The Electoral College is racist and should be abolished

According to Wilfred Codrington III, who wrote this piece for the Atlantic Star:

www.theatlantic.com...

Critics of the Electoral College are right to denounce it for handing victory to the loser of the popular vote twice in the past two decades. They are also correct to point out that it distorts our politics, including by encouraging presidential campaigns to concentrate their efforts in a few states that are not representative of the country at large. But the disempowerment of black voters needs to be added to that list of concerns, because it is core to what the Electoral College is and what it always has been.

The race-consciousness establishment—and retention—of the Electoral College has supported an entitlement program that our 21st-century democracy cannot justify. If people truly want ours to be a race-blind politics, they can start by plucking that strange, low-hanging fruit from the Constitution.

Here is a bio of the author:

www.brennancenter.org...


There you have it....the Electoral College is racist and should be abolished.


Agree or disagree? Personally, I think it's pure poppycock


Discuss.

There is not and never has been a "popular vote" for the American President.

When anyone tells you "Hillary won the popular vote" - including Hilary herself, they're either lying or ignorant of the process.

The U.S. vote has *always* been for "electors" who then represent their district/state. It's the electors who choose the President, not the people (everything in our Constitution is representative, not direct). That's the Red/Blue map they always show of how many "electors" a candidate needs to win. It's in the Constitution, and always has been.

Why is this important?

Because human nature, and the reasons people either vote or don't vote, means that people behave differently in an "elector" vote than they would in a "popular" vote.

Example: If I lived in California I might not even bother voting because CA is no matter what going for a (D) candidate for Pres. No point in me going to the polls because I know that, in CA, I'm vastly outnumbered.

Similarly, if I live in WY, it's going Red no matter what. If I live 50 miles from the poll, I might not want to drive that in a rain or snow storm, just to vote "Red" when I know my state is going "red" no matter what. No point in it, my guy wins my state whether I vote or not.

So you can see that the electoral college in many instances can suppress people's desire to get to the poll and vote, and thus turnout is low. But the reason they vote or don't vote is because of the nature of the process - the electoral college vote is what suppresses turnout.

On the other hand, in a pure "popular vote" election, every vote literally counts. My vote in WY may be offset by a vote in CA, but I have to cast my vote in WY in order to even it out. If I don't cast my vote in WY, I lose because one in CA gives the other guy an extra vote.

So in a popular vote situation, voter turnout will be naturally much greater than in a "electoral college" situation. Counting votes in an "electoral college" vote and equating them to "popular vote" is just wrong, the votes, the turnout, the results are not equivalent.

Therefore, we've never had a "popular vote" for President, and no one has ever won "the popular vote".

So can we please stop this "popular vote" lie?

a reply to: LanceCorvette

I agree to an extent, however, voting for a President with a system basically like the popular will essentially devolve into Mob Rule.

A mass of ignorant people will always beat out a smaller group of educated people, vice versa, each with their own inherent dangers.

The electoral college helps prevent that mob rule and damn right, as you cited, CA is a massive blue failed state.

a reply to: LanceCorvette

The Electoral College was the result of a compromise between those who wanted a president based on the popular vote as opposed to those to wanted Congress to select the President.


It's a good compromise......can you imagine if we went with Congress selects the President instead?

a reply to: RickinVa

We can add it to the list along with trees, pumpkins, milk, atheism, lower taxes, hard work and math.

Hillary didn't win the popular vote. For one, someone can't win something without an official contest.

Second, she didn't get the most votes combined. Add up Trump and everyone else she got below 50% which is something the media refuses to address. Even if there was a popular vote, it was so close by most state election standards and elections in general, there would have been a runoff. No way to know if she truly got the popular vote.

If anything, she deserves an award for the biggest sore loser candidate of all time.

As for the electoral college those are the rules. Don't like it then don't play the game or petition to change the rules. Right now we still have an electoral college. Pucker up and play or stay home.

a reply to: RickinVa

My only problem with the whole argument is the Democrats are only calling for it to go because they lost because of it. It is part of the American political system and has been since day one (ish) if Hillary had won in the same way Trump did this would not be brought up by any politician on the left.

Oh, really?

Alabama has 26.54% African-American (we say black folk) population. California has 5.81% African-American population. Alabama has 9 Electoral votes, and California has 55.

But, you say, California has a higher population and therefore percentages don't matter. OK...

Alabama has a population of 4.888 million, meaning 1.297 million black folk. California has a population of a whopping 39.56 million, meaning 2.298 million black folk, or 1.77 times as many black folk as Alabama. Yet they have 6.11 times as many Electoral votes!

By General Lee in a miniskirt, this dude is right! I propose we stop this obvious racist activity by reallocating the electoral college votes to more accurately reflect the number of black folk in each state! That means that between the two, Alabama should get 23 Electoral votes and California should only get 41!

Make the Electoral College Fair Again (MECFA)!

TheRedneck

Wonder what is going to happen when Trump nails the popular vote and Cali has to give him all 55 Electoral votes because of that silly and highly unconstitutional treaty with some other traditionally blue states?

I’ll say it goes beyond just sky screaming and people start kicking trees or turning over apple carts...all the while saying no, no, no we can’t honor that agreement. It wasn’t legal.

If it’s racist, how did America get a black president for 2 terms?

I dont believe our current electoral college system is much like what was originally intended. Back then, news didnt travel too fast. And there was no way any candidate could travel through the entire country for the people could become acquainted with them and their positions. In plain simple words a popular vote would have been a vote based on little real information. So, the people voted for the delegates who would represent a smaller area. They might very well know quite a bit about the delegates and the delegates were much more aware of the issues that were important to their area. And, since it was a smaller area, the delegates could travel around and campaign. The people could pick the one they felt they could trust to represent their interests. Then, if we overlook all the bribery and other misdeeds that was common, those delegates would hopefully go to washington, meet the candidates, judge which one would best represent the interests of those who sent them and place their vote.

That is how it was supposed to work back then. It's far from what we have today. Do I think that we have problems with the electoral college and should make some changes.. oh ya. The delegates should be allowed to vote for the candidate they believe will best represent the constituents of the area of the state, which might not be reflected by the popular vote of the state.
But at the same time, I think that an all out popular vote might give too much power to the big cities and their interests which sometimes seem to be at odds with those of the smaller farming communities. For instance the people living in ny city are probably not gonna be as concerned if their policies are driving the small farmers into bankruptcy as long as the big Corp is there to buy it up for pennies on the dollar and boost their stock portfolio in the process.

a reply to: RickinVa

Voting for Trump is racist.
The Electoral College is racist.
MAGA hats are racist.

Well, they have to say that because their candidates want to raise taxes, expand the size and scope of government and take away more freedoms.

It's as if the left looked at the authoritarian regime of China and said, "Hold my beer".

a reply to: RickinVa

It seems these days, people make words mean whatever they want. There is no concept of correlation and causality. If you insist on something strongly enough, it becomes fact.

I disagree with author. The EC is fundamental to our functioning Republic. The Executive is chosen differently than Representatives, Senators, or SC Justices for a reason.

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: LanceCorvette


....
A mass of ignorant people will always beat out a smaller group of educated people, vice versa, each with their own inherent dangers.

The electoral college helps prevent that mob rule and damn right, as you cited, CA is a massive blue failed state.

I'm confused. I thought Trump voters were the mass of Ignorant Neanderthals and the Democrats were the Enlightened Ones?

How did we pull that off? Easy. Russia.

a reply to: RickinVa
I doubt it matters what any of us think on the subject.

There is already an initiative in progress to end run the EC.
www.nationalpopularvote.com...

originally posted by: dawnstar
I dont believe our current electoral college system is much like what was originally intended. Back then, news didnt travel too fast. And there was no way any candidate could travel through the entire country for the people could become acquainted with them and their positions. In plain simple words a popular vote would have been a vote based on little real information. So, the people voted for the delegates who would represent a smaller area. They might very well know quite a bit about the delegates and the delegates were much more aware of the issues that were important to their area. And, since it was a smaller area, the delegates could travel around and campaign. The people could pick the one they felt they could trust to represent their interests. Then, if we overlook all the bribery and other misdeeds that was common, those delegates would hopefully go to washington, meet the candidates, judge which one would best represent the interests of those who sent them and place their vote.

That is how it was supposed to work back then. It's far from what we have today. Do I think that we have problems with the electoral college and should make some changes.. oh ya. The delegates should be allowed to vote for the candidate they believe will best represent the constituents of the area of the state, which might not be reflected by the popular vote of the state.
But at the same time, I think that an all out popular vote might give too much power to the big cities and their interests which sometimes seem to be at odds with those of the smaller farming communities. For instance the people living in ny city are probably not gonna be as concerned if their policies are driving the small farmers into bankruptcy as long as the big Corp is there to buy it up for pennies on the dollar and boost their stock portfolio in the process.

Actually the founding fathers directly intended it to be a democratic republic and that was because of the Failures they found with democracy and mob rule so they placed educated representatives to counter mob rule and vote what is best for the nation like the Greeks and the romans did and the representatives pushed the agendas of their voters.

Benjamin Franklin stated we are doomed if the voters find out they can vote what’s in the best interest for them instead of the best interest of the nation. I believe ben was right and now people are voting on what they feel is best for them instead of what’s best for our nation. The big city states like L.A and N.Y are idiots who vote to increase their own gas prices for no reason or ban the sale of large sodas. They can on one hand be the most authoritarian like demanding people change their way of life and on the other hand extremely liberal about stuff like drugs “weed” and HIV positive people not having to tell their partner they have aids= not a crime knowing infecting others with a life threatening disease thanks San Francisco that’s a law we need!

a reply to: RickinVa

Reading the replies I can tell that guy is an idiot by popular vote.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
If it’s racist, how did America get a black president?

I'm certainly not agreeing with the electoral college being inherrently racist. The current system is pretty good on balance.

Your statement, however, is so superficial, that it might as well be the punchline of a joke.

Maybe humor was your intent, IDK.

How could the Electoral College have been created as a racist establishment when the individual States didn't allow most black men to vote, along with women? (There might have been some northern states that allowed black businessmen to vote but I'm not sure.)

How was dis-empowerment of black voters 'established' into something in that time period of US history?

a reply to: LanceCorvette

Not only that but a popular vote scenario will also drastically change candidate campaign strategies. As it is now, candidates spend all their time canvassing particular states where the electoral votes can make a difference.

There is a solid argument to be made that one of Hillary's big misteps was to ignore the Rust Belt swing states because she assumed - wrongly - that she was a lock to win those states and their electoral votes, so she spent her time campaigning in other states to her detriment on election day as those states went to Trump instead.

In national popular vote scenario, the states don't matter at all, but the heavy concentrations of votes will. Candidates will change their strategies immensely to account for that change.

To argue that this or that candidate won or lost a popular vote is a lie. We never actually had one.