The US National Popular Vote is a little bit closer

[lpetrich]

It's the Senate that was intended to be an elitist institution. Senators were originally appointed by state legislatures, but with the ratification of the 17th Amendment, they were elected by popular vote.

The Electoral College was a last-minute invention, and was intended to be an approximation of the popular vote.

The Founders were worried about the vote being dominated by regional favorites. In present-day terms, let us look at how some Presidential primaries would have turned out with that kind of vote.

Democrats 2020: New England: Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, New York City: Michael Bloomberg, Mid-Atlantic States: Joe BIden, Southern States: Beto O'Rourke, Great Lakes States: Pete Buttigieg, Great Plains States: Amy Klobuchar, Rocky Mountains States: John Hickenlooper, California: Kamala Harris, Pacific Northwest: Jay Inslee

Republicans 2016: Northeast: Ben Carson, New York City: Donald Trump, Mid-Atlantic States: Chris Christie, Florida: Marco Rubio, Texas: Ted Cruz, Southern States: Mike Huckabee


Originally, the electors were to vote for two candidates, with the one with the most votes becoming the President and the the one with the next most votes becoming the Vice President.

Donald Trump as Joe Biden's Vice President?

The first three elections worked something like that, but in 1800, the candidates ran as President-VP slates: Democratic-Republicans Thomas Jefferson & Aaron Burr vs. Federalists John Adams & Charles Cotesworth Pinckney with one Federalist voting for John Jay instead of CCP to help JA become elected.

This threw the election into the House, and that election was deadlocked for 35 votes before some Reps decided to cast blank votes and let Thomas Jefferson win.

This led to the 12th Amendment and the current procedure of voting separately for President and Vice President. But the candidates for those two offices still run together, as a ticket.

 

[Politesse]

I get a little tired of arguments about the "Founding Fathers" and their intentions.

They didn't all agree with each other, and nine times out of ten if you actually hit the books on any of these conversations, you quickly realize that they very specifically did not agree about most of those very issues over which their ghosts are so often but vaguely invoked today. The Electoral College, the Bill of Rights, the scope of the branches of government, all of these things were as contentious then as they are now. And even if they weren't, for very obvious reasons they also understood the Union in fundamentally different terms than we do now. The Civil War and its messy resolution greatly changed the character of the federal government and the way the public and politicians alike perceive it. So did the World Wars. Even the collapse or depreciation of the once powerful European and Asian monarchies and their replacement in some cases with communist autocracies greatly changed how people thought about the justification of governments and the status of the "democratic experiment".

No one is really advocating for model of government that an 18th century politician would either understand or endorse. Not the Republicans, not the Democrats, not anybody. And it would be ridiculous to do so, because we don't live in that world. Aside from a few harmless loonies like Jon Townsend, very few of us would wish to do so.

I live in a representative democracy, at least in theory. If you want to float a proposal, tell me why I should want it, not why a cherry-picked list of half mythical and very poorly remembered official Country Daddies speculatively might have wanted it.

 

[TomC]

The Electoral College is one the last of the many decrepit institutions that needs to fall before true electoral parity can be reached, and if you think the American public loves this institution too much to give it up, then I dare you to put it to a vote. Because most Americans are unhappy with the present system, and painting it as a purely partisan issue is not accurate.

Bingo!

The only problem I have with simply eliminating the EC with a Constitutional Amendment is that I don't trust the idiots in Washington who would be deciding how to go about that.

That's why I support the Nationalpopularvote.com plan which sidesteps the idiots, and gets it done without getting them involved.

I simply do not trust Washington. And we don't need them.
Tom

 

[TomC]

I get a little tired of arguments about the "Founding Fathers" and their intentions.

This^^^^

The Founders were shaped by and lived in a profoundly different world than 21st century USA.

Back then, states were darned near sovereign. Now, vernaculars aside, they're provinces. And POTUS wasn't expected to have much influence over domestic affairs, POTUS was expected to represent the USA to foreign governments. He(of course it was assumed to be a "he") was charged with negotiating deals and treaties and prosecuting military operations. He wasn't expected to have opinions about federal policies about income taxes, immigration, or health care. Those issues didn't exist.


Nowadays, people treat the Constitution like Holy Writ, and the Founding Fathers like ancient prophets delivering the Word of God. They cherry pick the parts they like and hold them sacrosanct, then shrug off the parts they're less inclined towards and "reinterpret" them.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

It's curious that the US Electoral College has seldom been imitated, if ever. Elections are either by the popular vote or else more indirectly, by legislatures.

US state governors are all elected by popular vote, for instance.

GOP governor candidate: Colorado should have electoral system | 9news.com - 7:30 PM MDT May 18, 2022 - "Under Greg Lopez’s proposal, the 2018 gubernatorial race would have been a runaway win for Republicans, who lost the actual race by double-digits."

Coloradans have elected just one Republican governor in the last 50 years. A current GOP candidate for governor has an idea that could change that: stop counting each vote equally.

Former Parker Mayor Greg Lopez, who holds the top line on the 2022 Republican primary ballot, says Colorado should create an electoral college system for electing candidates to statewide office.

The plan, which would be the first of its kind on the state level, would give far more voting power to Coloradans in rural, conservative counties and dilute the voting power of Coloradans in more populous urban and suburban areas. Even as turnout numbers vary over time, the sheer number of rural conservative counties would create a built-in advantage for Republicans.

...
Lopez said his electoral college plan would weight counties’ votes based on their voter turnout percentage to encourage turnout.

“I’ve already got the plan in place,” Lopez said. “The most that any county can get is 11 electoral college votes. The least that a county can get is three.”

 

[Toni]

Certainly, small states lack leverage...

I think the EC was instituted for the benefit of large land owners, not small States.

It was really enacted because the founding fathers wanted to ensure the 'right' people's votes counted.

That said, it is a check against the numbers in more populous states.

You say that as though large demographics are unaware of and unconcerned about people different from them. Large demographics like "urbanites", or live in populous states.

I see it as just the opposite. Big states are more representative of the American people as a whole. Urbanites are more inclined to recognize people unlike themselves, because they live around them and interact daily.

Rural folks don't need the right to overrule the rest of us with extra voting power.
Tom

People are more likely to recognize and relate to people with whom they share an obvious common bond, such as where they live.

It is a misconception that small towns and rural areas are all or mostly white, that they do not experience poverty and hunger( it’s actually worse in rural areas), or enjoy or create art, music, theatre, engage in science, education, go to college, enjoy eating in decent restaurants, enjoy (or write!) books or movies, etc. there’s a stereotype of small town America that is part Mayberry RFD and part Deliverance. Both are fantasies.

You and I grew up in the same county, only a few years apart. Even when we were kids, in that pretty darn white area, those stereotypes did not hold true. Hell, I couldn’t wait to get out of there because I felt like I was the only person who loved art and theater and science and language. I believed those stereotypes, too. That county is no longer almost all white or Christian. In fact, there is at least one Sikh temple right smack in the middle of what used to be a nice field of soybeans.

There always was more diversity in rural and small town US than I s commonly represented in the media.

 

[Politesse]

It's curious that the US Electoral College has seldom been imitated, if ever. Elections are either by the popular vote or else more indirectly, by legislatures.

It's been imitated quite a few times, actually! The list of prosperous and happy nations where you can live free from fears of a true popular vote include Barbados, Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, the Vatican State, and Vanuatu.

 

[lpetrich]

Looking in  List of electoral systems by country and  List of countries by system of government I find that in strong-president and semi-presidential systems, the President is almostly invariably elected by popular vote. The US is the main exception.

But in parliamentary republics, only some heads of state are elected by popular vote, with the others being elected by legislatures. Heads of state? Parliamentary systems distinguish them from heads of government, the acting leaders, also elected by legislature.

 

[Toni]

Here is a good discussion of the pros and cons of the electoral college:

Electoral College Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against

Proponents say the Electoral College ensures everyone selects the president. Opponents say it allows only a few states to select the president.

www.procon.org

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.

We have a WalMart, and it did destroy a lot of local businesses. But they pay a starting wage of $18.50, and $22/hr starting pay for night shift.
I don't keep up with minimum wage changes, but I don't think that's it.

Yup--I don't know exactly what they pay but they typically pay more than the small businesses they replaced. The losers are the small businesses, not the workers. It's just the left hates them because they are rabidly anti-union.

 

[TomC]

Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.

We have a WalMart, and it did destroy a lot of local businesses. But they pay a starting wage of $18.50, and $22/hr starting pay for night shift.
I don't keep up with minimum wage changes, but I don't think that's it.

Yup--I don't know exactly what they pay but they typically pay more than the small businesses they replaced. The losers are the small businesses, not the workers. It's just the left hates them because they are rabidly anti-union.

I'm not leftist and that's not why I hate them.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

It's curious that the US Electoral College has seldom been imitated, if ever. Elections are either by the popular vote or else more indirectly, by legislatures.

It's been imitated quite a few times, actually! The list of prosperous and happy nations where you can live free from fears of a true popular vote include Barbados, Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, the Vatican State, and Vanuatu.

Look more closely. None of those are imitations of the US Electoral College. Here is your entire list:

• Popular vote: Burundi, Kazakhstan, Madagascar
• Election by legislature: Barbados, Estonia, Myanmar (pre-coup), Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu
• Election by immediate subordinates: Vatican City

 

[Gun Nut]

Nowadays, people treat the Constitution like Holy Writ, and the Founding Fathers like ancient prophets delivering the Word of God. They cherry pick the parts they like and hold them sacrosanct, then shrug off the parts they're less inclined towards and "reinterpret" them.
Tom

This is part of the harm religion does to people... It creates this handicap of the thought process.

 

[Gun Nut]

Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.

We have a WalMart, and it did destroy a lot of local businesses. But they pay a starting wage of $18.50, and $22/hr starting pay for night shift.
I don't keep up with minimum wage changes, but I don't think that's it.

Yup--I don't know exactly what they pay but they typically pay more than the small businesses they replaced. The losers are the small businesses, not the workers. It's just the left hates them because they are rabidly anti-union.

being anti-union is being anti-American. To be against Unions is to be against freedom to assemble and freedom of speech.

 

[Politesse]

People are more likely to recognize and relate to people with whom they share an obvious common bond, such as where they live.

Most people don't live in rural areas, as will always be true, because rural areas are defined as places of low population density. This is simple mathematics.

But almost everyone lives near a rural area, and moreover knows that their state's rural population and industries are important for the common good. Find me a single Californian, Texan, or Floridian, who is unaware of rural issues like poverty, water usage, inadequate medical care, support for agriculture, limited educational opportunities, etc, etc, etc. You might have better luck finding a New Yorker who has never left town, but I bet you'd still have your work cut out for you. I don't personally know very many New Yorkers, but I bet most of them have heard of farms.

It is a misconception that small towns and rural areas are all or mostly white, that they do not experience poverty and hunger( it’s actually worse in rural areas), or enjoy or create art, music, theatre, engage in science, education, go to college, enjoy eating in decent restaurants, enjoy (or write!) books or movies, etc. there’s a stereotype of small town America that is part Mayberry RFD and part Deliverance. Both are fantasies.

The only fantasy I see here is your belief that the rest of us are somehow unaware of very basic facts about the countryside and/or desert. Who the hell thinks country folk are all rich white people (who paradoxically don't own books or watch movies I guess? How did they make all that money if they couldn't read?)

I have literally never met a Californian who was unaware of the existence of Mexican farm workers in our state, or a Texan who doesn't know that there are Indian Reservations in their state, or a Floridian who had never heard of freaking poverty. Keeping their minority yaps silent is a major reason why national politicians don't want the popular vote in the first place: fully enfranchising all Americans would give too much power, not too little, to non-whites and the poor.

There always was more diversity in rural and small town US than I s commonly represented in the media.

If that's true, why would it help in any way to steal voting power away from rural people, around a sixth of which live in the four most populous and therefore most severly depreciated states? How is calculating away the power of their vote supposed to help them in any way? 2 million rural Californians, 2 million rural Floridians, 3 million rural New Yorkers, and 3 million rural Texans would also like an equal vote in national politics. By what right should they be denied it? If it's wrong to take voting power away from people because of where they live, then the Electoral College is wrong.

 

[Politesse]

It's curious that the US Electoral College has seldom been imitated, if ever. Elections are either by the popular vote or else more indirectly, by legislatures.

It's been imitated quite a few times, actually! The list of prosperous and happy nations where you can live free from fears of a true popular vote include Barbados, Burundi, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Madagascar, Myanmar, Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, the Vatican State, and Vanuatu.

Look more closely. None of those are imitations of the US Electoral College. Here is your entire list:

• Popular vote: Burundi, Kazakhstan, Madagascar
• Election by legislature: Barbados, Estonia, Myanmar (pre-coup), Pakistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Vanuatu
• Election by immediate subordinates: Vatican City

A good point, and I concede it.

 

[Toni]

Plenty of part time minimum wage jobs. At Walmart.

We have a WalMart, and it did destroy a lot of local businesses. But they pay a starting wage of $18.50, and $22/hr starting pay for night shift.
I don't keep up with minimum wage changes, but I don't think that's it.

Yup--I don't know exactly what they pay but they typically pay more than the small businesses they replaced. The losers are the small businesses, not the workers. It's just the left hates them because they are rabidly anti-union.

Nope: The workers are not winners. Their schedules are unpredictable, precluding obtaining a second job. They are forced to engage in company unity cheers. They are kept to part time hours and treated as disposable.

 

[Toni]

People are more likely to recognize and relate to people with whom they share an obvious common bond, such as where they live.

Most people don't live in rural areas, as will always be true, because rural areas are defined as places of low population density. This is simple mathematics.

But almost everyone lives near a rural area, and moreover knows that their state's rural population and industries are important for the common good. Find me a single Californian, Texan, or Floridian, who is unaware of rural issues like poverty, water usage, inadequate medical care, support for agriculture, limited educational opportunities, etc, etc, etc. You might have better luck finding a New Yorker who has never left town, but I bet you'd still have your work cut out for you. I don't personally know very many New Yorkers, but I bet most of them have heard of farms.

It is a misconception that small towns and rural areas are all or mostly white, that they do not experience poverty and hunger( it’s actually worse in rural areas), or enjoy or create art, music, theatre, engage in science, education, go to college, enjoy eating in decent restaurants, enjoy (or write!) books or movies, etc. there’s a stereotype of small town America that is part Mayberry RFD and part Deliverance. Both are fantasies.

The only fantasy I see here is your belief that the rest of us are somehow unaware of very basic facts about the countryside and/or desert. Who the hell thinks country folk are all rich white people (who paradoxically don't own books or watch movies I guess? How did they make all that money if they couldn't read?)

I have literally never met a Californian who was unaware of the existence of Mexican farm workers in our state, or a Texan who doesn't know that there are Indian Reservations in their state, or a Floridian who had never heard of freaking poverty. Keeping their minority yaps silent is a major reason why national politicians don't want the popular vote in the first place: fully enfranchising all Americans would give too much power, not too little, to non-whites and the poor.

There always was more diversity in rural and small town US than I s commonly represented in the media.

If that's true, why would it help in any way to steal voting power away from rural people, around a sixth of which live in the four most populous and therefore most severly depreciated states? How is calculating away the power of their vote supposed to help them in any way? 2 million rural Californians, 2 million rural Floridians, 3 million rural New Yorkers, and 3 million rural Texans would also like an equal vote in national politics. By what right should they be denied it? If it's wrong to take voting power away from people because of where they live, then the Electoral College is wrong.

Heh. I married me a city boy —from NYC, as a matter of fact. Now, after 45 years of marriage and more than 30 of those years in a small city surrounded by farmland…. He can correctly identify corn growing in the field,provided it is tall enough, sheep, cows and horses from the car as we drive past. We’re working on soybeans. I was impressed the other day when he recognized a farmer was doing an early cutting of hay. That was a first! We even talked a little about the species of hay and advantages, etc. depending on the animal it’s intended to feed. He’s coming along.

City folks may have heard of farms but they mostly have either very romantic ideas of farm life or are completely clueless as to any of the issues.

I lived on the edge of large cities for 11 years. I watched the news, listened to people talk. They had heard of farms but that’s about as far as it went. I doubt very many are aware that cows have more than one stomach or how much manure one puts out or how long it takes to get a hog or a cow to market, or a crop of anything, for that matter. Although the popularity of farmer’s markets and the eat local movement ts have improved upon that.

 

[TomC]

Heh. I married me a city boy —from NYC, as a matter of fact. Now, after 45 years of marriage and more than 30 of those years in a small city surrounded by farmland…. He can correctly identify corn growing in the field,provided it is tall enough, sheep, cows and horses from the car as we drive past. We’re working on soybeans.

Your anecdote is adorable, but irrelevant.

Plenty of people who didn't grow up on a farm are capable of grasping the concerns of others. Frankly, more urban people are better at that level of empathy than rural people because they're more accustomed to getting along with people very different from them.
Tom

 

[TomC]

being anti-union is being anti-American. To be against Unions is to be against freedom to assemble and freedom of speech.

Unions and their leadership have been appallingly abusive occasionally in the past.

But the bottom line remains. Unions are equalisers. They help level the playing field between investors/management and workers/producers. And that is a Big part of how America Became Great in the first place.
Tom