why not replace the antiquated Electoral  College with something "better" too? More up-to-date? More relevant? It creaks and reeks with age and infirmity. It is time to retire it and send it off for a long-deserved rest. Replace it with something fresher/younger/better. Like, say the POPULAR vote? That is always going to be current isn't it?

Posted - November 13, 2016
Tags : None

Responses


  • 13268
    Hi Rosie:

    Abolishing the Electoral College will never happen, as it would require at least 38 states to OK a constitutional amendment. That means the 13 smallest states, which have less than 5% of the population, could and would quash it rather than lose what influence they have in presidential elections.
      November 13, 2016 5:49 AM MST
    5

  • 19937
    How much influence do the 13 smallest states have in an election?  I would venture to day, very little.
      November 13, 2016 8:26 AM MST
    0

  • 13268
    My point is that they have more influence with the Electoral College than they would without it, and that's at least partly why they'd oppose a change.
      November 13, 2016 11:00 AM MST
    2

  • 19937
    I understand that, but should a state with a very small population have the same influence as a state like California or New York?  If we went to a popular vote, they would be on the same footing as every other state.  As it is, the electoral votes they have are based on population, is it not?  Some of those states have 2 electoral votes.  How exactly does that give them the influence that California has with 27 (I think) votes?
      November 13, 2016 8:03 PM MST
    0

  • 13268
    California has 55. No state has fewer than three. It's based on the number of US Senators - each state has two - plus the number of Congressional districts - the least populous states have only one.
      November 13, 2016 8:12 PM MST
    0

  • 19937
    OK, so I'm off on the California numbers and the 2 votes.  however, my original point is still the same.  If a state has 3 electoral votes, how does it give them more influence than a state with 55 votes? 
      November 13, 2016 8:16 PM MST
    0

  • 13268
    Not necessarily more, but more than it would have without the Electoral College.
      November 13, 2016 8:48 PM MST
    0

  • 113301
    Oh.  Okey dokey m'dear. Thank you for your reply and the info SB. I can't say it thrills me  because it doesn't. That ain't your fault of course! :( 
      November 13, 2016 10:55 AM MST
    0

  • What would you replace it with Rosie? What are your objections to it now?
      November 13, 2016 8:41 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    I think the popular vote should be all that matters Lago. Gore got screwed in 2000. Hillary is the fifth prez candidate to lose with a large popular vote. They are still counting and her  numbers are increasing,  Why is majority rule so horrible? We have it in the House of Representatives. We have it in the Senate. It's OK there. Why isn't it okay when we elect the prez of the United States? How in the he** does that make any sense at al? You will see a question arising from this. Thanks and Happy Sunday! :)
      November 13, 2016 10:59 AM MST
    0

  • 13268
    Rosie, that's because House and Senate races are local for each CD and state. The Electoral College was created so that results of national elections wouldn't be determined by voters in a few big states such as California, Florida, New York, and Texas.
      November 13, 2016 11:05 AM MST
    2

  • I know that at the end of my respond to that you will say, "well obviously it didn't work this time did it?"
    So before you say it, I'm going to say that perhaps you're right.  
    The ONLY consideration in the implementation of the Electoral College was the notion that the masses are not informed enough and that are too easily confused and dissuaded to be trusted with the decision of determining the next ruler. Back then our founding Padres were concerned with the possibility of a slick Rich guy with English interests coming over here and bamboozling the people into voting for him. So they implemented a check in between.  With the raise of H in Germany, the importance of the Electoral College was reaffirmed as it was believed that it would keep someone like him from ever taking power.  After all, if some rich guy, obviously inept and with no clue, happens to mobilise the populace, at least, these people would stop him by not ratifying the vote.
    We could argue that President Trump was the reason why the College was created to begin with!!!!
    This is when you say, well obviously it didn't work.
    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 13, 2016 6:13 PM MST
      November 13, 2016 11:12 AM MST
    1

  • 13268
    Trump may be a demagogue, but it's quite a stretch to equate him with Hitler. At worst, Mussolini would be a more apt analogy.
      November 13, 2016 5:35 PM MST
    0

  • You know Stu?
    It's interesting you'd say that. The other day I was looking for parallels between Trump and Hitler, when I stumbled upon an old news article. The article made reference to Mussolini in a descriptive fashion. You could have taken that and change the name for trump and it would have still applied. The article was more about his manner than his politics. I could not find that kind of similarities with Hitler. 
    I think you may be onto something. Thanks. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at August 1, 2018 12:52 PM MDT
      November 13, 2016 6:06 PM MST
    1

  • 46117
    Who cares any longer. The creep is already in the house. 
      November 13, 2016 8:06 PM MST
    0