Posted on Nov 8, 2016
What are your feelings on the electoral college representatives of NY, CA, and HI pledging their votes before the state results?
4.56K
22
23
2
2
0
Responses: 11
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
The system is what prevents major city centers from having complete representation while "outlying areas" have none. We need the EC to spread the power back to the People.
The "flaws" in the system is that we have massively different sized states like California with 50+ votes (same issue with city centers), and that States have "winner take all laws." Get rid of Winner Take All and the system would generally self-correct.
The "flaws" in the system is that we have massively different sized states like California with 50+ votes (same issue with city centers), and that States have "winner take all laws." Get rid of Winner Take All and the system would generally self-correct.
(3)
(0)
CDR Terry Boles
I've often said this seems to be an outdated voting system. It appears the Electoral College does not represent the entire population and with the concept that the PEOPLE send elected representatives to Washington to represent US, then it should be the popular vote. Not sure why the Electoral College is still here, but my thoughts. Good question..
(0)
(0)
SGT Jerrold Pesz
Without the electoral college most states would be insignificant. California and New York could almost elect a president on their own. With the electoral college they still have the most votes but there is a ceiling. If everyone in CA votes for a candidate they still have 55 votes. Without that they could outvote most of the rest of the country. I find that objectionable. I don't want the entire country ran by the liberal nut cases on the left coast. This is even more of a problem since they are bringing in illegals by the millions and signing them up to vote.
(0)
(0)
SSG G Smith
I hear you on the ability of the bigger states being able to choose a president on their own. I wouldn't take away the states electoral votes but make them follow the majority vote if that makes sense. Candidate A should not be able to have more votes in the state but lose that states electoral votes to candidate B because the majority of the state legislature is of an opposing party.
(0)
(0)
I have not seen the final popular vote numbers, but the last time I checked Hillary was slightly ahead. I can see why the left would like to get rid of the process, because most of their support/votes come from the large cities and they could merely go to those locations and win the elections. Under what you suggest would have given us Gore and another Clinton. NO THANKS, I'm still on board with the Founding Fathers.
(2)
(0)
SGT Jerrold Pesz
Actually Hillary won CA and NY by a total of several million votes. A direct election system would allow the left to pretty much win all elections from now on without even bothering with about 2/3 of the nation. Just for example 30 states voted for Trump but Hillary had about a million more popular votes. That means that the people in about 2/3 of the country would have no say. As for electors not voting the way their state decided that is controlled by the states.
(1)
(0)
We're electing the ELECTORS who have ALREADY PLEDGED THEIR VOTES.
That's how our system works.
The Popular vote is designed to give a "semblance of democracy" but it is NOT Democracy. Just like voting for a Senator or Representative does not guarantee they will vote the way you want them to. Electors (Electoral College) is no different.
That's why there are things called "faithless elector laws" to force electors to stick to their pledges.
That's how our system works.
The Popular vote is designed to give a "semblance of democracy" but it is NOT Democracy. Just like voting for a Senator or Representative does not guarantee they will vote the way you want them to. Electors (Electoral College) is no different.
That's why there are things called "faithless elector laws" to force electors to stick to their pledges.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next