Yes, There Is a Legislative Route to Eliminating the Electoral College. It Doesn't Involve Faithless Electors.

Comments

2
Hillary only got 47 point something percent of the cast ballots, so she didn't 'win' the popular vote, either….
3
But go for it.
Then a bunch of blue state voters can vote for a Democrap but see their electoral votes make the Republican who wins the popular vote President.
Remember Karma...
4
Since the EC is the only way the current GOP coalition will ever win the White House again, expect to see lots of lofty principles deployed in its defense in coming years. And/or lots of non-sequitur chaff as ably demonstrated by 1, 2 and 3.
5
The EC is the law of the land, and the only way any coalition will win the White House.
All your whining and tantrums won't change that.
6
You guys realize that America is not a democracy, right? It is a republic.

The Republic of the United States of America. As such, the people do not vote directly, they vote for representatives as a state or district. Because this country is so enormous and varied, it is thought necessary since if it were a direct democracy, people from the coasts would essentially control the entire country's governance, despite their needs being vastly different from the rest of the nation. By voting for representatives, we ensure that people in less populous areas can have their voices heard and their specific needs met.

To change the EC would basically be stating that we are a republic, except for this one specific election every four years. I don't see it happening, at least without vast, far reaching changes to the structure of our government/republic itself.
7
@1,2 47% vs 46% does sound like a win to me. And by you're same logic trump didn't win his nomination since he only won a plurality in most of the states he carried. It would be incorrect to say she won a majority.

@5 You should learn how to read, seeing as how the article is about how to change the EC. But you're right, whining and tantrums won't change anything which is why the article is advocating for change. You should also realize that the EC doesn't say how the electors are chosen, just that the states decide their electors.
8
@6 "You guys realize that America is not a democracy, right? It is a republic."
That is the problem that this is trying to solve, so sticking with the antiquated system would ensure that we're not a democracy.

"people from the coasts would essentially control the entire country's governance"
Right, the largest coalition of voters would control the government, probably a good thing, unless you're afraid people actually voting.

You guys should really stop fearing change. The EC is a relic destined for the trash heap, or would you prefer we go back to the constitution exactly as the framers want it? Sorry but as an American i believe i can always do better to improve my life and my country. If you want to stick with a 200 year old document lets go through and note all the govt activities that are not specifically named in the consitution and see if it changes your mind.
9
@6 You wrote "Because this country is so enormous and varied, it is thought necessary since if it were a direct democracy, people from the coasts would essentially control the entire country's governance, despite their needs being vastly different from the rest of the nation."

You realize that at the time the electoral college was created, the country was small and relatively homogeneous,* located entirely along the Atlantic coast, with the majority of people living outside of major cities in small communities close to the shore, don't you? It's a relic of a very different time and place.

*At least as far as eligible voters were concerned.
10
@8: Well, if you forget the bizarre rage you seem to be experiencing, you may notice that I am simply giving background on why the country was framed as a republic in the constitution, and what that means for the electoral college. I was not advocating anything, and I have no idea what you mean by "you guys."

Once again, the idea is that even minority groups of voters can have SOME semblance of voice. Ever hear the term "tyranny of the majority?" If a large voting bloc decided to vote that gay people (a small voting bloc) should no longer have any rights, would you shrug your shoulders and say "Hey, that is what the people want!"

It is an extreme example, but that is the idea. It is a guard against corruption, stagnant government, and the majority attempting to take rights and all political power away from the minority, which is easily achievable in a true democracy.
11
@10 "If a large voting bloc decided to vote that gay people (a small voting bloc) should no longer have any rights"

Um, that did happen. Fortunately we had improved upon the constitution with the 14th amendment. Oh, and don't forget the civil rights movement. neither of which would have been affected if the president was elected by popular vote.

Nice try pushing debunked ideas of why we still have the EC.
12
@9: There is a lot of difference between Maine and Georgia, for example. Especially when you are comparing to small, European states. You have to think relatively, not about the state of things now.

It was thought at the time that a compromise between the people voting and a congress-style selection was the best way to elect a leader.

The EC is really not necessary now based on our current lifestyles, and the realities of the voting public. I am only trying to say that it being in the constitution and this country not being a direct democracy, I would not hold out hope on it being changed soon, especially because the only reason anyone cares now is because they just lost an election.

If Trump had won the popular vote, and Clinton the electoral vote, no one here would want anything done about the EC, and we all know it. So, like the filibuster, while people don't really like it that much, no one wants to change it. Because they fear a future when that change may be used against them.
13
@11: Huh? Dude, go look up the term "rhetorical."

No one was pushing any ideas that could be "debunked," and you "debunked" nothing. Calm down, I have no idea why you are so combative. If you need to relieve stress by being pissed, go find someone else.
14
If the Electors deny Trump the presidency now, you can bet red states start signing on to the Compact then.

This is are best opportunity yet to make this happen. It takes crisis to give them a reason to change this system. With the presidency going to the loser of the popular vote again, it's a crisis for Democrats. If the Electors exercise their Constitutional right to do whatever the fuck they want, it becomes a crisis for Republicans.

This crap about how the EC math means candidates will spend quality time in podunk towns is not helping anybody. What's to love about making them take the ethanol pledge? Hate "special interests"? Let candidates appeal to the nation as a whole instead of trying to pander to one little burg at a time.

Everyone hates it. What exactly is so good about 50 town hall events in Ohio and not even one in New York or LA? If they don't hate the Electoral College now, 37 faithless Electors is all it will take to make them hate it now and forever.
14
@13 Sorry, debunked was a bad word choice. Here's a better one, stop being an idiot, and i'll stop explaining why.

The example you had tried to use actually happened, and was corrected without the EC, so what was your point again? other than pointing out you hate gays.
15
Exactly @12. The electoral college is only in question because Hillary lost. If the results were reversed, there is no way Hillary supporters would be discussing getting rid of the Electoral College. ( I voted for Hillary, though not out of enthusiasm, only to prevent a Trump presidency - and fuck this paper for blaming anyone but the candidate it supported and the DNC for losing this election.)

Right now, the popular vote doesn't matter, it's not the goal of the contest. It'd be like complaining about who won a football or baseball game based on the losing team gaining more yards or having more hits. But those stats don't matter.

And there is a practical reason why the total popular vote doesn't determine the winner - in a very close race every fucking vote in the country would need to be recounted. Elections would drag out forever.
16
@6 People who usually claim that we are a republic and not a democracy (right wing libertarians) do not understand that republics were created to introduce more democracy. Left wingers should understand that the essential dynamic of the republic is to be ever more inclusive of its constituents.
17
@12 You wrote: "There is a lot of difference between Maine and Georgia, for example. Especially when you are comparing to small, European states. You have to think relatively, not about the state of things now.

It was thought at the time that a compromise between the people voting and a congress-style selection was the best way to elect a leader."

Using a half-assed apocryphal history to justify the continuation of the electoral college isn't particularly persuasive. Going back to the beginning, in 1789 Maine had 9 electoral college votes, but Georgia only had 5. If we assume you are correct in stating that these states were very different, how did the electoral college do anything to protect the interests of Georgia? (Spoiler--it turns out that the electoral college did not help Georgia. The state eventually decided to leave the country!)

The electoral college was never intended to serve as a mechanism to dilute or offset the vote of persons residing in densely populated coastal areas. It was intended to prevent dumb commoners from electing an idiot to the presidency. Obviously, it hasn't played out that well.

I understand that it's unlikely to go away, but using history as a justification to perpetuate this system is misleading. If anything, history suggests that it's long past time to get rid of this ridiculous system. Or, at minimum, reallocate electors so they are more representative of the population.
19
Just to be a nerd, as of today Clinton has won 48% of the pop.vote (62,125,844), and Drumpf has 47.1% (61,017,295). CNN has constantly updated stats as the vote count currently drags on... and on...

But all this chitter-chatter about the EC ---(which was, obvs, put in place to ensure that the white, landed gentry could keep a firm hand on the sometimes rebellious populace... Just like the states were federated into a republic so that popular rebellions were harder to foment)--- is reletively irrelevant because we know that well over 1 million votes were suppressed in three states alone, to say nothing about the rest of the country.

In a classic double-speak move, the GOP complains about "voter suppression"... and then moves to commit. Had those --we don't know how many yet..millions?-- of votes been actually counted, I bet you dollars to hanging chads that the Dem candidate would have won...again... just like the exit polls predicted.
20
(@18 -- For the record, I'm using "pop.vote" very loosely here in my post. Your point is taken. Clinton still has the majority of the votes cast...and counted.)
21
@15 "It'd be like complaining about who won a football or baseball game based on the losing team gaining more yards or having more hits. But those stats don't matter."

I think you have that backwards. At least from how it should be.
22
@1, 2, 18:

The number of eligible voters who don't actually vote is irrelevant, as there is not a single state, county, or municipality anywhere in the country that tabulates non-votes when determining the winner of an election for public office. "Popular vote", by definition, entails an affirmative action (i.e. the act of voting). Choosing not to vote, or failing to vote when called upon to do so, obviously doesn't meet that criteria, which is why you never see a column registering "number not voting" in any election results.
23
@12 - when is the last time that the Republican candidate for President lost the electoral college but win the majority of votes?

Oh right, like voter fraud it doesn't happen. The whatif scenario you're describing simply doesn't happen.
24
@22 people do not vote for a variety of reasons they have little to no control over, from GOP caging lists to growing up without citizenry education, passing by a dearth of acceptable candidates or having been led to believe they couldn't change anything because the 2 party system is rigged.

Voter participation is tabulated, thus non-voters are accounted for, which confers (or not) legitimacy and mandate to act. Someone winning thanks to 26% of eligible voters has essentially no mandate to make systemic changes.
26
The number of votes matters because we are a democracy. The popular vote isn't some curious stat; it's the very thing we claim to be governed by. Trump's promise to undermine the Constitution and that he will not execute his duties in good faith is evidence that he cannot take the oath of office. He's made clear that he won't disentangle himself from his business interested, including those overseas with adversaries of the county. This is exactly the kind of thing the Electors exist to prevent. This is literally their only purpose.
27
@14: Wow, now I hate gays? My god you are unhinged. Seek help.

@16: The US is a republic, this is just a fact. It has no left/right bias or connotation.

@17: I am not justifying or trying to perpetuate anything. Simply stating the reasoning why the EC was put into place, and why it is fairly unlikely to change soon. Please read.

@23: It is called a "hypothetical" and hypotheticals are often used as rhetorical devices. For example, when you are watching the election coverage, and they start tinkering with the map, and forecasting which way certain states may go, and what would happen if they did. They are not actually stating how those states voted, rather saying what could happen if they hypothetically went that way.