For Debate: Should the Electoral College Be Abolished?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 03. 2020
- As the 2020 presidential election approaches, the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia hosts a traveling debate on a question at the center of public discourse: is Electoral College is outdated or does it remain a vital aspect of our constitutional republic?
Join James Ceaser, professor of politics at the University of Virginia, and Jesse Wegman of the New York Times editorial board and author of the new book, Let the People Pick the President: The Case for Abolishing the Electoral College, for a debate as old as the U.S. Constitution itself. Hank Meijer, co-chairman of Meijer Inc., and Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderate. - Zábava
Saying that we are afraid of having more than 2 parties implies that the American people are not capable of understanding more than 2 parties. It also implies that we'll go from 2 political parties to 40 political parties. Most modern republics have more than 2 parties and operate as good or better than the US. In fact less parties turn cities into China or Russia
or its because 2 parties ingrained them selves so much from, both sides bs (republican and democrat parties are both fucking garbage) that everyone picks. it should be instead of political parties those running have to be independent state what they want and should have a promise list that they are too abide by or try (and have proof of) or get jailed. too many lying crooked politicians which led to the crap we got now days.
This is about the electoral college NOT the number of parties so obviously, you already do not understand the TOPIC so maybe, at least as it applies to you, you have answered your own question as to the capabilities of the American population and multiple parties. BTW, if one bothers to READ and OBSERVE the results of multiple parties on nations, you will find a pile of increasing manipulation, dirty dealing, evil compromises and loyalties, all of which are INCREASED INCREDIBLY the more parties you include. OBVIOUSLY, you have never lived amidst the chaos of elections in Germany and France. (Yes, I HAVE!) Perhaps you should spend more time telling Democrats to stop name calling and rioting and screaming hateful epithets and LEFT WING PRESS generated LIES!
I find it fascinating that well read scholars and constitutional professors are not instantly and emotionally decided on these complex topics
The art of debate is a learning opportunity that you tube rants do not afford you deep thought and reading of books is what we have lost and it’s the only way out of the woods on this and many topics.you can’t run a nation on hunches and unchecked emotions.
And p.s. our legislative process is a hard endeavor and these people lose sleep and work very hard to try to thread the needle of democracy in this age of uncertainty. Peace. Let’s be kindhearted and use our brains to process what our emotions are screaming at us and each other.
42:00 - 47:23. Wegman ends the debate completely. Crushing blow. Electoral college would have been abolished if not for those greedy for political power.
Both support and opposition to the electoral college seem based on self-interest.
It is kind of weird how the Founding Fathers didn't directly envision there being political parties, many initially disliked them (though quickly formed/worked with them) and yet they so much fit and work with the basic structures they seem to be designed for them. The Founding Fathers did at least see different factions as unfortunate but also inevitable in society/government.
Halfway through and I love this debate. So informational. I think I still support the electoral college but I do not like winner takes all…
The only problem is neither of the other two proposals for reforming the electoral college are better, and in fact make the system worse.
The first is the congressional district method. This is the method that Maine and Nebraska do. The problem with this method is that it introduces gerrymandering into the presidential election, and give the ability to gerrymander even further the electoral college away from the vote of the people. I'll give you an example. In 2012, President Barack Obama won an absolute majority of the popular vote, getting about 5 million more votes than his nearest opponent. He won 27 out of 51 states (counting DC as a state), he won 51.1% of the vote. However, if the congressional district method had been in place during the 2012 election, Mitt Romney would have won the Electoral College 274-264. To give you an example, I'll give you Pennsylvania, which had 20 electoral votes. It pretty much mirrored the country, with Barack Obama winning 52% of the vote. However, if the congressional district system had been in place, then Mitt Romney would have walked out of Pennsylvania with 13 electoral votes, to Barack Obama's 7. Under the Congressional District method, the most important thing in the Presidential election won't be how people voted. It'll be how the lines are drawn.
The second method is a proportional system, and this is just as bad as it would actually cut any influence that small states would have in the election. Candidates would not campaign in any state with under 10 electoral votes, because there are no electoral votes up for grabs in any state with under 10 electors. Let me put it this way. In a 3-vote state, it takes 33% of the population per electoral vote. Do you think that the electorate is flexible enough to even grant 1 electoral vote? So, why would I spend my time in a 3-vote state where I'll likely get 0 electoral votes, versus spending more and more time in the big 4 of New York, California, Florida and Texas, to where it takes a whole lot less swing to get an electoral vote? Under a popular vote system, a vote is a vote is a vote. Every state has votes, and persuadable voters. Therefore there is a reason to visit every state. Under the electoral college, it only matters if I get enough votes to get an elector.
@caitlinmenger8716 You do realize that the whole election is winner take all right ?
This was informational, but not a debate in the slightest.
Hell no
It's not fair any longer
Oh, how Majority-Rules is kept in check by Minority-Rights?
So why don't we weight votes by minority status then? If you truly believe the electoral college should remain as is to protect minority rights, then why not have votes from minorities have more weight?
Daniel The Electoral College technically protects minority States’ rights.
@@conrad4667 - You have no proof to back up your ridiculous claim.
RB Proof? I’m simply stating rules and their origins. Like in baseball, a runner must tag up, after a hit ball is caught, before advancing to the next base.
@@conrad4667 - Lies are not proof. Let's see some proof that the E C actually protects "minority States' rights".
Are you a citizen of the USA?
Oh and ....I find it disturbing that as dry as this is ....there are so few people watching it and such a high number of people ranting on this matter
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that through the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
President Thomas Jefferson; First Inaugural Address; March 4th, 1801.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa and kkk are just low-life, MS-13-type gangs of butthurt, terrorist "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
Getting rid of the Electoral College is absolutely something worth doing. Right now if you're in a non-competitive state the candidates for President have no reason to campaign in your state or validate your concerns. Small states aren't helped by the EC, they're harmed. At least in a one-person-one-vote system every vote would matter, and anyone running would have to appeal to all voters equally, regardless of the state they live in. www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.4
@Kirk - If you think that Tom's statement proves the necessity of the Electoral College, you are wrong. Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war.
The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that whiney, old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "We don't want to be ruled by the coasts!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa/kkk was just a low-life, MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
Kirk - Don't forget: T.Jefferson was a terrorist(slaver).
ah yes thomas jefferson the slave owner
The electoral doesn't protect racial and political minorites. Just minority states. It is meant to give more political power to states with fewer people while maintaining power to states with more people.
This is very noble framers. However, this doesn't work since politics still ignore places like Wyoming. In reality politicians focus on swing states that they a chance of winning.
It is best to imagine "winning" as conquering. If you're a Democrat you know you've already won/conquered California and New York. No need to spend that much time there. Wyoming is hard to conquer and it doesn't add much to your army. So you focus on the states that you actually have a chance of winning, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, etc. The battles are for the states themselves.
If the electoral college was removed, the battles would be for individual voters. So a Democrat could go to majority Republican states such as Texas, Florida, in Tennessee, and when a million voters from each.
just remove 2 extra electors for senators...problem solved.
As long as the Electoral College remains, there is bound to be at least one time, in the near future, where it benefits a Dem candidate. In the recent past, it has benefited the Repubs (Bush Jr, and Trump. who each won despite getting fewer votes), but the tide can shift the other way. In principle, I'm in favor of whomever gets the most votes: wins, ....but let's not level the playing field just yet, until the Dems get at least one victory - by way of garnering a win with less popular vote numbers - like Repubs have done. Fair is fair.
Professor Ceasar got murdered like Julius Ceasar by this man. Well done, Mr. Wegman.
I love the electoral college, I just hate winner take all. I would prefer a proportional allocation of electoral votes (NOT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT)
A flat out popular vote would give a 1 to 1 proportional outcome.
@@gregorycampbell9386 Yes and no. rural farmers are an extremely important contributor to this country and on a 1 to 1 basis would be crushed by whichever party is dictated to by the so-called environmentalists. The entire rural way of life would be crushed by people who refer to them as fly-over states.
@@chapter4travels @Gregory Campbell both of you guys are right. A popular vote would be more equal/fair for each vote. On the other hand, the electoral college makes extreme regional minorites more important and have a bigger say. There's only a few "regional" minorites and they people that own the most about of land. Thus this would be the farmers in their farms and the wealthy on their estates.
Removing the electoral college makes it not based on land and just ideas/opinions. It just so happens that a lot of ideas/opinions exist in the same regions.
If one believes farmers have a more of say because that person believes farmers are more important, then the electorial college is fine.
Lastly, removing the electoral college makes it not based on states at all. So imagine the map without state lines. Yes they would go to more populated regions and cities but they would also travel to lesser populated "swing" areas. Democrats would depend much times in NYC because a lot of people are already Democrats. But they may spend more time in rural NY towns because there's more minds to change there.
Democrat Beto O'Rourke came close to the Senate in Texas in 2018 because he didn't just campaign in liberal Houston but mostly in the more rural parts of Texas. You campaign in places where you can win votes. Not in places where you've already won votes.
The problem with that is that would more effectively cut any influence that the small states have much better than the popular vote would. This is what's called a rounding problem, where the added electors are actually cancelled out by the effect of rounding. Let me give you a demonstration.
In a 3-vote state, the electors would be awarded at 16.67%, 50%, and 83.33% (approximately. I'm taking my percentages from a round to the nearest elector, and adjust, and presuming a 2-way race). So, anywhere from 50% to 83.33% would mean that your candidate would get 2 electoral votes, while the other candidate gets 1 electoral vote. That means that in order to get 1 electoral vote, you'd have to move the electorate by 33.33%. Do you think that there is enough give in the electorate to give that?
Under the popular vote, a vote is a vote is a vote. So, 10,000 votes in Wyoming is 10,000 votes, and therefore an incentive to go there. 10,000 votes under a proportional system is 0 electoral votes, and therefore no incentive to go there.
A proportional system would mean that candidates would flock to the high-population states and have absolutely no incentive to go to low-population states.
@@chapter4travels A vote from a rural farmer counts exactly the same as a vote from anybody else. I believe in America when we wrote in our declaration that all men are created equal. Why should that rural farmer's vote count for more than anybody else's vote?
No, it keeps the animals in line
No, small states (population wise) need some leverage.
they would have leverage proportional to their population. Why should "people living in a state which has a small population" be *the* minority given extra leverage by the electoral college?
@donovandownes5064 I would suspect, based on admittedly limited knowledge, that the answer from people that support the electoral college would be that smaller states typically face different sets of issues and therefore have different values from larger states. The idea would therefore be that what is in the interest of larger areas of the nation may not be in the best interest of everyone. See "tyranny of the majority". America has a long history of passing legislation that gives minority voices more power in order to prevent something like that from happening. The United States is very intentionally not a democracy; tyranny of the majority has long been the biggest argument against pure democracies.
I don't know enough about it to say whether I necessarily agree with the electoral college or not, but the arguments for it existing are based around problems with democratic systems that have been argued about since the times when Greek philosophers were arguing whether a democratic system could work. It's not a new concept and it certainly didn't come about JUST as a political tool, even if it is used that way.
"Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country; never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to support the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property and his scared honor.”
PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN
(p.67-68; Camelot and the Cultural Revolution; JAMES PIERESON; Encounter Books; New York; 2007)
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa and kkk are just low-life, MS-13-type gangs of butthurt, terrorist "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
I have never heard of a more miserable solution than this national compact vote plan. So if you are in a state, say California, whose popular vote goes to candidate C by 90%, but since candidate Y gets more popular vote nationwide, this compact would mean California would vote their electors for candidate Y. This is lunacy. The best solution I see is for the whole country to move to a Maine model, but get rid of faithless electors. Maine model nationwide would maybe increase 3rd parties in the US which in today’s world can only be good.
So easy to crush this debate and prove why this crap electoral college should be abolished.
@28: +/-
Like a governor runs for election.
Illinois. The candidates run where their voters are. Illinois. Down state is red. Chicago and very urban is blue.
This is why the college is needed. If each county got one electorial vote there would never be a blue governor. Inspite of Chicago's numbers which nearly always is blue, it only represents perhaps 10% of the the whole state .
I'm guessing you mean 10% of the state by land area not 10% of the people of Illinois.
If it was 10% of the population then no one is actually voting.
Also, sounds like Republicans aren't adapting to pull some Democrats to their side.
It represents 100% of the whole state. Under your scneario, with every county getting 1 vote, Hardin County (population 3,597) would have the exact same vote as Cook County (population 5,109,122). What makes the people in Hardin county so special that they should count for the equivilant of 1,420 people in Cook County?
I believe in we are a nation by the people, of the people, and for the people. I believe that all men are created equal. I do not believe that unoccupied land should have more of a vote than actual real people.
why should a county with 4000 people have the same voting power as one with over 5 million people? Just a ridiculous argument. PEOPLE vote, not LAND
But... land doesn't vote. People vote. 55% of Illinoisans voted for a Democrat in the last gubernatorial election-- how in the world would it be fair to throw away their votes and give the victory instead to the Republican who won more counties but barely took 42% of the actual voters, not even close to a majority?
That being said, your point isn't actually true. If it was, Democratic candidates for governor would exclusively go to Chicago. But during the 2022 gubernatorial election, Democrat JB Pritzker made a couple hundred stops in 86 different Illinois cities-- East St Louis, Harrisburg, Rock Falls, Du Quoin, and yes, Chicago. Governors try to get every vote no matter where that vote is, because every vote counts. But when it comes to presidents, not every vote counts-- in fact, hardly any of them do, unless you live in a swing state.
Why should it matter where someone lives for their vote to count?
get rid of political parties. have more candidates run for president
So far this debate has said nothing about the elephant in the room - or the donkey. The 2-party system is why we have such close elections. It's why the popular vote in the presidential "election" doesn't always get the majority of the EC. Because the EC is controlled by the state party apparatus; they are required to vote as the majority party directs them to.
The founders intended that the EC would be an independent, nonpartisan organization that would manage the selection of a president from start to finish (as described by the first speaker). The political parties have hijacked the whole process, creating "primaries" and "election nights" which are self-serving party promotions. Constitutionally, there's nothing to prevent a Republican state from ordering all its ECs to vote for Trump even if he got only 40% of the vote.
We don't need to abolish the EC. We should abolish both parties and their corrupt fundraising system controlled by billionares and special interests. Restore the EC to its intended role as an independent selection committee free of partisan interference. We would surely get better candidates than an elderly bureaucrat and a shady hotel-casino owner/ reality show host.
Government without parties can sound very appealing but without parties you would real likely instead just get competing personality cults.
@@suarezguy thanks for your comment. I agree that personality cults are very dangerous to democracy. I'm not against political parties per se, I'm against the corrupt "duopoly" system we have now. A few states are trying ranked-choice voting as a way to give voters a wider selection of candidates. This will likely spread, and result in 2 or 3 new parties gaining traction over time. But you can bet the entrenched Dem/GOP system will fight it.
ABSOLUTELY NOT; HOW IS POPULISM WORKNG OUT NOW?
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. --But those of popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is spirit not to be encouraged.”
(President George Washington; Farewell Address; Library of America; 1997)
@Kirk - WOW! Pres. George Washington was still alive in 1997? F'n amazing.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa and kkk are just low-life, MS-13-type gangs of butthurt, terrorist "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
54:20 See? The parties didn’t switch.
That didn't prove your point. He's just stating that the parties have always been competitive; NOT that they always stood for the same things
ABSOLUTELY NO! MADE TO PROTECT US!
CUBAN BORN, AMERICAN BY CHOICE!
You have no proof to back up your claims about the Electoral College.
The ONLY reason for the Electoral College was to award excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers).
The E C was written to be a "welfare benefit" for terrorists(slavers). "free stuff" for terrorists.
The US is not a monolith, it is a confederation of states. Each state deserves to be treated and recognized separately, which is why the electoral college is essential. The culture in Idaho is different than the culture in New Jersey.
@Jane - Your willful ignorance is sad. Why are you repeating old bullshit csa/kkk terrorist propaganda?
You have no proof to back up your ridiculous claim.
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism.
The Electoral College was written for only one purpose.
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other USA terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental and political power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories and Western states greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western states. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
What happened when the terrorist slavers could no longer easily dominate the USA national government and national politics?
The csa and kkk are just low-life, MS-13-type gangs of butthurt, terrorist "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Eliminate the Electoral College. It has poisoned the USA!
The electoral college does nothing to ensure that a voter in Idaho is given equal attention to the voter in New Jersey.
Why doesnt this reasoning exist in other developed nations with regional differences ? Does the basic math of how majority rules confuse you?
@@xxcrysad3000xx - You are correct.
Sepulcher Librarian actually that reasoning does exist in other developed countries with regional differences. Approximately one-fifth of democratic republics elect their President/head of state via an electoral college. India and Germany are examples of democratic countries with regional differences and federalism which elect their president via an electoral college. The US electoral college is just unique in that 1) the US president is also head of government; 2) the electoral college consist of electors whose only function is to elect the president (unlike other countries whose electoral college consist of members of the national parliament and subnational legislatures; and 3) our winner-take-all electoral college is wildly malapportioned and tiny considering the population. Furthermore the countries that directly elect their president usually have additional safeguards (eg a prime minister responsible to parliament) in place to prevent the president from using his national mandate to become an authoritarian who can bypass the legislature. Without those safeguards, the move from an electoral college system to a direct election system results in a power grab by the president at the expense of the other branches of government
A state compact is prohibited by the constitution.
We can only hope!!
No its not. The Supreme Court said " only compacts that increase the political power of the states while undermining federal sovereignty require congressional consent". Its a non issue. The federal government has no right/power to dictate how a state chooses their electors. Its in the constitution.
Checks and balances are the most important thing to discuss when talking about the electoral college. Abolish the college: every election runs liberal due to heavy influx of left wing minded foreigners, then run away political dysfunction ensues.
The country is so equally divided that he population of California would always win and they are democrat.