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

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Wed Nov 8, 2017, 09:48 AM Nov 2017

Let the People Pick the President - By the NYT Editorial Board

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD NOV. 7, 2017

The winners of Tuesday’s elections — Republican or Democrat, for governor, mayor or dogcatcher — all have one thing in common: They received more votes than their opponent. That seems like a pretty fair way to run an electoral race, which is why every election in America uses it — except the most important one of all.

Was it just a year ago that more than 136 million Americans cast their ballots for president, choosing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by nearly three million votes, only to be thwarted by a 200-year-old constitutional anachronism designed in part to appease slaveholders and ratified when no one but white male landowners could vote?

It feels more like, oh, 17 years — the last time, incidentally, that the American people chose one candidate for president and the Electoral College imposed the other.

In both cases the loser was a Democrat, a fact that has tempted more than a few people to dismiss complaints about the Electoral College as nothing but partisan sour grapes. That’s a mistake. For one thing, Republicans nearly suffered the same fate in 2004. A switch of just 60,000 votes in Ohio would have awarded the White House to John Kerry, who lost the national popular vote by roughly the same margin as Mr. Trump. More important, decades of polling have found that Americans of all stripes would prefer that the president be chosen directly by the people and not by 538 party functionaries six weeks after Election Day.

President Trump agrees, or at least he used to. In 2012, when he thought Barack Obama would lose the popular vote but still retake the White House, he called the Electoral College “a disaster for a democracy.” Last November, days after his own victory, Mr. Trump said: “I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this, because it brings all the states into play.”

more
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/opinion/elections-electoral-college-voting.html

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Let the People Pick the President - By the NYT Editorial Board (Original Post) DonViejo Nov 2017 OP
Long overdue genxlib Nov 2017 #1
I would like to see the popular vote determine our president.... Little Star Nov 2017 #2
Make it retroactive Progressive dog Nov 2017 #3
I want to reform the Electoral College, not remove it MurrayDelph Nov 2017 #4
Better, but not good enough TexasBushwhacker Nov 2017 #5

genxlib

(5,547 posts)
1. Long overdue
Wed Nov 8, 2017, 09:57 AM
Nov 2017

But will never happen. There are too many people benefiting from the current system that would have to get on board.

I know there are other work arounds being discussed. I don't care for the interstate compact idea because it seems like the wrong direction. It would effectively be less democratic in order to ensure the desired results.

I think the only potential workable solution is mandated proportional distribution of the electors for every state. It wouldn't be foolproof but would much more closely resemble the popular vote.

Little Star

(17,055 posts)
2. I would like to see the popular vote determine our president....
Wed Nov 8, 2017, 10:02 AM
Nov 2017

The EC failed us miserably when the selected mentally challenged tRump. Ugh!!!

MurrayDelph

(5,304 posts)
4. I want to reform the Electoral College, not remove it
Wed Nov 8, 2017, 12:15 PM
Nov 2017

And I'm saying this as a native Californian who now lives in Oregon.

I think it should be doubly-proportional. If a state (let's use California as an example) has 20% of the registered voters in the country, they should have 20% of the Electoral College votes. If the Democratic candidate then gets 75% of the votes in that state, he/she would get 75% of that state's Electoral College votes, which would be 15% of the national total.

That way, if a red state suddenly reports more Republican votes than there are voters, it may screw their totals, as they can't be awarded 120% of their Electoral votes, but they can't counteract the whole country.

TexasBushwhacker

(20,254 posts)
5. Better, but not good enough
Wed Nov 8, 2017, 08:23 PM
Nov 2017

My biggest beef with the Electoral College system is that a state gets its full quota of EVs regardless of voter turnout. They could have shitty voter turn out and California still gets the same 55 electoral votes as if they had great voter turnout. That's just nuts. It also discourages the minority party votes in all but swing states. Why should my vote for Clinton be meaningless just because I live in a red state?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»Let the People Pick the P...