Use the Electoral College the way it was intended

Use the Electoral College the way it was intended(change.org)

9 points by btcboss 9 years ago | 24 comments

ng12 9 years ago |

> Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.

The Electoral College is in the constitution. The popular vote has never been a method for electing the president by design.

btcboss 9 years ago | |

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

ng12 9 years ago | | |

Exactly. Hamilton (and most founding fathers) distrusted direct democracy. A more reasonable petition would be to go the other way -- get states to elect real Electors instead of making the presidential race pseudo-populist.

smelterdemon 9 years ago | |

The Electoral College is in the constitution to stop a demagogue from taking office.

k8t 9 years ago | |

I don't particularly feel strong about this petition, but I don't think the argument "because it's the constitution" is a good one. I can imagine the constitution being outdated for certain reasons and I don't think it's a big deal to adapt to the changes.

MrZongle2 9 years ago | | |

"I don't particularly feel strong about this petition, but I don't think the argument "because it's the constitution" is a good one."

I respectfully disagree. I think the fact that it is in the Constitution should give anyone pause about changing it. That's not to say that it should not (or could not) be changed, but this isn't just something that an Executive Order by the current President could change. This is a Congressional responsibility.

This petition is absurd and pointless.

loco5niner 9 years ago | | |

I think it's a bad idea to change the constitution just because an election didn't turn out the way some people wanted it to.

serge2k 9 years ago | |

and? The constitution has had loads of dumb things in it that have had to be changed.

Americans seem to worship this 250 year old piece of paper. They put in an amendment process for good reasons.

bdcravens 9 years ago | | |

Exactly. So let's change via amendment, not via a petition website. Line up 2/3 of congress to propose, and then 3/4 of the states to ratify.

roryisok 9 years ago | |

It's a daft system you have, but its what you have

bbctol 9 years ago |

If people are worried about a Donald Trump presidency because they're afraid he'll break norms, tear down established systems, and use his elected status to remove any independent/non-populist institution, it is not a good idea to start with this.

serge2k 9 years ago |

1. She won a plurality of the popular vote. Yes, it's winning but it's not even a majority.

2. You don't get to just toss out rules because you lost. 3 days ago people were shitting on trump for this type of rhetoric.

3. The fact that the electoral college exists fucks up the popular vote. A republican has no voice in California, and a democrat has none in Texas. Having it be an actual popular vote would change voter behaviour pretty drastically.

4. The electoral college is not a system which values votes equally. A vote in California is worth less than a vote in wyoming. Some people like that because of the idea of tyranny of the majority. Some people say that's ridiculous and a popular vote is the only good system. Figure it out for yourself, I say that geographic based representation is why we have the senate. Of course I like the democrats and the coastal population centers would be a massive boost.

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...

6. Fight for an amendment. Ranked voting in a popular vote based presidential election? Guess what not you can vote for bernie and johnson first before your vote finally goes to Clinton, instead of being whiny and ruining things for the rest of us.

aglavine 9 years ago |

A different system would have leaded to different outcome. You can't expect voters behaving the same when the rules change.

Also, Arrow's theorem is valid for any system

bdcravens 9 years ago | |

Exactly. Texas and California were pretty much in the bag from the get-go; I'm sure if winning the state was irrelevant, more voters may have come out.

roryisok 9 years ago |

I really can't see this happening. There's no precedent and it would lead to serious civil unrest.

mentifex 9 years ago | |

Fathers! Keep Donald "Grab 'em by the pussy" Trump away from your daughters.

bdcravens 9 years ago |

If we want the electors to vote with their conscience, and not blindly accept who won what states (2 candidates coming out of conventions is absolutely NOT what the forefathers intended) then perhaps Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders still have a very good chance? Otherwise it sounds like the petition is calling for keeping and trusting the system as it has always been, except at the very last moment.

bdcravens 9 years ago |

It's worth noting that for much of the night, per the media, Trump had a 1m+ popular vote advantage. If it had turned the other way (Clinton victory w/ Trump popular vote win) people would be screaming if the Trump camp called for this.

btcboss 9 years ago | |

It has nothing to do with popular vote. It has to do with qualifications. EC is intended to keep out unqualified candidates -> As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

And if that were to happen (Clinton victory w/ Trump popular vote win), trump would say the election was rigged and fuel fires to an uprising.

bdcravens 9 years ago | | |

This assumes Clinton would meet the standard while Trump would fail it. Between Whitewatergate, her husband's impeachment hearings, Benghazi, enabling her husband's womanizing, the improprieties with the Clinton Foundation, and more, such a standard may make her ineligible as well. I think being a bad person isn't what the founders had in mind.

I also think they would have been appalled at the idea of someone who's political achievements cannot be disentangled from who they married. After all, the founding fathers weren't exactly fans of royalty.

If we want to apply intent, then the question is who would our next president be, Cruz or Sanders?