What I didn't realize about founding father elections

Page 3 of 5<12345>
September 12th, 2017 at 4:59:23 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 323
Posts: 11128
Quote: Dalex64
It could be, at this point, just about every state has already decided whether or not they are going to join.


The only states which would be dead-set against it are swing states.

Republicans who dominate red states don't like it much, but only because they keep losing the popular vote. Still, some may come around.

I'm more concerned with the argument that non-battleground states lose out on government pork.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
September 12th, 2017 at 11:50:40 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 722
Posts: 8413
Quote: Nareed
There is no Electoral College in the US, but rather an Electoral Vote System. I mean, electors do not cast votes based on anything other than their individual state's means for apportioning Electoral Votes. It's not, properly speaking, a college making a decision or even casting a vote. If a real College existed, then electors would vote as they wanted and the popular vote would be meaningless.


South Carolina is an interesting case. For 8 straight elections they were the last remaining state without a popular vote. The electors were appointed by congress and senators of the state.

Looking at the map in 1832 and 1836 the electors cast their vote for a South Carolina senator who has no electoral college votes from any other states. Sometimes, SC went for the loser, and a three times for the winner (1844, 1852 and 1856). But the voters in the state had no direct say other than electing their congressmen.

Quote: Nareed
Yes, there are such people as "faithless electors." But 1) they're few and far between, 2) the very term denotes they can't faithfully choose their vote, and 3) as far as I know, none have ever changed the end result of any election.


During the 1836 election, Virginia's entire 23-man electoral delegation faithlessly abstained from voting for victorious Democratic vice presidential nominee Richard M. Johnson. By doing so, the contingent election for Vice President was thrown into the Senate for the only time in history, and the Senate voted for Johnson. That's as close faithless electors have ever come to changing the result. Their dispute with Johnson was treating his slave as a common law wife.








September 13th, 2017 at 7:52:28 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 323
Posts: 11128
Quote: Pacomartin
During the 1836 election, Virginia's entire 23-man electoral delegation faithlessly abstained from voting for victorious Democratic vice presidential nominee Richard M. Johnson. By doing so, the contingent election for Vice President was thrown into the Senate for the only time in history, and the Senate voted for Johnson.


So the closest the electoral system ever got to disrupting an election was for the most irrelevant post in the country and:

Quote:
Their dispute with Johnson was treating his slave as a common law wife.


For such a disgusting, racist stand.

Seriously, it's time to rethink the system.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
September 13th, 2017 at 7:06:24 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 722
Posts: 8413
Quote: Nareed
For such a disgusting, racist stand.


Well it turns out that Johnson was hardly a saint.

Richard Johnson inherited Julia Chinn, an octoroon slave (one-eighth African, seven-eighths European in ancestry), born into slavery around 1790 and a person who had grown up in the same household as him. Johnson began a long-term relationship with her and treated her as his common-law wife.

She basically looked like a dark skinned European.


Johnson was open about his relationship with Chinn, calling her "my bride" on at least one occasion, with both of them acting like a married couple. However Chinn was still enslaved with Johnson never legally emancipating her. It does seem that while she was his bride, he relished her also being his property.

In any case she had died in her forties a few years before the electoral college incident.
September 13th, 2017 at 7:12:08 PM permalink
Wizard
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 141
Posts: 3115
Quote: Pacomartin
After Jackson was elected a mob stormed the White House and began breaking things. They were lured out with free booze.


I thought he hosted a victory party at the White House and invited everybody. Not a great idea, in retrospect.
Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
September 13th, 2017 at 7:19:03 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 722
Posts: 8413
Quote: Wizard
I thought he hosted a victory party at the White House and invited everybody. Not a great idea, in retrospect.


The tradition of the day made inauguration day an “open house” for the White House. In theory, anyone could show up, shake the president’s hand, and maybe have some punch and dessert.

A crowd of 10,000 to 20,000 people showed up at the Capitol for the inauguration, some traveling from 500 miles away for the event.

I suppose we would call it "improper crowd control" today, but it ended the civility of Presidential elections. The new POTUS allegedly fled for safety. The sight stunned Washington society and Jackson’s political enemies, who already feared “mob rule” under Jackson.
September 14th, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 323
Posts: 11128
Quote: Pacomartin
Well it turns out that Johnson was hardly a saint.


Strictly speaking, almost no one in that era was.

But we're really getting off topic here. the point is the electoral College isn't an actual College, and the system needs to be changed. Now, there are disadvantages to all options, be it popular vote, apportioning electoral votes differently, parliamentary system, etc. The point isn't to find the one perfect system, because there is no such thing. the point is to find the one that 1) is fairest and 2) people will understand and accept.

Straight popular vote elections have problems of their own. Take Mexico, for example. the winner is whoever gets the most votes, even if they get a minority of the votes. This makes for a lack of clear mandates. of the last three elections, the candidate who won the largest share of the vote was Vicente Fox with 42% of the vote.

The easy fix would be a second round with the top two candidates. But, again, there are problems with that option (such as fewer people vote in the second round).

Let's suppose the Compact goes active in the US and survives any legal and legislative challenges. What will likely happen then is deep unhappiness, at the least, among states where candidate A won, but the electoral votes of that state go to candidate B who won the national popular vote. One response to this would be not to disclose the winner by state, and that would also be a huge mistake. Election results ought to be 100% transparent.

This si something America ought to consider and debate seriously. Such debate happens only briefly,and only after a close election.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
September 14th, 2017 at 10:50:40 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 722
Posts: 8413
Quote: Nareed
Let's suppose the Compact goes active in the US and survives any legal and legislative challenges.


Look at the signatories: beside D.C. there are 5 states who last voted Republican in 1984 for Reagan, and 5 states who last voted Republican in 1988 for H.W. Bush.
The last time a Republican candidate got a majority of the popular vote was 2004, and all these states joined the compact after 2004.

The Compact can be seen as blatant pandering and not as a serious proposition. Only states that voted for Hillary by a large margin have signed the compact.


Last Time Voted Republican
never WASHINGTON, D.C. Year joined: 2010 Electoral votes: 3
1984 NEW YORK Year joined: 2014 Electoral votes: 29
1984 WASHINGTON Year joined: 2009 Electoral votes: 12
1984 MASSACHUSETTS Year joined: 2010 Electoral votes: 11
1984 HAWAII Year joined: 2008 Electoral votes: 4
1984 RHODE ISLAND Year joined: 2013 Electoral votes: 4
1988 CALIFORNIA Year joined: 2011 Electoral votes: 55
1988 ILLINOIS Year joined: 2008 Electoral votes: 20
1988 NEW JERSEY Year joined: 2008 Electoral votes: 14
1988 MARYLAND Year joined: 2007 Electoral votes: 10
1988 VERMONT Year joined: 2011 Electoral votes: 3
September 14th, 2017 at 11:15:17 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 102
Posts: 6649
Quote: Wizard
I thought he hosted a victory party at the White House and invited everybody. Not a great idea, in retrospect.


How I heard it. Jackson was an outsider similar to Trump and considered himself a man of the people so invited them. FWIW at the time anyone could walk right up to the front door of the WH.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
September 14th, 2017 at 11:42:56 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 323
Posts: 11128
Quote: Pacomartin
Look at the signatories: beside D.C. there are 5 states who last voted Republican in 1984 for Reagan, and 5 states who last voted Republican in 1988 for H.W. Bush.


Yes, but the Compact can't go into effect with just the signatories so far. So they need at least some red states to join. Then, too, when a Republican wins the popular vote, as one is bound to eventually, and these signatory states vote Democratic....

I'd say the Compact is far from a good solution to the oddities of the electoral system, but it's the one that has a chance of succeeding.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
Page 3 of 5<12345>