It worked well when people were willing to amend it to match the needs of a developing society. Unfortunately, that no longer seems to be the case.
That number still pales into insignificance when compared with the number of rallies Trump held in AZ, WI, PA, MI, GA and NC all of which have smaller populations than New York. As far as his NY rallies are concerned the May 23rd rally coincided with his trial in NYC. It was a really small rally and he most likely held it because he was already present. The Sept. 16th rally was as much a rally in support of Republican candidates in swing House districts as it was a rally in support of his own presidential campaign and while the October 27th rally at Madison Square Garden was a major rally it was probably intended more for its television audience than it was for residents of New York State.
One the other hand during that 236-year period there have been 59 presidential elections. Of those 59 only four (1824, 1876, 2000 and 2016) have resulted in the election of a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote and out those four two have occurred in the last 24 years. The Electoral College has never operated as the Founders intended (see Federalist Paper No. 68) and the system has been becoming more dysfunctional and it's in need of Constitutional fix.
Not necessarily. If the candidate already has over 270 electoral votes, the transition can start working. If it's just votes in the ether, you have to count all of them. Some states are still recounting in December. This past election Nevada's status didn't matter because Trump had enough to win regardless of what the state did. When will a decision be made? Who makes that decision if it's a national popular vote? It would be a disaster, that's why it was never done. All popular votes in the US are local, at most on a state level. You would need to completely rewrite the Constitution and state involvement in voting to make it a popular vote. Never going to happen and honestly isn't a big problem. The executive isn't a representative, it's a figurehead. Every representative is by popular vote, which is really the only one that should be.
Take some time to study other nation’s politics. They make our system look like a perpetual koombaya sing-a-long.
Disagree. The US system works and has worked despite a civil war and global crisis. Most of the other systems have not been tested by ethnic/cultural diversity.
England, France, Germany, amongst so many others, disagree. They have mass-discord and loud opposition from multiple sides. They also work over time, but at discreet moments, it’s as ugly as ugly can get.
Your issue is timeliness? I’m still not sure that’s a good justification of the EC. Your scenarios are still less probably than an electoral tie that’s broken down partisan lines in the House. I mean, we have from November until early January to ensure an accurate count. It seems a whole better to rely on the popular vote, avoiding: Hugely controversial electoral tie Ending the overemphasis on swing states and their inundation with political ads Forcing candidates to run national campaigns and likely moderate their messages Giving every person equal weight in the most national of elections.
I don't have to justify the EC, it's the standard and will be. I think the folks looking to move to popular vote need to justify it. What problem does it solve? We currently select a president now. The president is the only national vote for each voter, which is why it's EC. There can't be a national popular vote because it would negate state responsibility in electing a president. Voters don't actually vote for a president, the delegates do. Every other election is for state or local offices and those are popular vote because a delay or issue won't cripple the country. And time is a big deal for two reasons: 1) trust in voting process... We have seen already this can be used to dismantle democracy by adversaries, both domestic and foreign to spread doubt in results. That is not healthy for our government. 2) transition time. The new administration needs to be installed on day 1 for national security reasons. If we don't know who has won by January, this would delay and possibly cause issues, especially in situations where the country is in crisis.
Uh, this happened with electoral college in Florida. The only thing that stopped anarchy was Gore conceding. There is basically nothing to prevent this scenario other than accepting the outcome of an election win or lose, no matter what system you use.
It happened in Florida because the voting system in the state was asinine. Imagine that happening nationwide with multiple states and counties. It would magnify the disaster, not help it.
Again, there is no indication that a popular vote would delay the process where inaugurating a POTUS would be in question. Stating that it is the system we have is a Captain Obvious moment. We’re talking about why it should be abolished. Many others and I have already posted about that in this thread. Also this.
If someone doesnt accept they lost, they can contest an election no matter what voting machines you use, in fact one of the ways you could say it was invalid is blaming the voting machines or ballots or whatever. You get your people to get out in the streets and you have anarchy.
The election certification doesn't care what happens in the population. Not sure why this is part of the debate for popular vote or EC. Gore conceded because the recount had him lose as well. He didn't conceed anything, the recount was completed and certification concluded. Again, we can debate whether the EC should be proportional to the popular vote like Nebraska and Maine do somewhat, but just going to popular vote would be a disaster.
Again, he could have contested things after the court stopped the recount. He could have told people to get out in the streets, that the election was being stolen. There is nothing in the EC that prevents such a scenario if it comes down to one state. That's what Trump was hoping for in 2020, but in the end they lost all the swing states. But lets say it all came down to Arizona, Jan 6 would have looked a lot different. Hell, the courts might have signed off on more of his nonsense. Or more people show up at the capital or state legislative bodies to stop the process of certification. There is no system in the world that is going to prevent an extremely close vote from being hijacked by bad faith actors if they want to.
Why would it be a disaster? We already have everything in place. The only difference would be a dissolution of the EC. Elections would still be held on a local level, and the counting would be the same. But instead of winner take all in each state, it would be one vote would be equal to all others. As is, my vote is worth more than someone who belongs in a minority party in a non-swing state. And that's because I live in a one of the current 7 swing states. Is this fair that my vote is worth more than a D who lives in OK or a R in Mass?
