Why all the hype about popular vote?

I don't know C4K.

The senators used to be chosen by the states. The state legislatures, that is. Now both houses of Congress are chosen by popular vote.

 

I do not think we will see the electoral college abolished in our life times. The reason for the hype of the popular vote is that everyone is conditioned to seeing the majority of the popular vote in a given state elect electors pledged to a particular candidate. As has been pointed out, that is not the total picture.

At any point, any state could change choosing electors a function of the state legislature, or for that matter, any other means.

Any elector, with the exception of a few states, can vote for whomever they please.

At any point, states can award their electoral votes based on Congressional district, as two do (Maine and Nebraska), or for example, award all electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, as California defeated. For that matter, any other method the states chose could be implemented.

Another thing to realize, state legislatures do not always follow national party loyalty. For example, in southern and border states, like mine, one might have a Democrat House or Senate, that is quite conservative, and choose electors pledged to the Republican candidate.

 

The only answer I can think of for that particular question is that the population thinks in general their vote is choosing the President.

 

Isn't one of the hallmarks of the U.S.'s exisitence as a republic the Electoral College?

 

What's all the hype about? Money, distraction and control.

Billions from corporate advertisers that keep us distracted and divided while locking us into the corrupt two party system.

It's part of the winner take all game where we always end up losing.

 

Poncho, I read the transcript at the link you provided.

While there's some truth in what's being said, IMO, it's still smoke screens and mirrors.

The United States of America was founded as a REPUBLIC. Count the number of times the word democracy was used. Look at the references to "the American Dream". Note the number of times inequality was mentioned.

The core of this, IMO, is another way of saying we need to re-distribute the wealth. All the focus is centered on the "greed" of the 1%. Nothing is said about the "greed" of the 99% who put the 1% in place.

** Those who believe there should be a chicken in every pot. The Constitution didn't promise that.

** Those who put themselves in debt up to their eyeballs and then expect to be bailed out, when their investments (better homes, finer cars, higher education, designer clothes, lavish vacation trips, 5 star dinners out, etc.) take a tumble. -- Yes, I took a hit on my retirement savings, when the economy tanked. However, my home was secure, because I didn't turn my home into an "investment" property.

** No where in the Constitution does it say that my standard of living will be equal to the Jones and Smiths who live in my neighborhood. Yes, there was, is, and will always be inequality in assets and material goods. Even the Bible tells us that starting with the rulers of Egypt at the time of the Exodus to being told that the poor will always be with us. The Constitution defines "equality" as the Creator given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (originally, property). Pursuit -- not attain or obtain.

** No where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is responsible for feeding school children free breakfast, lunch, and now dinner. Yet, the government has promised a chicken in every pot, as it has enslaved much of the population into an entitled mindset. A mindset of greed that wouldn't turn away (at the ballot box) any hand that offered to feed them. Greed that turned a blind eye to what a subset of the 1% was/is doing.

** Back to the word democracy that was used so often. We The People are responsible for the mess we're in. We allowed both teaching what the term "republic" means and teachings from the Bible to be taken out of the schools. Thirty years ago was referenced several times in the linked piece. Wasn't it about that time that both of these happened? I still remember having to take civics while in school, along with hearing prayer in classrooms. Our insistance on "democracy" allowed that, and so much more, to come about.

We can rant and rave all we want about the 1% and redistribution of wealth - take from the haves and give to the have-nots. However, none of that addresses the real issue. Individuals in this population taking personal responsibility for their lives, instead of looking for someone else to blame. Personal responsibility that includes paying our own debts, understanding what a republic means when we go to the polls, eating rice and beans if that's all we can afford, and that the scriptures don't promise any of us that we'll achieve "the American Dream".

Yes, there was some truth in the piece. But, IMO, not nearly enough to put the blame squarely where it belongs. The American people who have used their votes over the last 100 years for those who would promise to add some carrots to that chicken in every pot.

 

So, can the electors be bought off to be "faithless?"

 

Good posts, Roger and Oldtimer. I agree with you both very much!

Blessings...