Election Day

Under our constitution, states elect presidents, not individuals.

Here's how it works. Each political party selects a group of people, the number equivalent to the number of Congressmen and U. S.Senators. So you have Democrat electors, Republican electors, and electors picked by the other parties whose candidates get on the ballot. These electors are committed to vote for their candidate.

When you vote, you actually are voting for the electors committed to a candidate. In Kentucky, for instance, McCain carried the state, so his electors won. They go to Washington in December and cast their votes.

The constitution, however, does not require the electors to vote for whomever they were pledged. They may vote for anyone they choose. That's actually happened a few times in our history.

I think there are some states which apportion their electors by congressional district. Your candidate wins a congressional district, his elector wins.

 

I don't like electoral college, but am open-mined enough to ponder why I should.

 

This would vary from state to state, but at the national level, there is nothing in the constitution to guarantee it. (If I'm reading things correctly.)

 

The below is a truly outstanding post, or at least was before I attempted to add my own comments, anyway.

Nor was our current system of government ever intended to be a democracy! It was always intended to be a constitutional republic, from the time of the adoption of the Constitution. In fact, the only individual the Constitution initially granted the people the right and privilege of electing was their Congressman. The State legislatures were to "chuse" the Senators, which was done for 125 years, until after the adoption of the 17th Amendment, which occurred in 1913. Since that time, the Senators are also chosen by popular vote, as the Representatives have ever been.

And the Constitution has never envisioned granting any vote for the President of the United States, to the 'wholesale' public, either. The selection of the President is done by the electors, which manner of appointment is also directed by the state legislatures. It is irrelevant, but currently, all 50 states have opted to have the electors chosen by popular vote for Presidential 'candidates', and this vote is divided by district in two states, and as a whole by the other 48, in the collective wisdom of the legislatures of the individual states. I agree with this practice, fully. As NE and ME have decided that their electors are best determined by district, who am I, as a citizen of KY, to question their judgment, on this matter? Should the Commonwealth of KY decide to do this, as well, why should the citizens of, say, AL or MI object to KY's manner in this?

Which is also why the Congress is expressly granted far more powers and far wider authority by the Constitution, than are the Exectutive and Judicial branches, as well.

"Bingo!" again. Let me also here inject that the Constitution does not envision any such thing as any "great visionary" for the President. Effectively, it forsees two primary roles for the President - that of Commander-in-chief, and that of Chief Executive. That's basically it. The President can recommend measures he deems necessary and expedient to Congress, but Congress is under no obligation to adopt a single one of them. The President is the 'face' of our Republic, but the 'policy maker' and visionary is, according to the Constitution, the Congress. [Man, how we've seen those who manage to turn that one on its ear, including, IMO, 9 of the last 10 Presidents (all those that I really remember), with the exception of Gerald Ford, who was the best President, in my lifetime, simply because he did fill that office, in this Constitutional manner!]

I could hardly agree any more! :thumbs:

I would be more than happy to see this, provided that the individual States so choose to adopt this plan, as I have already suggested above.

There are about five things I would like to see adopted, one by Amendment, that I do not believe would infringe on, or diffuse the important rights of any individual state, and without repealing any current sections of the Constitution.

1.) I would like to see the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico become a state, should she so choose, with the Senators and Representatives and electoral votes that would go with that.

2.) I would like to see the accursed 'Nationals' designation (Read very limited 'rights', here!!) permanently removed for the people of American Samoa (AS), and the Samoans to become full citizens of the United States just as are the citizens of the 50 States plus DC, GU, PR, VI, & MP.

3.) I would like to see a uniform poll closing time (preferred) over all time zones when federal elections are held, including AK and HI, and any and all territories, as well, or at least a uniform release of any and all data and returns (less preferable). In other words, not a single precinct, in any jurisdiction is counted until all the polls have closed.

4.) I would like to see the House permanently expanded, by 10, to 445 members.

No Amendment need for any of these 4 proposals, but only Congress to act.

5.) I would like to see the Territories of AS, GUam, Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands Commonwealth (MP), become some sort of quasi 'mini-states', along with the District of Columbia, and each have a full Representative in the House, and 1 electoral vote, as well, without changing the 3 Electors that DC currently receives. (This proposal would require a Constitutional Amendment.)

Incidentally, all my above proposals raise the total number of electors to 549, meaning the President must get 275 EV, up from the current 270. Only MP and AS would get a drastically disproportionate EC and House influence over DC and WY (VI gets some, but not as much), based on population, and the House would be virtually unchanged, after the next census, given current population. The strong House influence, based on population, is mitigated by AS, GU, MP, VI & DC having no Senators.

:thumbs:

Comments and/or objections from some of you who seem to detest the outstanding institution of the Electoral College?

Meantime - :sleeping_2:

Ed

 

exactly . . .

 

Hoo boy.

 

Thanks for your patience with me everyone. I think I understand this electoral college thing a little better.

I still like our system in Canada better even with all its flaws. Eventually we too will elect our senate....I hope...for now they are selected by the sitting Prime Minister, who fills vacancies by appointment.

Our system is simpler and only takes a month for the campaign and election, and the election is usually final until the government is defeated in the parliament on a vote of no confidence.

Cheers,

Jim

PS, Sorry about the like communist notation. It was only comparing the fact that they also choose members rather than the people.

 

>I don't like electoral college, but am open-mined enough to ponder why I should.

You should like it because every state gets two votes, even the one who have more sheep than people. Without the EC the vote in half the states would be immaterial. The US would be like Europe in the 1400s when every country was ruled by the people in the largest city.