Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Polybius

(15,706 posts)
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 04:17 AM Jan 2023

Do you favor the removal of the Electoral College?

Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2023, 04:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Simple question, I'm curious to see what the support is here for eliminating the Electoral College. Should we keep it? Support a Constitutional Amendment to repeal it? National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (which could get struck down by the Supreme Court)? Something else?


142 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I support a Constitutional Amendment repealing it and switching to the Popular Vote
131 (92%)
Keep it for now, but instead focus on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
4 (3%)
Keep it just the way it is
7 (5%)
Other (please explain)
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do you favor the removal of the Electoral College? (Original Post) Polybius Jan 2023 OP
Been saying this for over 30 years. KS Toronado Jan 2023 #1
It outlived its usefulness long ago. But Constitutional Amendments Buns_of_Fire Jan 2023 #2
It's the only thing that gives republicans Woodswalker Jan 2023 #3
Both Option 1 and Option 2. Mike Niendorff Jan 2023 #4
Second that motion. planetc Jan 2023 #35
Agreed. Either way, it needs to go. nt crickets Jan 2023 #41
Am I figuring this right Maine Abu El Banat Jan 2023 #5
Kennedy probably wouldn't have retired Polybius Jan 2023 #25
Yes. It's outlived its usefulness. AngryOldDem Jan 2023 #6
Yes. I actually see a little bit of abstract logic in it, but it is too wildly skewed Tom Rinaldo Jan 2023 #7
Perhaps if the EC more closely resembled where people live Bettie Jan 2023 #9
Yup, something along those lines. Or if each state minimally got two "Senatorial" EC votes, but Tom Rinaldo Jan 2023 #12
Yes, it is Bettie Jan 2023 #13
Biggest Issue For Me... ProfessorGAC Jan 2023 #44
I support it, but it will never happen Bettie Jan 2023 #8
+1, they're doubling down on voter suppression cause how good it works uponit7771 Jan 2023 #14
They aren't even hiding their intentions anymore Bettie Jan 2023 #17
I haven't seen it but don't put it past there treasonous asses!!! uponit7771 Jan 2023 #21
The ERA came so close Polybius Jan 2023 #27
Yes, but misogyny is really powerful Bettie Jan 2023 #28
A good portion of the misogyny is practiced by women themselves. Ligyron Jan 2023 #36
A good portion of the misogyny is practiced by women themselves. Ligyron Jan 2023 #37
Yeah, it is frustrating Bettie Jan 2023 #39
Absolutely. And something needs to be done about 2 senators representing a state with Vinca Jan 2023 #10
That part might be even harder to fix Polybius Jan 2023 #26
Unless the Democratic majority keeps getting larger and larger. milestogo Jan 2023 #30
It'll never go that large Polybius Jan 2023 #31
I'd expand Congress Sympthsical Jan 2023 #11
This sounds easier uponit7771 Jan 2023 #15
If only we could remove the Repuke Party, then the Electoral College would be fine FakeNoose Jan 2023 #16
I'm not a fan of the smallest states have WAY more influence than the largest. It's not right. themaguffin Jan 2023 #18
It's not like that in the House - the large states get way more representation, as they should FakeNoose Jan 2023 #19
Of course & I get the Senate structure, but at a certain point it's absurd & we have long passed it themaguffin Jan 2023 #20
Interstate Compact is a MUCH easier reach than Amendment JCMach1 Jan 2023 #22
But it reeks of getting struck down Polybius Jan 2023 #23
I also want the Senate burned to the ground. maxsolomon Jan 2023 #24
There's no way for them to gerrymander Senate seats. Ligyron Jan 2023 #38
Since there is no way to get rid of it...what does it matter...and Interstate compact won't Demsrule86 Jan 2023 #29
National Popular Vote mvymvy Jan 2023 #32
How can giving us edhopper Jan 2023 #33
Kick! Polybius Jan 2023 #34
I want it to be a dual-representative method. MurrayDelph Jan 2023 #40
How would the number of R voters exceed the number of registered voters? former9thward Jan 2023 #42
If one of those election-denying Republicans had won their Secretary of State election MurrayDelph Jan 2023 #43
Elections don't work that way. former9thward Jan 2023 #45
A year ago we were told if voter suppression reform wasn't passed, we'd never win elections again Polybius Jan 2023 #47
red states will never let it happen BlueWaveNeverEnd Jan 2023 #46
Yep Polybius Feb 2023 #48
While we're wishing for impossible things, I'd like the Second Amendment repealed... LastLiberal in PalmSprings Jan 2024 #49

Buns_of_Fire

(17,290 posts)
2. It outlived its usefulness long ago. But Constitutional Amendments
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 04:42 AM
Jan 2023

may also be a thing of the past (at least for the foreseeable future). Go with the Compact for now. It's probably the path of least resistance. If the Supremes screw the country over (again), use their decision to help promote an amendment. (And be prepared for the most-affected states - and especially the GQP - to be strongly against it either way.)

 

Woodswalker

(549 posts)
3. It's the only thing that gives republicans
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 04:54 AM
Jan 2023

the possibility of winning Presidential elections. They would never give it up and any attempt at doing away with it would cause a holy shit storm.

Mike Niendorff

(3,482 posts)
4. Both Option 1 and Option 2.
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 05:44 AM
Jan 2023

In the absence of a viable Constitutional Amendment, the interstate compact is by far the next best option.

Let's go.


MDN

Maine Abu El Banat

(3,479 posts)
5. Am I figuring this right
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 07:10 AM
Jan 2023

But if we went by the popular vote. Clarence Thomas would be the lone "conservative" vote on the court. Assuming Gore ran and won reelection.

AngryOldDem

(14,065 posts)
6. Yes. It's outlived its usefulness.
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 07:56 AM
Jan 2023

And while I’m here, I’d also like to see redistricting taken away from state legislatures and given to citizens committees and demographic experts.

I’ve had enough of districts that look like they were designed by Rube Goldberg, especially in those areas that are trending blue. I live in one such district and I lost a really good Democratic state senator to a GOP idiot. That chafes.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,924 posts)
7. Yes. I actually see a little bit of abstract logic in it, but it is too wildly skewed
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 08:57 AM
Jan 2023

Different regions can have significantly different, valid self interests. At it's best the electoral college could serve as a check to help protect domination of minority interests by a majority, or more specifically, preventing sparsely populated regions from being overly exploited by majorities elsewhere making ill advised use of their land and resources through imposed national policies...

That's in theory. In practice it is the minority that dominates the majority under the current electoral college. The formula used to determine electoral votes is simply too far out of whack to bear any resemblance to fair. I of course understand the democratic principle behind relying solely on the popular vote to elect a President, and I would far prefer that to the current system. But the United States has a huge land mass and it has its roots as a Confederation. There are examples, like N.A.T.O. or the EU, where member units retain a degree of power as entities, rather than having their population count be dissolved into on big election melting pot.

Bettie

(16,231 posts)
9. Perhaps if the EC more closely resembled where people live
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 09:13 AM
Jan 2023

it would work better, say if the house were large enough to accurately reflect population?

Tom Rinaldo

(22,924 posts)
12. Yup, something along those lines. Or if each state minimally got two "Senatorial" EC votes, but
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 10:16 AM
Jan 2023

up to 10, based on which population tier they fell in. So a state like CA would get five times the "Senatorial" EC votes as, say, Idaho.

Shifting to a straight popular vote though is easier to grasp quickly and defend and far preferred to what we have now.

Bettie

(16,231 posts)
13. Yes, it is
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 10:27 AM
Jan 2023

But, either other solution would be a decent bridge until we can get a constitutional amendment through, which is virtually impossible these days.

ProfessorGAC

(66,086 posts)
44. Biggest Issue For Me...
Wed Jan 25, 2023, 07:48 PM
Jan 2023

...is that the writings of some framers justify it as a way to create a buffer between the people & office in the event a populist demagogue came along. The Electors could vote their conscience.
But, a very long time ago, states adjusted their rules that bound electors to vote for the PV winner in that state. So, for me, the best argument for the EC went useless more than a century ago.

Bettie

(16,231 posts)
8. I support it, but it will never happen
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 09:11 AM
Jan 2023

we couldn't even get the ERA and right wingers hate fair elections even more than they do women.

Bettie

(16,231 posts)
17. They aren't even hiding their intentions anymore
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 10:38 AM
Jan 2023

did you see that guy in Wisconsin bragging about how he suppressed Black voters in Milwaukee?

Bettie

(16,231 posts)
28. Yes, but misogyny is really powerful
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 05:27 PM
Jan 2023

the hate for women in this country is why I don't see us ever having a woman as president.

Ligyron

(7,700 posts)
36. A good portion of the misogyny is practiced by women themselves.
Wed Jan 25, 2023, 04:08 PM
Jan 2023

That's the part that drives me absolutely nuts.

If women banded together in serious numbers instead of voting for their own subjugation this could be a whole different country.

Ligyron

(7,700 posts)
37. A good portion of the misogyny is practiced by women themselves.
Wed Jan 25, 2023, 04:08 PM
Jan 2023

That's the part that drives me absolutely nuts.

If women banded together in serious numbers instead of voting for their own subjugation this could be a whole different country.

Bettie

(16,231 posts)
39. Yeah, it is frustrating
Wed Jan 25, 2023, 04:19 PM
Jan 2023

I am related to a whole bunch of women who raise their daughters to be second class citizens.

Vinca

(50,406 posts)
10. Absolutely. And something needs to be done about 2 senators representing a state with
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 09:16 AM
Jan 2023

under a million people and 2 senators representing a state with tens of millions of people.

Polybius

(15,706 posts)
31. It'll never go that large
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 05:37 PM
Jan 2023

We would need 67 votes (we have 51 now) in the Senate and 290 (we have 212 now) in the House. But even if we did get massive majorities not seen since FDR, there's zero chance that 38 states will ever vote for it. The smaller states aren't giving up their power. I kinda can't blame them either.

Sympthsical

(9,238 posts)
11. I'd expand Congress
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 10:07 AM
Jan 2023

435 members of the House isn't etched in stone on some holy tablet.

You can create a more proportional system while still still maintaining balancing things out between different states and regions. It wouldn't take an amendment, either.

FakeNoose

(33,409 posts)
16. If only we could remove the Repuke Party, then the Electoral College would be fine
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 10:33 AM
Jan 2023

It's the Repukes that have abused (or tried to abuse) the inherent weaknesses in the Electoral College system for the past 22 years. They've been amply rewarded for this, and therefore we KNOW they'll continue to do it. That's why the EC needs to be abolished, because we can't abolish the Repukes. Unfortunately.

FakeNoose

(33,409 posts)
19. It's not like that in the House - the large states get way more representation, as they should
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 10:51 AM
Jan 2023

Our systems is bi-cameral. We have two Houses for legislation, the Senate and the House of Representatives. It was set up that way originally because each house has its purpose. Leave it to the Repukes to find ways to abuse both, every chance they get.

They have now found a way to abuse the judicial system as well, so our checks and balances have been imperiled.

I'm agreeing that the Electoral College must be abolished, but not for the same reason that you state.

maxsolomon

(33,620 posts)
24. I also want the Senate burned to the ground.
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 03:02 PM
Jan 2023

500K people in WY have as much representation as 40 million people in CA. 80:1 ratio.

And yes, I'm aware that the Senate represents States and not population, but the disproportion is now absurd.

Ligyron

(7,700 posts)
38. There's no way for them to gerrymander Senate seats.
Wed Jan 25, 2023, 04:14 PM
Jan 2023

That's about the only good thing that comes to mind.

Demsrule86

(69,096 posts)
29. Since there is no way to get rid of it...what does it matter...and Interstate compact won't
Mon Jan 23, 2023, 05:28 PM
Jan 2023

withstand court challenges.

mvymvy

(309 posts)
32. National Popular Vote
Tue Jan 24, 2023, 12:15 PM
Jan 2023

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population.

Instead, State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.

In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.

The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes state statewide 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.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.

The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes.

The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

NationalPopularVote.com

edhopper

(33,972 posts)
33. How can giving us
Tue Jan 24, 2023, 12:18 PM
Jan 2023

two of the worse Presidents in History not be the strongest argument to get rid of it?

MurrayDelph

(5,333 posts)
40. I want it to be a dual-representative method.
Wed Jan 25, 2023, 04:36 PM
Jan 2023

Using numbers for example purposes.

The Electoral College would have, say 10,000 votes. If California has 10% of the country's eligible voters, they would have 1000 votes. If the election gave Democrats 85%, Republicans 13%, and Green 2%, their candidates would get 850, 130, and 20 votes respectively.

This way it would still be based on actual votes, but you would not have some state (let's call it Florida. Or Texas), where the number of Republican votes exceeds the number of registered voters.

And states would be disincentivised to suppress voter registration, as it would reduce the number of EC votes that state would get.

MurrayDelph

(5,333 posts)
43. If one of those election-denying Republicans had won their Secretary of State election
Wed Jan 25, 2023, 07:17 PM
Jan 2023

Every election would be won by Republicans regardless of how many voters there actually are in that state.

former9thward

(32,376 posts)
45. Elections don't work that way.
Wed Jan 25, 2023, 09:13 PM
Jan 2023

There are way too many checks and balances for that to happen. You are presenting a CT which is just a far off as the election deniers.

Polybius

(15,706 posts)
47. A year ago we were told if voter suppression reform wasn't passed, we'd never win elections again
Thu Jan 26, 2023, 01:23 AM
Jan 2023

We did fine in 2022.

49. While we're wishing for impossible things, I'd like the Second Amendment repealed...
Fri Jan 12, 2024, 09:05 PM
Jan 2024

...and a night of mind-blowing sex with the cute girl who lives next door.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Do you favor the removal ...