There was a saying that Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. The Electoral College gives the sheep a gun
I see the need for the Electoral College, but I have to disagree with this statement. IMO, if there is no EC then voting becomes even more important. Frankly, I'm more concerned with voter fraud not being addressed, and why anyone would oppose having to provide a legal ID to vote. (And don't get me started on 16-year olds voting...gah.)
Without the Electoral College, only the large states matter. All the campaigning will take place in California, New York, Florida, Texas and Illinois, and perhaps Pennsylvania and Virginia since they can out-vote the rest of the country on population. The states like Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, etc. would no longer matter. In a democracy, 51% of the people can control the other 49%. That is why they always become dictatorships and usually collapse in rebellion. It is also why the Founders decided on a republic instead. They also didn't believe people under 21 were mature enough to vote, even though in their day people had been working for a living for quite some time by them and were living on their own...except for the wealthy.
Exactly, and that leaves 49% of the population without representation, and revolutions are won with far fewer than 49% of the population. They believed that it was important for voters to have a stake in the outcome of an election, which was why people needed to be landowners. While I don't agree that someone should have to be a landowner in order to have a stake in the outcome of an election, voters should be mature enough to understand the issues involved.
On the other hand, if every vote counts then the majority of the people have spoken. There have been only 5 presidential elections in history where the electoral college overrode the popular vote. It would be fine with me if only taxpayers could vote. That way, people typically voting for candidates promising more freebies would likely be eliminated from the voter pool. (And I'm only half joking.)
Sorry, but I go by the dictionary definition, not conspiracy theory. mob rule /ˌmäb ˈro͞ol/ noun noun: mob rule control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation. "the leadership were criticized for giving in to mob rule"
You'd be okay with a military dictatorship as long as its the established government? I'm not in favor of violence or intimidation even if they have voted themselves the right to do it. If the mob is elected to office, they're still the mob.
Where did I say I was in favor of any dictatorship?? I'm just saying that everyone's vote should count.
Everyone's vote does count. The number of electors that a state gets is based on population. If you live in California, you get 538 electors to the Electoral College. Maine gets only 4. Without the Electoral College, there would be no point in Mainers bothering to vote at all, and that would be true of most of our states, because our votes would only count if we voted the same way as California and two or three other large states.
I suppose if you have a "them versus us" mentality, but all the people in California (or any other state) don't vote the same way. So if the percentage of votes for a candidate come from a combination of CA/ME/any-state votes, that's a truer representation of what the majority of AMERICANS want. I'd think that state governments and laws would be more important for regional elections. Besides, it grates when the Texas Electoral Votes go to the person I didn't vote for.
And whilst I take a break from other things, may I offer a small piece of coal to warm things up a bit? There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that explicitly guarantees the general public a right to vote for the presidency. It’s implied but it’s not explicit. Negating the Electoral College would also negate our stance as a Constitutional Republic and we would then, for all structured purposes become a Democracy which in turn would negate much of the “rule of law”. Why does it negate the rule of law? A dozen guys catch a horse thief and start to string him up to a tree limb. A sheriff comes by and tells them they can’t do that even if they all agree that the guy being hung is the thief. He has to have his day in court.....it’s the law. Under a democracy, the guy gets hung because the majority says so. Under a Constitutional Republic he may get hung but not until the letter of the law is followed. The U.S.A. Is not a democracy. We’re a Constitutional Republic and as such we are bound by the constitution and the Constitution only infers the rights of the public to vote for the presidency but it is not explicit. If some folks wish to amend the Constitution to read that the general population has the right to pick the president, then change the Constitution and become a Democracy. Good luck with that. Okay, back to work......
I don't see the parallel with voting in a national election and a trial for horse theft, but OK. And apparently, under a Constitutional Republic you get a free pass if you're Jussie Smollett. How's that workin' for ya'?