Now that Democrats and Republicans agree that the Electoral College should not elect the President..

Well, we don't all agree.

It is worthwhile to remember that Republicans and Democrats don't decide who gets elected to the presidency. Independents, 30% of the electorate, do that.

The idea of getting rid of the EC is popular among Democrats because they won the popular vote in 2000 and in 2016, but lost the EC.

In this latest election, enough Independents chose Biden to give Biden both the popular vote and the EC vote majority.

But the Independents will vote the other way in the future, inevitably. A lot of factors go in to who they'll vote for, and we cannot foresee the future and what all those factors will be from one election year to the next.

So it is perfectly logical to assume that what happened in 2000 and 2016 that favored the Republican candidate will almost assuredly happen again, but in reverse. The Republicans will win the popular vote, but lose the EC.

So if Democrats want to get rid of the EC system, they are being short-sighted, basing that desire only upon the voter registrations of the present and upon the 2000 and 2016 elections.

If they were able to get rid of the EC, inevitably, they would live to regret it.

I had a conversation with Langley Man about this same topic recently. Copy/paste ...

Looking back at what I wrote, I'll begin by again saying the Congress should be the center of our politics - the place that actually steers the country. The President's job is to execute the will of Congress - to preside over the bureaucracies that execute the will of Congress. The only time a president really has a great deal of impact on the fate of the country is in times of war when, as CIC of the military, we need him to win a war (the War of 1812, the Civil War and WW2 are examples of that). The President may represent us to other world leaders. The President may also work to find compromise and consensus in Congress. And finally, under the EC system, the President may look towards the states that he lost and ask himself how he may earn their vote next time. It matters to the President whether the state is large or small.

I also pointed out that our modern day Congress is failing us. Rather than fearlessly taking a stand on things, rather than engaging in bruising political battles, rather than risking their reelection, Congress avoids responsibility, equivocates, panders, hides, lies to us, knows who their big donors are and what they want but doesn't know what's in a bill they're voting on, and sells itself to the highest bidder. They place career above everything. And a good way to hide is to walk in lock-step with the Party bosses. Sadly, when you look at how Congress votes, you realize that a trained monkey could do the same thing - the red button gets a treat, the blue button gets a slap on the nose, or vice versa.

And so, what has evolved is an ever-increasing leadership role of the President. The public rightfully wants leadership, and the Congress is happy to pass what should be their leadership off to the President because their is no political risk in that. If things go well, they pat themselves on the back. If things don't go well, it's the President's fault because, after all, he's the President. Congress acts as follows: "If the President is from my party, I will support what he wants; if he is not from my party, I will not support what he wants." This is backwards - upside down.

I see this as a perversion of the original intent. The President, of course, is allowed his opinions and his pulpit, but the President is supposed to execute the will of Congress, not the opposite.

So with all of that as a backdrop, how does that relate to a popular vote vs the EC system? Time to tie it together. Why do I think going to a popular vote belies a desire for a "king-like" office?

Because if we wish to end a system that gives respect to all the states, big and small, then we must amend the Constitution. And if we wish to amend the Constitution, it belies the fact that this change is thought to be crucially important. And if we think that it is crucially important that a President be elected by popular vote only, then it tells me that we have forgotten what the role of the President was intended to be. Instead, we want a President who is only responsible to the majority, and the minority be damned. And it is an acknowledgement that we have accepted this transition of power that has happened over time from the Congress - our representatives - to the Executive. If it is soooo crucially important that the President be elected by a simple majority, it exposes our mindset - that we are slipping from wanting to have a presidency whose job it is to execute the will of Congress - to more of a "Dear Leader" system of government where it becomes the role of Congress to execute the President's wishes.

In case I still haven't been clear, the tie-in is what it tells us about ourselves. It belies a belief that the President's power has increased so much that, if we think this change benefits our side, it must be done, for it is the President who steers the country. It belies a deep disrespect for our fellow Americans who think differently from us. And it belies an underlying, almost unconscious acknowledgement that the Congress will not steer the country's present and future as it was intended to; instead, we want a singular leader - the President - to do that. We want a President who is completely unaccountable to the minority and completely unaccountable to geographical areas and demographics that didn't support him.

The tie-in is that if we want a President elected purely by a popular vote, then we are choosing to take the steering wheel away from the consensus of our elected representatives and giving it to one person - the President who possesses the power (or tyranny) of the majority vote. We are acknowledging and accepting this transition. We are asking for a more powerful and less accountable presidency.

I think this is stunningly short-sighted, potentially very dangerous, and I also believe it would add to, not diminish, our partisan divide and dysfunction. It is hard to imagine our partisan divide and dysfunction becoming worse than it is already, but I think it could get worse and lead to serious trouble if we are unwise.

I deeply believe we are far better off with a strong, robust Congress and a relatively weak (for lack of a better word) or "limited power" Presidency, just as it was designed to be.

If we want a better Congress we will need term limits. Otherwise, they will not change. If we had term limits - like 6 years - members of Congress would be people who wanted to do something good for their constituents and for their country, rather than the feckless, timid, selfish body that they are.
The narrative that we need experienced members of Congress is utterly false. And even if there are some advantages to experience, they are outweighed by the advantages of having better members with higher motives.

Seth

 

Oh I see it daily, announced in the media, announced by the political activists, announced by the celebrities, taught in the schools and colleges, announced on social media. Even a blind man can see it. There were enough Trump haters to put Biden in the White House. Joe Biden?
Really?
Really?
Really?

 

And yet they consumed you for the past four years.

 

Silly post. Republicans are against stolen elections.

 

Not only the Electoral College, but the process of waiting until the end of January for the turn over of power are relics of the past. They may have been desirable and/or necessary at a time, but time has passed them by. The election should be as all others, direct, should take place the beginning of November, certified within two weeks, and the successor take office after organizing the new administration at the beginning of the following year.

 

Why the electoral college, of course.

 

That's the point. We elect representatives called "electors" to decide who the President is. Trump, and those who support him, believe that this needs to be changed. Most Democrats also believe this should be changed. The question is, changed to what? Democrats believe it should be to direct vote, Trump believes it should be changed to... well... that keeps changing. I believe his current position is that the VP should select the next President.

So this thread is meant to ask what it should be changed to.

As for electing representatives (of any kind) to select our President... damn right I'm against it! I said so on the OP. To be a better democracy, we need the people to elect them directly.

 

Yup. Really.

 

Trump seems to have been perfectly happy trying to steal the election by coercing officials to "find" votes.

 

I change the subject? No! That's what this thread is about!

Wrong. Trump wants the VP to give the "approval". He said so. He wants Pence to "come through" and overturn the decision of the EC.

Now... do you agree with him or don't you? This is what this thread is about. Why are you having such a hard time responding?

I have a theory why. It's the same reason why most followers of the QAnon faction of the Republican Party won't respond: because the contradiction between your response and your stated ideology would become obvious.

 

So, according to this, we don't need a judicial power, right?... or SCOTUS.... Let the VP (or is it the President?) be the ones who judge "constitutionality"

That's the position of the QAnon faction of the Republican Party.

 

How quickly those doing so much research forget,

 

Of course we don't "all agree". I'm sure there are communists on the left and fascists on the right who believe that the President should not even be elected. I am obviously referring to the prevalent positions among Democrats and QAnon Republicans (to differentiate them from traditional Republicans, who are no longer in charge of the Party)

I get all your discourse about term limits and what you think Democrats believe. But that's not the question. The question is what you believe.

I gather from your post that you don't agree with the Democratic proposal to allow the President to be elected directly by the people. But you didn't respond to whether you agree or not that it should be the VP (or Congress... or some other group different than the EC) who appoints the President, which is what Trump is seeking.

If you believe that Trump is wrong in seeking to overturn the decision by the EC, then this thread was not meant for you.

 

Did he have a problem with the electors before the election? Was he concerned that they were not chosen 'constitutionally'? If so, he should have spoken up - should have investigated it. He certainly didn't have a problem with them when he lost the popular vote but won the EC.

 

Ok. They already did. So you disagree with Trump. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

Was the person in that video the President of the United States at the time? Or was it Al Gore who objected?

If not, then it's irrelevant.

 

Well that's not the case here. I'm not totally convinced the election was on the up and up so that adds an element for me.. The only thing this election has taught me is "We need to be better at cheating"

 

BTW, your "selective editing" missed this part. This is how the person who loses and puts the interest of the country before their own behaves.

 

I'm not understanding your response. The question is "who should decide who the President is?" Options are, the people, the EC, the VP, Trump, Congress (the last 3 are some of the ones that Trump has held) ... Are you saying it should be you who appoints the President?

 

EC of course

BUT

Maybe reread your TOPIC header

 

If you are referring to your president, He promised to concede ten minutes after Stacy Abrams.

 

Ok. So you disagree with Trump. This thread was not meant for you. Thanks for sharing your opinion anyway.

 

No. I'm referring to Trump.

 

Your topic addressed ALL parties, then again they can be a bit of an enigma, when you decide to interpret them to suit a different narrative then they first put forth..

Rule 11 states..

I'd rather not fight about the meaning of your topic "After the fact" if it's not to much trouble? I answered your clarification request and I don't see why this has to go any further.. ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

Then you are purposefully being obtuse. Seems to be a contagious thing these days. The short sightedness of your desire to see direct elections just validates the reason for the contention. We have to be able to follow laws. Even when, like you find them to be inconvenient. And that matters, because absent law, and absent the conditions of our republic, we find that we've just become a banana republic where only the most powerful get a voice, and all others are squashed. We see it already in how things like social media have so vastly skewed the public discourse. We see it in every intention of authoritarianism that Democrats now cling to in defense of what they perceive as their role to dictate to the rest of us. We see it. and yet, you do not.

You may feel that the President isn't good for you, you don't like their style, etc. And yet, at the same time, it comes down to a responsibility that we all have which is to follow the framework of our constitution, to become active in the legislature to develop outcomes that solve our issues, not make them indisolvable. Presidents are the executive of the legal frameworks legislatures produce. As a force of the people to shape our country and it's laws. Not the other way around. And it's ironic in the extreme to see folks, like you, yearn for the single voice that you believe is the only voice for all of us now. Democrats believe, as you point out, that only their voice matters. Despots all around the globe and throughout time have all found ruin in that theory. And here you are.