One more time. Should we get rid of the Electoral College for electing a President in the US?

[Nathan]

Did you grow up in America? I assume you are American since this is of interest to you, but realize we're an international mix on SF. The founding fathers' of the US fears of direct/pure democracy are well documented.

I did in fact grow up in America, from the age of 17 I was busy in the U.S. Army fighting for freedom, so that people like you could believe as you wish.

The founding fathers' of the US fears of direct/pure democracy are well documented.

I'm not a political science scholar, but perhaps you are. I am well aware of the dangers to democracy, but the idea that "direct democracy" is somehow bad- escapes logic. But, I'm more than happy to listen, should anyone care to outline those "dangers" to me.

 

[Nathan]

@Nathan Found this article written from the perspective of someone upset by Brexit re the US founding fathers and their fears of direct democracy. Because of those fears, there's no provision in the Constitution for Americans to vote on a national referendum such as the one the UK held for Brexit.

Chose it because it's a good, quick overview and isn't skewed towards either of American's polarizing parties.

Brexit: The American Founding Fathers Had it Right: Direct Democracy Is a Dead Duck

.

Interesting article, and yes running a country by referendum is certainly a recipe for chaos, as evidenced by the Brexit fiasco.

However, that's a far cry from what we are discussing here, which is whether or not the Electoral College is still useful, or should be abandoned.

 

[AnnieA]

Interesting article, and yes running a country by referendum is certainly a recipe for chaos, as evidenced by the Brexit fiasco.

However, that's a far cry from what we are discussing here, which is whether or not the Electoral College is still useful, or should be abandoned.

It is in answer to this bolded question of yours in post #23:

"limit the dangers of a direct democracy".... that is certainly one view as well. The "I am the people's choice" statement is easy for any dictator to assert, but it does not follow that a direct democracy was the reason for said dictator to have gained power.

I'd be interested to hear more on the dangers of a direct democracy, it's a foreign concept to my 50+ years of political thought.

Too much democracy?

But anyhow, back to the Electoral College. Another provision the US Founders made is for Constitutional amendments which is how the Electoral College could be done away with if two-thirds House and Senate vote to do so. I think a certain percentage of state governors have to approve an amendment as well.

 

[Aunt Bea]

I think that we should take a hard look at splitting the electoral college vote by congressional district the way that it's done in Nebraska and Maine. That system comes closer to mirroring the will of the people than the current winner takes all methods used in most states.

 

[Sunny]

Again, that would turn us from a representative democracy into a direct democracy which the framers of the nation sought to avoid.

Brilliant as they were, the framers of the nation were products of their time. Their Constitution refers to the rights of "men," women didn't have the right to vote, Blacks had practically no rights at all, etc. Their "representative democracy" worked OK in the sparsely populated, agricultural world they lived in at the time. Its rules are totally unjustified and out of sync with the times we are living in.

Absolutely, get rid of the electoral college. It should have gone long ago.

 

[Nathan]

I think a certain percentage of state governors have to approve an amendment as well.

Actually to become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states.

 

[Oris Borloff]

Yes, abolish it.

 

[AnnieA]

Brilliant as they were, the framers of the nation were products of their time. Their Constitution refers to the rights of "men," women didn't have the right to vote, Blacks had practically no rights at all, etc. Their "representative democracy" worked OK in the sparsely populated, agricultural world they lived in at the time. Its rules are totally unjustified and out of sync with the times we are living in.

They were products of their times, but, as you said, also brilliant men. The social ills of the times that you mention have changed for better 'with the times' within the framework they devised.

Absolutely, get rid of the electoral college. It should have gone long ago.

The founders made provision for doing so.
.

 

[JimBob1952]

No. Without the electoral college, then whatever states have the masses of voters elect the President. That means that voters in smaller states have no say.

That's right. The original vision of the US was a republic composed of near-autonomous states with minimal central government.

 

[Camper6]

No. Because two states. California and New York would elect the president every year.

That's why the the Founding Fathers wanted the states to be involved in the selection of the president no matter how small the state would have a say.

 

[Camper6]

Oh and one more thing.

If it's not broken after 200 years don't fix it.

 

[AnnieA]

Here's the process for amending the Constitution:

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.