Destroying the Electoral College: The Anti-Federalist National Popular Vote Scheme

[Roy]

I think this is actually the way the founding fathers wanted it, to prevent uninformed voters from electing an idiot president. The electors are supposed to be well informed and will usually vote the way the people do, but they don't have to. So if the popular vote decided to vote in a complete moron, then the electors have a choice to not vote that person it.

So how many of them are likely to consider Donald Trump to be a complete moron?

So legally they can change the vote to Clinton if they want and that is the actual vote that counts. But if you think the riots now are bad, just wait if they do something like that.

Didn't some-one just say that republicans don't riot?

[Mountain Man]

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% oh the may people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Roy]

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% oh the may people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
-Thomas Jefferson

An interesting misquote of some-one who became vice-president because 20 people took away the rights of the electorate.

[rogue06]

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% oh the may people may take away the rights of the other 49%."
-Thomas Jefferson

Oh, yea. A chance for me to re-post my rant on whether we are a democracy or a republic...

Our founding fathers had every opportunity to create a democracy but did not choose to do so. Why? Because they were utterly repulsed by the idea recognizing it for what it is. That is why they established a republic instead.

Let's take a quick peek at what some of them had to say about it shall we

Source: James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10

Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

© Copyright Original Source

In the same document Madison, regarded as the "Father of the Constitution" as well as author of and biggest supporter of our Bill of Rights, stated that in a pure democracy "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” It is in essence mob rule.

Source: John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Fisher Ames, author of the House language for the 1st Amendment

A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is towards licentiousness [excessive license] which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Gouverneur Morris, signer and Penman of the Constitution, in a 1814 speech

We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate ... as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism… Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to the level of folly.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: John Marshall, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Zephaniah Swift, author of America’s first legal treatise

It may generally be remarked that more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, in a 1789 letter to John Adams

A simple democracy ... is one of the greatest evils.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Edmund Randolph, 1787, at the Constitutional Convention

...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found in the turbulence and follies of democracy.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Alexander Hamilton, first Secretary of the Treasury

"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

© Copyright Original Source

IIRC, the last words that Hamilton penned were "our real disease is Democracy."

Source: Noah Webster, in his 1801 “American Spelling Book”

In a democracy ... there are commonly tumults and disorders… Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: John Quincy Adams in a speech celebrating the Jubilee of the Constitution

The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.

© Copyright Original Source

And from his father...

Source: John Adams, in a letter from 1814

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history.

© Copyright Original Source

In his highly influential Thoughts on Government Adams stated unequivocally that "There is no good government but what is republican" and that was the form of government that was established. After the Conventional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what had been wrought to which he famously answered: "A republic, if you can keep it."

The word "democracy” appears absolutely nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution – the two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution’s Article IV Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican form of government."^[1]

In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The Electoral College and Senate representation come to mind. The Bill of Rights enumerates individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is totally undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor.

Instead of a democracy which they viewed as merely another form of tyranny our founders gave us a republic, with a representative form of government. Democracy is rule by majority or mob rule (often expressed as two wolves and a sheep voting on what's going to be had for dinner), whereas a representative Republic is based upon the rule of law -- the Constitution.

The latter recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals (the power of the majority is limited by a written constitution which safeguards the God-given inalienable rights of minority groups and individuals alike) while the former is only concerned with group wants at any given moment. As I said -- mob rule or maybe a "mobocracy."

The great American author James Fenimore Cooper put it another way:

Source:

It is a besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.

© Copyright Original Source

In closing I'll note that since the formation of our nation no American president ever referred to the U.S. as a democracy until Woodrow Wilson misapplied the term during WWI. Sadly, today it has become common to use the term democracy in describing our form of government including by presidents and other top elected officials from both major political parties.

The founding fathers never used the words" republic" and "democracy" interchangeably like we do today. They carefully studied various forms and systems of government from throughout history in order to establish a system of government that would best deter any form of tyranny, including the tyranny of the majority.

Maybe things would be different if every elected official was required to memorize what the founding fathers had to say or even how the U.S. Department of War (superseded by the U. S. Department of Defense) training manual (No. 2000-25), published in 1928, which every American soldier once carried, defined Democracy.:

Source:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of ‘direct’ expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic – negating property rights. Attitude toward the law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.” The manual went on to state: "Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strengths and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They ‘made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.’

© Copyright Original Source

1. Think of it this way, does our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag say "to the democracy for which it stands"? Or do we sing the “Battle Hymn of the Democracy” or the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”?

[Sparko]

So how many of them are likely to consider Donald Trump to be a complete moron?

a possibility, for sure.

Didn't some-one just say that republicans don't riot?

I think you would have actual state governments protesting at that point because their own electors did not do their wishes.

And after the example of the liberals, I think the republicans would have no problem at all rioting in return. And they have guns and pitchforks, being farmers and all.

[Sparko]

a possibility, for sure.


I think you would have actual state governments protesting at that point because their own electors did not do their wishes.

And after the example of the liberals, I think the republicans would have no problem at all rioting in return. And they have guns and pitchforks, being farmers and all.

more info:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2078970.html
Do electors have to vote for their party’s candidate?

Neither the Constitution nor Federal election laws compel electors to vote for their party’s candidate. That said, twenty-seven states have laws on the books that require electors to vote for their party’s candidate if that candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular vote. In 24 states, no such laws apply, but common practice is for electors to vote for their party’s nominee.

[rogue06]

more info:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2078970.html
Do electors have to vote for their party’s candidate?

Neither the Constitution nor Federal election laws compel electors to vote for their party’s candidate. That said, twenty-seven states have laws on the books that require electors to vote for their party’s candidate if that candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular vote. In 24 states, no such laws apply, but common practice is for electors to vote for their party’s nominee.

Almost all of those who act as electors have their own aspirations in the party that they belong. It is political suicide to go against what they were sent to do.

[Bill the Cat]

A quick check of Wikipedia suggests the opposite - that there have only been two instances when multiple "faithless electors" voted differently because of a candidate's death, but six instances of a block of "faithless electors" voting against their pledge because they did not like the candidate (1896, 1836, 1832, 1828, 1801 and 1796).

The 1796 election was bizarre, with some faithless electors conspiring to change the electoral victor from Adams to Pinckney, only to be thwarted by a different group of faithless electors who declined to vote for Pinckney (as they had pledged) at all, with the result that Pinckney, who would have become vice-president if the electoral college had all voted as they had pledged to, lost the vice-president post to Jefferson.

Why do y'all still permit such shenanigans???

I was talking post-reunification

[Bill the Cat]

I'm all for destroying the electoral college. The popular vote is what we need. Elections should be determined by the will of the majority, not the minority. The electoral college is insanity.

Because the Constitution is a punch line to you...

[Mountain Man]

I'm all for destroying the electoral college. The popular vote is what we need. Elections should be determined by the will of the majority, not the minority. The electoral college is insanity.

I guess we'll chalk you up as another one who doesn't understand why the electoral college exists and how it works.

As I've pointed out before, it is mathematically possible to win the electoral college in 49-states but still lose the popular vote if a state like California votes overwhelmingly for the other guy. Are you saying that one state should be able to overturn the will of the people in the other 49-states? Because that would be insane.

[Roy]

I guess we'll chalk you up as another one who doesn't understand why the electoral college exists and how it works.

As I've pointed out before, it is mathematically possible to win the electoral college in 49-states but still lose the popular vote if a state like California votes overwhelmingly for the other guy. Are you saying that one state should be able to overturn the will of the people in the other 49-states? Because that would be insane.

That argument works equally well for counties as for states. Arguably much better - Harris county (Texas) has 50,000 times as many voters as Loving county (Texas), yet California only has about 100 times the population of Wyoming. Yet you are not protesting the use of popular vote to determine the pledges of the electoral college voters in each state.

But I don't think you're insane. Only dim.

[Mountain Man]

That argument works equally well for counties as for states. Arguably much better - Harris county (Texas) has 50,000 times as many voters as Loving county (Texas), yet California only has about 100 times the population of Wyoming. Yet you are not protesting the use of popular vote to determine the pledges of the electoral college voters in each state.

What bearing do individual counties have on the electoral college?

Anyway, I'm not bothered by popular votes at the state level because it's mitigated by the electoral college, and that's the whole point, to prevent the popular vote in any one state from ruling the entire country. Seriously, how many times do we have to explain this?

Speaking of states, I think they would be wise to adopt a similar system for state offices to prevent things like the governor of Illinois only needing to win 3 out of 102 counties to win the election.

[Roy]

What bearing do individual counties have on the electoral college?

Yup, dim.

Anyway, I'm not bothered by popular votes at the state level because it's mitigated by the electoral college, and that's the whole point, to prevent the popular vote in any one state from ruling the entire country. Seriously, how many times do we have to explain this?

None.

Try explaining why you haven't got anything to prevent the popular vote in any one county from ruling the entire state instead.

[Mountain Man]

Yup, dim. None.

Try explaining why you haven't got anything to prevent the popular vote in any one county from ruling the entire state instead.

Again, what bearing do individual counties have on the electoral college? Look, I'll even go "low-brow" for you and quote Wikipedia:

Source: Wikipedia

Under the winner-take-all system, the state's electors are awarded to the candidate with the most votes in that state. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and awarding two electors by a statewide popular vote.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Electora...United_States)

© Copyright Original Source

So the answer to the question "What bearing do individual counties have on the electoral college?" is "None at all."

Again, the entire point of the electoral college is to prevent a large population in any one state from ruling the entire country. Do you really not understand this?

[Roy]

Again, what bearing do individual counties have on the electoral college? Look, I'll even go "low-brow" for you and quote Wikipedia:

Source: Wikipedia

Under the winner-take-all system, the state's electors are awarded to the candidate with the most votes in that state. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and awarding two electors by a statewide popular vote.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Electora...United_States)

© Copyright Original Source

So the answer to the question "What bearing do individual counties have on the electoral college?" is "None at all."

Again, the entire point of the electoral college is to prevent a large population in any one state from ruling the entire country. Do you really not understand this?

Yes, I understand it.

The answer to your question, which you really should have been able to work out for yourself, is that the election of the state's electoral college voters may be heavily influenced by a high population county, just like the election of a president may be heavily influenced by a high population state, yet there is no equivalent to the electoral college to prevent a large population in any one county from ruling the entire state.

Do you understand this? If you don't I see no point in explaining it again.

If you do, you might wish to move onto the idea that states and counties are not monolithic blocks of like-minded people, and do not map cleanly onto communities with identical interests, but encompass a range of inhabitants with differing views that may or may not reflect the same proportions as the entire nation, and that their borders are a combination of historical accident and political opportunism that cut across communities and distort the electoral process.

If democracy is mob rule, then all the electoral college does is apply different weightings to sections of the mob and assist ringleaders in inciting it.