Quote:

---

Hamilton was also concerned about somebody unqualified, but with a talent for "low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity", attaining high office.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Jerrymandering! Seriously!

I view much uv the gummit

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
America is not a Democracy...

---

Quote:

---

America is a Republic.

---

Quote:

---

It would do the Nation great good to discard the Electoral College in favor of a simple majority of States. With each of the 50 States getting one vote only, the President would be the person who wins the most States.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As I understand it, the Electoral College wasn't constructed because of difficult communications or educational deficiencies or other technical impediments to democracy, but because..EACH STATE was supposed to be able to manage its affairs without the interference of the other states.

---

Quote:

---

The book Founding Fathers: The Essential Guide to the Men Who Made America was loaned to me, and it really opened my eyes to the diversity of people who deliberated on the nation-to-be

---

Quote:

---

There are currently a total of 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives, the 100 Senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia as provided for in the Twenty-third Amendment. Each state chooses electors amounting to the combined total of its Senators and Representatives.

---

Quote:

---

The Constitutional Convention in 1787 used the Virginia Plan as the basis for discussions, as the Virginia delegation had proposed it first. The Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president. Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election. However, a committee formed to work out various details including the mode of election of the president, recommended instead the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-Fifths Compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change;

Among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the president were chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the president if he was elected by the Congress.

Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787. Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern large states would otherwise control presidential elections.

In The Federalist Papers, James Madison explained his views on the selection of the president and the Constitution. In Federalist No. 39, Madison argued the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the president would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 laid out what he believed were the key advantages to the Electoral College. The electors come directly from the people and them alone for that purpose only, and for that time only. This avoided a party-run legislature, or a permanent body that could be influenced by foreign interests before each election. Hamilton explained the election was to take place among all the states, so no corruption in any state could taint "the great body of the people" in their selection. The choice was to be made by a majority of the Electoral College, as majority rule is critical to the principles of republican government. Hamilton argued, electors meeting in the state capitals were able to have information unavailable to the general public. Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It was to preserve STATES' RIGHTS, not individual rights.

I know that's a quaint anachronism but that's what the Founding Fathers came up with which would stitch the United States REPUBLIC together. It was the only thing that all of the colonies would agree on, seeing as they were more-or-less heading in different economic and social directions at the time.

---

Quote:

---

Mitt Romney won 48% of the popular vote but only 38% of the electoral vote.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
America is a Republic.

---

In reality, it iz an oligarchy.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It would do the Nation great good to discard the Electoral College in favor of a simple majority of States. With each of the 50 States getting one vote only, the President would be the person who wins the most States.

---

So you dont think the 37 sitizenz in California who get outvoted by 1 sitizen in Rhode Island woud hav anything to gripe about?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Paradoxically, the Electoral Collej iz the only thing that can stop Trump now. This iz exactly the situation it exists for.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In 2014, the discrepancy was even greater than today

Quote:

---

Mitt Romney won 48% of the popular vote but only 38% of the electoral vote.

---

Where were you then? And more importantly, did you see a lot of butt-hurt GOP losers rioting and demanding recounts and threatening not to pay their taxes?

---

Quote:

---

In any case, the Electoral College, AS NUMERICALLY CONSTRUCTED, was clearly meant to favor the smaller states. AT THE SAME TIME, the framers originally expected it to operate on a precinct-to-precinct level. There is no immediate contradiction between the two expectations, except that the framers did not write the second expectation into the Constitution, but left the Electoral College operations, as well as state-by-state voting regulations (and district boundary-mapping) to the states themselves. The states will obviously favor whichever party happens to be in control of the legislature at that time. I suppose that might have been foreseen, but wasn't.

I don't even know how the electors would be apportioned on a precinct-by-precinct basis, since the number of electors in each state does not equal the number of precincts, and how that apportionment would then reflect the popular vote is anybody's guess.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Better to let Trump run thingz for a wile. The Bush administration almost killed the Republican party. Maybe a yir or 2 uv Trump will finally do them in. Hopefully without bringing the hole country down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

As I parse through Trump's Cabinet picks, I see that he places a very high value on loyalty. So far, I see a person who is willing to go to war against the neocons embedded in the State Department and the CIA.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama had his chance:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
Hillary got 2.5 million more votes than Trump nationally, but in California alone Hillary won by 3 million votes. That means that in the other 49 states, or 98% of the states, Trump got more votes than Hillary. That's why the electoral college is perfect as is. No one state gets to decide the presidency.

---

Quote:

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Did you know there is a way for Hillary to sabotage Trump, but she must get back to work convincing 232 Democratic Electors to vote for a Republican?

The beauty of the plan is that it will piss off the Republicans so badly they will pass a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Electoral College.

It’s a win-win-lose: the Democratic party will never again be screwed by the Electoral College, the GOP controls the Presidency, and Putin doesn’t win, after all.

Democrats can stop Trump via the electoral college. But not how you think.
By Michael F. Cannon

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-can-use-the-electoral-colleg
e-to-stop-trump-but-not-how-you-think/2016/12/05/c69bb24e-ba86-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html

Hillary Clinton’s decision to join Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount efforts in key states may have been welcome news to Democrats, but it is unlikely to change the outcome of the presidential election. Nor will complaining about the unfairness of the electoral college or begging Republican electors to vote for Clinton. Democrats’ best chance to prevent Donald Trump from assuming the presidency is instead to do the unthinkable: Throw their support behind another Republican, such as Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and 2012 GOP presidential nominee.

To become president, a candidate must get a bare majority of 270 votes when the electoral college meets Dec. 19.

As Alexander Hamilton explained, the electoral college provides a backstop in the event voters select a dangerously unfit candidate. “The process of election,” Hamilton wrote, “affords a moral certainty that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Electors would use their judgment to prevent the “tumult and disorder” that would result from “this mischief” of presidential candidates exploiting “talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity.” One might call it the cooler-heads college.

Election Day produced 306 electors pledged to Trump and 232 pledged to Clinton. A petition at Change.org asks Republican electors to vote for Clinton. A group calling itself “Hamilton Electors” seeks to persuade at least 37 GOP electors to vote for a Republican other than Trump, leaving him with only 269 votes. If no candidate secures 270 votes, the House of Representatives selects the next president from the top three vote-getters in the electoral college.

Either strategy is a fool’s errand. Whatever reservations Republican electors may have about Trump, empty entreaties from Democrats are unlikely to sway them. Even if 37 Republican electors voted for another Republican, the GOP-controlled House would likely select Trump anyway.

The only way Democrats stand any chance of persuading Republican electors to abandon Trump is with a dramatic gesture of true bipartisanship. If all 232 Democratic electors pledge to reach across the aisle and vote for a Republican alternative to Trump, it would take just 38 GOP electors to make that person the next president.

If Clinton announced she is releasing “her” electors and asked them to vote for a credible Republican alternative, she could plausibly deliver all 232 Democratic electors. She might even secure similar pledges from House Democrats in the event the election went to the House.

Finding 38 Republican electors might then be easier than Democrats think. In 2012, Romney won a larger share of the popular vote (47.2 percent) than Mr. Trump did this year (46.2 percent). There are 35 Republican electors from states where Romney got more votes than Trump (Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Utah, Wisconsin), and at least 120 others from states where Romney won a larger share of the vote. That’s more than half of Republican electors. Texas has 38 electors all by itself.

Naturally, most rank-and-file Democrats would consider the idea of backing a Republican for president abhorrent. Even so, the electoral college presents a most interesting test for Clinton and her party.

If Democrats believe Trump poses a unique threat to the republic, and signal this is not okay by reaching across the aisle to marginalize and stop him, then win or lose, Democrats could legitimately claim they put partisanship aside for the good of the country.

If Democrats believe Trump poses a unique threat yet don’t support another Republican in the electoral college, it will indicate that Democrats see Trump as no different from any other Republican. And if Democrats treat Trump as normal, they will be complicit in normalizing his behaviors.

The only people who will be responsible for a Trump presidency are those who voted for him — plus Clinton and her campaign, who helped to raise Trump’s profile during the primaries. But if Democrats truly believe what they say about Trump, they should prefer another Republican who does not threaten to normalize what a Trump presidency would.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
Better to let Trump run thingz for a wile. The Bush administration almost killed the Republican party. Maybe a yir or 2 uv Trump will finally do them in. Hopefully without bringing the hole country down.

---

If Democrats truly believe what they say about Trump they should prefer another Republican who does not threaten to normalize what a Trump presidency would. Hillary has enough votes from her Electors to bring down Trump, if she can get help from 37 Republican electors. I'm certain there are 37 that hate Trump's guts enough to do it, but it all depends on Hillary murdering Trump's chances. Hillary doesn't seem brave enough to pull the shotgun trigger and blow off Trump's head, Electorally College speaking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama had his chance:

---

Hardly. The solid block uv GoPs obstructing everything, along with the herd uv cats Demz made it near impossible to get the big stuff dun, aside frum pulling the country off the presipis Bush drove it to.

The Demz fail to grasp the consept uv 'united we stand' for the party.

The GoPs fail to understand 'divided we fall' for the country.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:Obama still has more than a month to bring Sharia law to the US, so let's not dismiss JSF's ramblings as madness just yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

What would you rather, J0?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The pay is less than the League Minimum for the very worst professional Baseball Players

---

Quote:

---

As for the rest, I don't believe for a minute you are more capable of running the country,

---

Quote:

---

especially since you are a person who would allow Muslims to overrun our country.

---

Quote:

---

I guarantee you I am the only "White Priviliged Male" you've ever known to use the Nigga word freely among co-workers.

---

Quote:

---

Az I understand it, in the Fox version uv reality, Obama iz an absolute dictator who tor up the Constitution on day 1 and haz been finding wayz to destroy the country ever sins.- JO

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Hillary knew all about the Electoral College when she ran for office. All of this after-the-fact bitching is still just an attempt to rewrite history. I guess you're all still in various stages of grief, including anger, denial, and bargaining, all rolled into one

---

Quote:

---

... we must abandon any inclination we may have held toward a system of direct democracy ...

---

Quote:

---

Hillary knew all about the Electoral College when she ran for office. All of this after-the-fact bitching is still just an attempt to rewrite history. I guess you're all still in various stages of grief, including anger, denial, and bargaining, all rolled into one- SIGNY

Gentlemen, I do not fully comprehend what we have just witnessed, but one thing is exceedingly clear—we must abandon any inclination we may have held toward a system of direct democracy—and institute a safeguard to ensure that such a dangerous narcissist will never become president of this nation! It shall be known as—the electoral college! - SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JO753:
This wuz the exact situation it wuz intended for and it totally failed. Wen the Demz regain power agen eliminating it shoud be the second thing on the ajenda. (the 1st, uv course, will be bailing the country out uv the mess the GoPs drive it into)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
There's only two problems with what you just said JO...

1. After GWB "stole" the election from Al Gore, the Dems wanted to remove the Electoral College, and 8 years of Obama it never once came up, did it?

---

Quote:

---

2. 8 years of Obama did the exact opposite of bailing us out after 8 years of a terrible 8 years of GWB.

---

Quote:

---

I think you really need to take a step back and at least give Trump a chance before you make a judgement.

---

Quote:

---

Hillary Clinton was MUCH more like GWB than Trump ever will be.

---

Quote:

---

Look at Trump's history.

---

Quote:

---

We already learned that the MSM was full of shit when Trump won handily, after half a year of them showing Clinton very much ahead and all of the laughter raised when somebody said Trump could win.

---

Quote:

---

All we can do now is sit back and wait and see what happens.

---

Quote:

---

I got laid off in 2009 and in 8 years I have still not made as much money as I used to make in a single year. This year, I had zero income. I'm sure you're in a much better position than I am,

---

Quote:

---

but all I can say is that short of full blown nuclear war or a zombie apocolypse it can't get any worse for me and the only way to go is up.

---