Democratic Party VP nominee Tim Walz told Democratic donors at Gov. Gavin Newsom’s home in Sacramento this week that the Electoral College should be eliminated, with the national popular vote determining who is elected President.
What an idiot.
First of all, it’s never going to happen, can’t happen, and it is therefore foolish to suggest otherwise. Even if I thought the Electoral College was a bad device (I don’t), it would take a Constitutional Amendment to ditch it, and that would require many of the states that benefit from the system (which protects them and the nation from being dictated to and controlled by California’s crazies) to ratify their own metaphorical castration. Ethics Alarms often points out that it is unethical to advocate impossible measures no matter how beneficial they would be in Oz or Utopia or Wonderland. Such fantasy grandstanding wastes time, raises the hopes of the gullible, ignorant and naive, and diverts attention from developing realistic solutions to problems.
But Walz’s knuckleheadedness goes even beyond that. Harris needs to win the electoral votes on a lot of the states that would violently oppose ending the Electoral College. The Trump campaign quickly accused Walz of laying the groundwork for Democrats to claim that a GOP Electoral College victory in November while losing the popular vote would make Trump an illegitimate POTUS. (You know they will claim this anyway: no groundwork is necessary.)
Someone in the Harris campaign has functioning brain cells: the Harris campaign said it was not planning to abolish the Electoral College. Then, because that’s what this “Is isn’t what it is” campaign does, it went on to lie its metaphorical head off.
“Governor Walz believes that every vote matters in the Electoral College and he is honored to be traveling the country and battleground states working to earn support for the Harris-Walz ticket,” the campaign claimed, which is obviously not what Walz was saying at all. “He was commenting to a crowd of strong supporters about how the campaign is built to win 270 electoral votes. And, he was thanking them for their support that is helping fund those efforts.”
Right. Did you know Donald Trump lies all the time? Walz literally said, ‘I think all of us know the electoral college needs to go…We need a national popular vote.” Does that translate to “Every vote matters in the Electoral College” even in the ancient language of Knucklehead?
I don’t think so.
[For the culturally deprived, that’s Jerry Mahoney’s pal, fellow Paul Winchell ventriloquist dummy Knucklehead Smiff above.]
____________
Pointer: Old Bill
Ethics Alarms 
So striking this comment was made by VP Knucklehead to a group of wealthy Gavin Newsom supporters in California. Talk about preaching to the choir!
Hilarious Walz created a “Clean up on Aisle 5!” moment for the campaign. He’s evidently not as easily leashed as his running mate is. The people running the campaign are going to have to equip him with some sort of buzzing or shocking device that can be actuated by his handlers when he threatens to veer off script so they can pull him back from the edge.
He’s come to remind me of an aged Flounder, the way his face puffs up and his eyes bug out when he’s trying to think of something, anything.
“He’s evidently not as easily leashed as his running mate is.”
Thank your lucky stars if you weren’t forced to endure his wife slobbering profusely, to rapt bobbleheads nodding in furious agreement, in the town you visited two (2) short days ago.
PWS
Seven visits to Dane County in about a month? Isn’t Dane County a lock for the Dems? And besides, she’s from Minnesota. Who in Wisconsin wants to hear from a Minnesotan?
No one.
Heh! You’re close enough, Alicia, am I right…?
PWS
A mile as the crow flies. The mud ducks inundate our little town on the daily. We’ll take their money, don’t get me wrong. We just wish they’d be a little more Minnesota nice when they got here.
“Walz created a “Clean up on Aisle 5!” moment for the campaign.”
Or a code brown…
Walz stated quite clearly…
Then the campaign turns around and writes…
I think it quite clear; don’t believe the inconvenient truth that happened to slip out, instead believe the bald-faced lies that we tell you to believe. The entire Harris/Walz campaign is based on “it isn’t what it is” lies.
I’m completely convinced that it doesn’t matter one bit if the Harris/Walz campaign and their lapdog Pravda-USA media directly contradict their own words and tell everyone in transparently fluent “it isn’t what it is”, their loyal, gullible, cultish sheeple are going to read and hear in fluent dumbass and come out in droves to vote for anyone that has a (D) after their name.
Did I just write that I think the voting core of the Democratic Party voters are gullible cultish sheeple? Yes I did.
The vocal part of the Democratic Party, and that includes almost every one of their politicians, and their loyal and gullible sheeple have shifted so far to the left that they’ve become Orwellian styled totalitarians and openly anti-Constitution. These totalitarian anti-constitution “progressives” (it’s an oxymoron to call these people progressive) have intentionally bastardized and undermined everything about our society, culture and politics. They have become cultish enemies of the Constitution, enemies of democracy, and therefore enemies to the freedom loving people of the United States of America.
These ignorant “progressives” people should seriously consider who they’re turning into enemies.
Under the current social and political conditions, I can find no logical, ethical, or moral reason to cast any votes for any Democrats that are currently running for political office. I’m voting FOR maintaining the Constitution because that is exactly what this election is about. I will hold my breath and cast my votes on November 5, 2024 for the only candidates that are pro-Constitution and have a chance of keeping the Democrats out of office, I’m going to vote 100% for Republicans and then I’ll perform a Post Vote Purge*. As absurd as it may seem coming from me, yes, I’m going to vote for anyone that has a (R) after their name and I’ve openly stated my reasons for doing so.
*Post Vote Purge: is when voting for the candidates on the ballot makes you so damn sick that you have to vomit/purge after voting.
P.S. I’ve completed all the paperwork and I’ve been sworn in as a Poll Worker in my district. I have intentionally volunteered to work the second shift so I will be part of the vote counting process. I am doing what I can to make absolutely sure that what happens in my district is fair, safe, secure and accurate. Everyone should take the time to do the same and if that means you have to take a day or two off work then do your part and stand up for Democracy and stand up for the process. If you want change in the world around you, the change must begin in you.
Democrats who want to shut down the Electoral College only hold that belief because they think there are more Democrats in the country than Republicans. And they only hold that belief because the most recent elections show that more people voted for the Democratic candidate.
If the GOP was getting the most votes, losing elections, and calling for the abolition of the EC, you can bet Democrats would be fully…no, FULLY…in favor of the Founders’ position: the Electoral College is the single best check on the unfettered tyranny of a simple majority, which is the single greatest threat to the Republic.
The stance Walz takes on the EC proves he cares nothing about democracy and nothing about the people of ANY particular place. He cares strictly about gaining, maintaining, and perpetuating the supremacy of the Democratic Party…and that’s it. And at that point, the Republic has been lost, democracy has been lost, and tyranny takes its place…and then the period 1776-1783 will need to be replayed to clean it up.
Sort of ironic that the 250th anniversary of that era begins in 2026. A replay would be an ugly affair, but perhaps necessary. There is a limit beyond which many folks will not be pushed, and the Democrats keep edging further toward that line.
He’s right. It SHOULD be eliminated though.
And whether or not it would ever pass is irrelevant if it should be.
DD
You’re simply wrong about that.
Na. Popular vote reflects democratic fairness.
one person, one vote.
Too much focus on swing states which skews resources (Jack should care about that)
In a winner take all state, votes cast for the “loser” are essentially wasted or thrown out
It’s outdated and archaic
It can lead to unDemocratic outcomes like when the president wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote
DD
If our country was a Democracy, you would have a point, but it’s not, so a candidate that wins the EC but loses the popular vote is perfectly legitimate. It would be legitimate if it happened to a Democratic candidate just as much as a Republican.
That argument is what is outdated and archaic. Do you have a better one?
As is often the case, you don’t know what you’re talking about. It is the United STATES of America. Each state hasa level of sovereignty, which is also why every state has two Senators. Each state has a different culture too, and the particular toxic and undemocratic one California has makes the Founders’ point. But it doesn’t matter whether you get it or not: it’s baked into the Republic, and cannot be changed. You want to waste your time (and that of anyone who listens to you) railing against what can’t be changed? Go ahead. There are more: “We must end world hunger” is always a good one. Sleeper: “We must stop climate change!”
it’s baked into the Republic, and cannot be changed.
it actually can be you know! And you’re partaking in a fallacy, something being unlikely doesn’t make it impossible. Right? Correct
this isn’t an argument for why it shouldnt be changed but the best argument is that our current system can produce undemocratic outcomes and at the time, the electoral college was a compromise, it is not the best form of selecting a president
The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water…On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…Jefferson
DD
I explained why it can’t be changed. It can’t possibly get the necessary state ratifications, even if it could get through Congress, which is also impossible.The last significant amendment that changed the Constitution rather than adding a right to it was in 1912, and that amendment would have trouble getting passed today. Dream on.
Of course it can be changed, you’re just saying it won’t be so therefore it can’t be
And again, just because something can’t be changed doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be changed.
DD
You have offered no good reason why it should be changed other than the easily-countered generic charge of “it’s undemocratic.”
Based on the evidence presented so far, it should NOT be changed.
Oh poop, I’ve offered reasons, just none you agree with which is fine but here incase you missed it ;
a. Popular vote reflects democratic fairness.
one person, one vote.
Too much focus on swing states which skews resources (Jack should care about that)
In a winner take all state, votes cast for the “loser” are essentially wasted or thrown out
It’s outdated and archaic
It can lead to unDemocratic outcomes like when the president wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote
Denver Dave:
”It can lead to unDemocratic outcomes like when the president wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote”
Or, maybe you are thinking about it the wrong way. As Jack has said, this is the United STATES of America.
Whenever someone brings up, “but he lost the popular vote,” my response has been, “but he won the majority of states.”
To this, they typically react in a puzzled fashion, thinking that the majority of the popular vote is somehow more important than the majority of states. It isn’t.
Well, today, I decided to look up every election since 1990, except, being a resident of the State that Mondale Won, the 1984 election. Every election since 1980 has been won by the person who won a majority of the states (and often by a wide margin; Bush won 60% of the states in 2000–it was not even close; Clinton won 66% of the States in 1992 and did not even win a majority of the popular vote; like Clinton, Wilson secured the Presidency, winning 80% of the states while not receiving a majority of the popular vote).
For shits and giggles, I checked on 1876 and 1888. Hayes won a majority of states (and the Electoral College) in 1876, while losing the popular vote. In 1888, Harrison won a majority of the states (and Electoral College), while losing the popular vote.
Unfortunately, I have not enough shits and giggles to review all of the other elections, but I see a distinct pattern here.
The Electoral College is designed so that the winner of a majority of the states will win the Presidency. (Of course, there exists a scenario in which the winner of the popular vote—and the Electoral College—loses a majority of the states; it is just extremely unlikely.)
Emphasis on the popular vote as the thing that should be a determining factor in the election displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the Constitution works.
-Jut
“Popular vote reflects democratic fairness.”
To paraphrase Poor Richard: “The Popular Vote is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. The Electoral College is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!“
PWS
“In a winner take all state, votes cast for the “loser” are essentially wasted or thrown out.”
Effectively the same things happens in the popular vote, so that’s a terrible argument. Whether the margin is enormous, or by one vote, there’s a losing side whose votes, by your words, are wasted. Or can you explain why the popular vote is different in this matter?
“It’s outdated and archaic”
Or it is ahead of its time and a bulwark against tyranny. What makes it outdated? It can’t be because it came into being almost 250 years ago. Popular votes have been around a lot longer than that. The claim that it concentrates focus on swing states fails the test because swings states shift over time. California was once pretty red. Ohio was purple, but now is red. Virginia was once purple, but is getting solidly blue. The rest belt states have been blue, but are becoming toss-ups. Who thought Georgia or Arizona would go for Biden, except that they’ve been changing from red to purple? States come into and go out of play over time. What makes the Electoral College archaic? Is there something newer and better that somehow we’ve not heard about?
“UnDemocratic outcomes”
It is called playing the game by the rules, not by what you wish the rules are.
DD
Would you feel the same way if 48 states voted to eject California and New York from the union?
Honesty compels me to write that I would vote “aye” to that proposal. Good thing it won’t happen.
From your mouth to God’s ears.
well that seems wrong! But
, something being possible doesn’t make it right thing to do, just as something being difficult doesn’t make it wrong
DD
That’s a hilarious argument. In every competition the losing votes/points/runs are rendered irrelevant.
Denver Dave,
Here’s are graphical representations of why the Electoral College is absolutely necessary and why it won’t go away…
Here’s 2016 Presidential election…
Here’s the 2020 Presidential election…
Those graphical representations of how the USA voted by county in the last two elections.
I know those are inconvenient facts, but they are facts.
Thanks Zoltar! Thats a very colorful map you drew. I’m proud of you.
DD
Denver Dave wrote, “Thanks Zoltar!”
You’re welcome, anything to educate a trolling commenter like yourself.
Additionally; if you were to actually use the half-a-brain you’ve got left after corrupting it with unethical and immoral trolling tactics, you’d know that by responding to my comment here that I don’t go by that moniker anymore. I no longer use an anonymous moniker, I use my real name, and I personally stand behind everything I write. Only someone that is intentionally trolling would go out of their way to bring up the old Zoltar moniker.
Denver Dave wrote, “That’s a very colorful map you drew.”
Nope fool, I didn’t draw them. Here is a link to one of the maps, let’s see if you have intelligence beyond that of a typical hackified internet troll and can figure out the link to the second one all by yourself.
Denver Dave wrote, “I’m proud of you.”
Well, that’s quite special coming from the likes of you.
When the founders drafted the Constitution, their overriding concern was to make sure that majority could not simply trample on the rights of the minority. The Electoral College ensures that a small handful of highly populated states cannot simply overrule small states unless there are sufficient other states to make that overruling. And trust me, for that Wyoming is very grateful. Without the Electoral College, Wyomingites could justifiably say, “What has Washington D.C. to do with Cheyenne?” For indeed, what would populate D.C. would the decisions from California and New York, which have very different goals, needs, and ways of living than Wyoming.
Do you really want the minority, even if they are the minority of but one vote, to be disenfranchised? It seems perfectly fine to the majority when they are in power, but once that pendulum swings back, do you really want to be without that protection?
The founders did not set up a direct democracy, because they know that democracies can only succeed at small scale, and eventually die because majority rule becomes the tyranny of the majority.
If you have a legitimate reason for abolishing the Electoral College, state it and defend it.
I have yet to read or hear an argument against the Electoral College that is more cogent than the Founders’ arguments for having it in place.
DD
Do you realize that if the electoral college was eliminated by some decree it could trigger a mass secession of the less populated states. Are you ready for that. Do you believe we are subjects or citizens?
Those who want to eliminate the EC always point to Red states like Wyoming but never consider that Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire get similarly disproportionately claimed low numbers in the EC. Should they let a small number of highly populated states decide what is best for them. If so why not simply reincorporate them into a single larger state? Conversely, should California be subdivided to give electoral equity to those who live there but are routinely out voted by those living in high density cities.
We are a republic not a country with provinces. Had we used popular vote to decide controversial issues minorities would be hard pressed to gain any rights when the majority race decides who gets power.
Now offer up your rationale for getting rid of the electoral college and by definition state sovereignty.
There is a certain joy in Wyoming at being the most over-represented state in Congress…
Such fantasy grandstanding wastes time, raises the hopes of the gullible, ignorant and naive, and diverts attention from developing realistic solutions to problems.
also, why are you arguing that merely voicing an opinion that something should happen actually does any of this? Is this why you hate the song Imagine so much?
this is such an odd take.
Ya know, something that actually wastes time and diverts attention away from realistic solutions would be bad, but voicing an opinion doesn’t do that at all.
You’re just grafting negative consequences onto something that doesn’t actually have negative consequences.
This isn’t a construction site.
DD
Peanuts! Popcorn! Get ’em right here!
“Is this why you hate the song Imagine so much?”
I hate it because it’s utopian fantasy BS, and obviously so. John Lennon didn’t even take it seriously, but he conned a lot of people who did.
Man what a sad way to go through life. Cant even enjoy fantasy.
i think the title “imagine” hints that it’s a fantasy, but don’t quote me on that
DD
Enjoying fantasy and believing it are, to state the obvious, different things entirely. The song says that if everybody gets together this utopian nonsense can really happen. The logic in the song is infantile: you may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. An “everybody does it justification” for a stupid idea: other people think this too! You can rationalize any idiotic idea that way. It is a song for idealistic morons. Makes sense if you’re stoned.
Enjoying fantasy and believing it are, to state the obvious, different things entirely.
And it doesn’t appear you do either.
DD
Pingback: I’ve Made My Decision, How About You? – Society's Building Blocks
oh and one more thing! Like Columbo
I would push back on your argument and say that even trying to do something impossible, that gives hope, and even diverts attention away from other, less optimal, solutions…is not unethical if the potential benefits outweigh these negatives you claim exist.
Merely trying something very difficult isn’t unethical on its face., if you’re wasting time and resources with no desire to actually accomplish your goal, that’s one thing, or you’re being negligent with your scope and resources, creating waste, etc.
But! We do this type of thing all the time in society so it’s weird you’re using it as an argument. For instance, electric vehicles, clean energy…we didn’t even know if we would be successful in creating a working nuclear weapon and wouldn’t ignite the atmosphere and kill everyone during WWII.
is Elon unethical for building his own rockets, using government tax breaks and subsidies, and claiming he’s going to send people to MARS. Mars….
Women’s suffrage movement, the space race, same sex marriage, airplanes even.
According to you, even stating that we should aim for better is unethical since they were once believed to be impossible.
i say baloney!
DD
I didn’t say “very difficult.” I said “impossible,” and delusion isn’t constructive. Eliminating the Electoral College is literally impossible under the Constitution. It’s like “illegalizing and confiscating all guns.” Advocating such things are dishonest or, in the alternative, affirmative evidence of ignorance. There is no balancing to be made, unless you regard deceiving the dim wits a plus.
Comparing eliminating the EC to flight or women’s suffrage is apples to bowling balls. That said, the way to try to do it is all set out in the Constitution. However, good luck getting the numbers of Congressmen and Senators or state governments you would need to even call a convention, leave alone ratify something like this. Do you seriously think, even for a minute, that the governments of all the smaller or more lightly populated states would vote to give away what power they have, simply because you think it’s the right thing to do? You’d have a better chance at getting them to vote to do away with the Second Amendment or to embrace the absurd idea floated a few years ago to admit each of Washington D.C.’s 127 neighborhoods as separate states.
This is what we call wishful thinking. Despite all the inspirational graduation cards out there, just because you can think something or dream something doesn’t mean you can make it a reality. Some things are a matter of technology advancing, but some things are just facts of human existence. One of those facts of human existence is that no human will trade something for nothing, unless he is tricked, fooled, or bullied into it.
Eliminating the Electoral College is literally impossible under the Constitution. …impossible?
you keep using that word, but I do Not think you know what it means
DD
Impossible.
I’ll accept your argument when the women of this country stop voting for candidates who promise to get Congress to pass a nationwide law protecting abortion when they cannot or will not seek a constitutional amendment creating that right. The SCOTUS in Dobbs basically said that that issue is a state issue and the feds have no standing to restrict states in their own laws on the matter. Only an amendment to the Constitution can give them that right either at the state level of federal.
They couldn’t even pass the Women’s Rights Amendment, superfluous though it was.
The only kind of amendment that is practically feasible is something like the 25th, which closed a loophole in the Constitution (although the Founders had it covered, before John Tyler loused it up). Significant structural changes to how the government operates will never fly, because the government, as structured, works, and very well, thank-you. It is designed for slow change and to preserved the individual states as laboratories of democracy, which the Big Government advocates hate. As you know, the Founders never sought a pure democracy, and basic readings in government theory show why. Pure democracies turn into dictatorships because the average citizen is an irresponsible dummy. Our system was constructed to minimize that problem.
Wait a second…are you still talking about the Electoral College? How is eliminating the Electoral College “aiming for better”?
In 1787, there were no doubt many people who thought it impossible for such a diverse nation and peoples to exist as a single country.
But then, some other people invented the Senate and Electoral College and Lo! The United States was made possible and has, against all the odds, existed for a quarter of a millennium.
If you would study it, the American Constitution is a graduate level treatise in how to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, as has been seen time and time again in world history.
They didn’t want all those unwashed masses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and Pennsylvania running roughshod over the rest of them. And, in fact, they have not been able to.
Yes they were scared of the populace actually running their own democracy.
the horror! lol why is this a good argument?!
DD
The Founders weren’t scared of the populace running their own democracy. Writing that shows you have as little sense of history as Tim Walz. The Founders had historical evidence that pure democracies failed most of the time, and most of those failures were in spectacular fashion. Why repeat the same broken system?
What this comes down to for you is what it comes down to for Tim Walz, VP Harris, and most Democrats: I can’t get the result I want from a system that has worked for 250 years, so let’s destroy the system such that I get what I want.
”They didn’t want all those unwashed masses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and Pennsylvania running roughshod over the rest of them”
Huh.
What issues were they mainly afraid of those states “running roughshod over them” over?
And do you think “they” were morally right?
The specific issues don’t really matter. The people representing the small states wanted a bulwark or firewall against the larger states. The people in the South wanted protection against the northern states and vice versa.
Not too far into the country’s history, the western states — Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Alabama needed to stand up to the eastern elites.
I think part of the genius of the Founders was in conceiving of a federal system, where the states could stand up to the central government, rather than majority votes dictating policy for the entire country.
Were they ‘morally’ right? I would say yes. The existence and growth and influence of the United States I believe has been a moral good for the world. Without the essential compromises that were hammered out in Philadelphia in 1787, the United States would not have survived.
So unless you consider the existence of the U.S. to be morally wrong, then yes I think the Founders were morally right.
And political geniuses.
Do not engage! He’s a Dem paid operative.
He’s not commenting, he’s simply spouting talking points and following suggested lines of attack and deflection laid out in his manual.
…and so far, his/her lines of attack aren’t very good ones.
This comment makes no sense per usual
DD
No., I think he is just an 18 year old first year poly sci or Philosophy student at a junior college. His arguments and debate style are instructive. That is why I was willing to engage. It does get tiresome when he offers no compelling reasons except “it’s only fair”.
If he really is a Greenie, he could be much older. Have you seen the terrible legislation coming out of Denver? The Ft. Collins to Colorado Springs strip has a death grip on the state, and the eastern and western fronts wishes they could secede to Kansas and Utah.
I’m just waiting for the wolves the cities sicced on us us to make their way into the suburbs.
And I’m very curious about the fact that Elon Musk pointed out today, that the swing and battleground starts seem to be getting far more than the lion’s share of illegal immigrants. Sure, New York, California, Florida, and Texas having high numbers makes sense to me. I’m curious why Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania have such high numbers in comparison to their neighbor states.
Only someone on a payroll would continue with such tenuous argumentation. He’s a paid “social media monitor.” He’s just here to gaslight everyone and steer any lefty who might wander in here back to the one true way and assure them EA is implausible.
Honestly, if you’re right and the Democratic Party has the kind of unlimited funds and lack of respect for money you suggest, that they are paying people to post on a relatively obscure blog that doesn’t even purport to be focused on politics, they had better stop texting me begging for money every twenty minutes.
As the the shared maps showed the “popular vote” model would trample the voice of most of the United States.
I’d love to see an adoption of the Main/Nebraska model. This dispenses with winner-takes-all in either the popular vote or the current Electoral College. It takes the Electoral College votes to the more local level.
There is no reason the blue area of a red state shouldn’t be represented. There’s no reason for the red area of a blue state to be represented. But, it won’t happen, because the major coastal cities would be unable to dominate their states.
If you look back at our electoral history, there are any number of instances where a state split its electoral votes for one reason or another. In 1796, six of the sixteen states split their votes in some fashion or another, and three states in 1800.
The states used several different methods of selecting their electors. As I recall, those included all the electors being chosen by the legislature, some chosen by district voting and some by the legislature, all chosen by popular vote, and no doubt other methods that seemed like a good idea.
Over the centuries, states gradually moved to the current system where the electors were chosen by overall popular vote, with Nebraska and Maine currently the only outliers.
Nebraska is actually an outlier in more than one fashion — it has the only unicameral legislature. With only 49 senators it is definitely the smallest legislature. Elections are officially non-partisan. The top two in the primary go to the general election. The speaker and other officers are elected by secret ballot.
Nebraska has an interesting system, and it’s a testament to our federal system of government, where states are self-governing and are expected to try different things.
Walz has GONE SILENT, whatever that means; we cool?
PWS
There are good arguments for and against the electoral college. No one is “an idiot” simply for being for it or against it.
A good argument in its defense here is that we are the United “States,” and thus the question of who wins the majority of states is more important than who wins the majority of individual votes. (A rejoinder would be that people should have more rights than states, and that this view has been getting more and more outdated as the nation becomes more interconnected, but it’s still a valid argument.)
A bad argument for the electoral college is the “bulwark against tyranny of the majority” one. The Constitution has many bulwarks against the tyranny of the majority; the electoral college isn’t one. Having a president you don’t like isn’t “tyranny,” and a tyrant could just as easily be elected by the electoral college as by the popular vote (and some on both sides would argue that this has already happened).
Also the argument that “we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic” is like saying “I don’t drive a car, I drive a Cybertruck.” A republic is a type of democracy. That’s why every single president, including Trump, has referred to the U.S. as a democracy. There is no contradiction there. And disbanding the electoral college would not make us less of a republic; we still have many other features of a republic.
The argument that disbanding the electoral college would lead to the country being governed by “California crazies” is prejudiced and bad. There aren’t enough California crazies to decide the popular vote alone; what you mean is that the president would be chosen by California crazies, plus all the people all over the country who agree with them. Right now lots of Californians resent having the president chosen by a handful of people in far less populous states. Why would the supposed resentment of those voters be more valid than the currently existing resentment of voters in more populous states?
I agree that eliminating the electoral college is unlikely (though I wouldn’t say impossible), and it would be a waste of time for the Harris/Walz campaign to spend time trying to do so. The Harris/Walz campaign seems to also agree, which is why they walked back Walz’s one-off comment and tried to deflect from it. That’s perfectly normal campaign stuff. Meanwhile, Trump this week once again mused about stripping CBS’s broadcast license because they wanted to fact-check his planned 60 Minutes interview. That’s not normal. And it strikes me as both more “impossible” than eliminating the electoral college and more foundationally threatening to our constitutional republic. And how many other times has he made offhand comments about violating some part of the Constitution or another? You are of course entitled to spend your time writing about what you’d like, but this strikes me as a failure of priorities.
You know what those resentful Californians could do to solve the problem? Simple.
80% of the surplus Democrats in the state should up and move, in equal numbers, to Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, Arizona, and Wisconsin.
That would give the party not only a win in the popular vote (which in our system is roughly equivalent to getting the most hits in a baseball game and therefore completely meaningless to the final score), but more importantly, the most votes in the Electoral College, which determines who wins the game.
As for the host’s “failure of priorities”, WordPress allows you to set up a blog/website for free. Create your own blog, fill whatever niche you find, and write whatever you want about Donald Trump.
Your first suggestion is silly, and your second is petty. The rebuttals are obvious—people shouldn’t have to move to other states to have an equal say in how their government functions, and it is not unfair to criticize a blogger’s priorities in examining candidates’ various failings when they are constantly arguing in favor of one candidate over another based on those priorities.
My last comment in this thread. I believe you’re wrong here.
Every local and state official – from the governor to the person managing your city water – is elected by popular vote. Every member of the US Congress is elected by popular vote. Democracy is everywhere…the person with the most votes wins in all those places…a straight up-and-down vote.
At the federal level, the Executive Branch – elected by the states – signs bills into law that are passed by the Legislative Branch – elected by the people. The Executive Branch, elected by a different mechanism, acts as the check on a pure democracy.
You may not agree with it, but it is a protection against the potential tyranny of everyone being elected by popular vote.
That doesn’t make sense. “Everyone being elected by the popular vote” isn’t any more “potential tyranny” than the alternative. Your argument is circular. Checks on the tyranny that could emerge from pure democracy are things like the Supreme Court, the Bill of Rights, etc.
Read the comment policies, please. I never said anything about “potential tyranny.” Putting words in the host’s mouth is grands for suspension of commenting privileges. Try again.
Another argument for the Electoral College is voter fraud.
If the President is elected by the popular vote, a stolen vote anywhere is a stolen vote everywhere.
If there are 10,000 fraudulent votes in California, it really does not matter because, Democrat or Republican, it will not affect California’s election or the allocation of its electors. In other words, those fraudulent votes have no impact; they are effectively harmless.
But, if we go by the popular vote, those 10,000 votes could determine the Presidency. Then, you multiply that by 50 States, and every single vote needs to be scrutinized. Add in the fact that one of the political parties wants as few restrictions on voting as possible, a popular vote system is a greater and greater invitation to commit fraud.
Now, voter fraud is practically meaningless in California. If you make it worthwhile to commit fraud there, do you not think it will happen.
The Electoral College makes electoral fraud less effective.
-Jut
GREAT point, Jut; regrettably, I’m told there is no such thing as voter fraud…
PWS
Yes, I was going to make a similar point, but Denver Dave isn’t worth the effort. In a 2000 scenario, there would have to me a mass recount involving many states, and maybe all of them. Because of the Electoral College, only Florida was in such a mess, and that could be barely) dealt with. In other close elections where the popular vote and EC are aligned, the EC shows decisiveness and gives the incoming POTUS a mantle of public consensus by reflecting the support by the STATES.
The EC is superficially unfair but the more one examines it, the more brilliant it is. But a candidate losing the popular vote and winning the EC is a bad look, no doubt about it, and an east target for facile analysis and criticism. Again, if Claigornia hadn’t mutated into a foreign unAmerican culture (and spread its virus to Oregon and Washington, we wouldn’t have this problem.
This is completely backwards.
It is well established that Biden won the popular vote by about seven million votes, but only won the election due to a few tens of thousands of votes in key states.
10,000 fraudulent votes in California won’t ever matter in the Electoral College system, but 10,000 fraudulent votes in swing states would. If would be more accurate to argue that the EC encourages voter fraud in swing states.
(But both arguments assume that voter fraud is a major issue in American elections, which is an unfounded assumption. And it certainly has nothing to do with why the Founders set up the EC.)
”Claigornia”?
is that some kind of inside joke, or some horrible typo.
-Jut