Trump tweeted in 2012 that the Electoral College should be abolished. If he had gotten his wish, it'd be"President-elect Clinton." Thoughts?
What's different between this and 1960 is that when JFK was elected by an extremely narrow margin, he knew he didn't have a lot of political capital and put Republicans in his cabinet. Trump, the perfect narcissist, sees the outcome, which may have been a loss in the popular vote, as a mandate - the will of the people. He will therefore do everything he can to alienate half the American people as soon as he can, which doesn't help him or his party. I don't think Trump gets the fact that most people who voted for him don't really like him.
Is the electoral college fair?
The electoral college is fair. Keep in mind the president is not supposed to represent the people or be elected by the people. Please read Article II of the U S Constitution. Is is very short. If you look at article 2 of the U S Constitution you can see that the states are supposed to choose electors to represent their state at the electoral college for the purpose of choosing (electing) a president for the union. This means that the states elect the president not the people. It also says in article 2 that the method for selecting electors is left to each individual state. This means that it isn't necessary for the states or for the union to hold a presidential election where people vote. The president represents the union and is elected by the states, People are represented in the legislative branch of government. The president is not supposed to represent the people. In fact if there were to be a conflict of interest between the union and the people it is the presidents job to represent the union, the welfare of the union, the defense of the nation and the fiscal health of the nation. The state governments are democracies. The federal government is a republic. A republic doesn't require one man one vote but can elect the chief of state by other than a popular vote. The electors meet at their respective state capitols and the majority rules. Who ever wins the vote is how the state votes for the president. That is winner takes all. The president and vice president are our only offices filled by this method. Everyone who represents people is elected by a direct vote of those people. That is why we have a type of republic for the federal government. If you dispute that we are a republic repeat the pledge of allegiance.
Is it fair to count electoral votes differently in each state when its a national election?
what's meant to take position is that in maximum states (except Nebraska and Maine) that the classic vote of the state determines who receives the electoral votes and winner takes all... in Nebraska and Maine the electoral votes are divided into the congressional districts (i imagine) and the classic vote of the districts make sure who receives that vote and although candidate wins get in basic terms those votes and in no way all of them. Now some states mandate that the voters of their state could vote for whomever the individuals have determined... although there are some states that do not... yet better in many circumstances than not the electoral college vote the way the individuals elect.
Should we keep or abolish the electoral college?
The Electoral College is a still a good system and we should keep it. The Electoral College was in part designed to force the candidates to appeal to a broad range of people in many states large and small. If we did away with this system, the candidates would be able to focus on getting votes in several large cities. They might ignore less populated portion of the country. Remember that the United States is a union of 50 separate and independent states. We are not just one big country. On Election Day we do not have one big national election, but instead we hold 50 separate elections, one for each state. In this way each state determines who they want to be President. Each state has different rules that determine how their electors in the college must vote. Almost all states require all of their electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote for that state. Your vote does count! Each state has electors equal to their total number of congressional seats in the House and Senate. This gives small states like Wyoming and Rhode Island power in the Electoral College that is slightly disproportionate to their population. This is much like the way these small states have slightly disproportionately more power in Congress. This was a compromise that the founding fathers came up with to prevent the states with large populations dominating the national government and exercising control over smaller states. The fact that on rare occasions the winner of the Electoral College vote will be different from the winner of the nationwide popular vote is not an accident or flaw in the system. The nationwide popular vote is not even mentioned in the constitution. It is merely a number that the news media reports. The founding fathers never had any intention that our President should be elected by way of national popular vote. A constitutional amendment would be required to change the system. Small states would never agree to ratify such an amendment. It is highly unlikely that it would ever pass.
Is it fair to voters for Republicans to change the electoral college just because they cant win anymore?
Of course it's not fair - neither is life. And everyone knows Republicans have absolutely no interest in facts, truth, fairness or science. The only thing that speaks to Republicans is money. And thanks to Citizen's United, plenty of money was funneled to 2010 local Republicans - so much so that they now control the state houses and legislatures of those pesky blue states where those dirty "urban" voters outnumber the wholesome rural voters. We all know what this move is all about. This reminds me of how our revered founding fathers wrote in the Constitution that a black man was only three fifths of a person. Now, in 2012, Republicans are going to make sure that is the value of their votes. March on evil Republicans, march on. Your day of reckoning is coming ... no guns required.
Does anyone actually know why the electoral college was made a part of the election process?
Actually, I'm not too sure. My teacher was discussing this with my class a few months back. Apparently, the electoral college helps to ensure fairness in the voting process. It also helps to protect the presidency in some ways. The main reason as to why it was created, was because of the fear of "direct election." There's always a possiblility where a wicked and evil man would manipulate public opinion, and thus win the popular vote. We want to be sure that we have a president who is capable of running the presidency. Of course, this doesn't stop the fact that there are good presidents and bad presidents. Although, it does help prevent this to some degree. Also, it would be unfair if a democrat president won the election because the majority of voters were democrats, or vice versa (with republicans). Fairness to smaller states and the minorities is another reason for the creation of the electorial college. As a country, we find it only fair that the number of votes given by a minority group is equal compared to a majority group. The same goes for smaller states. It is unfair for a small state to have only 100,000 votes, whereas a larger state may have 1,000,000 votes. Then, there's also the fact that many people believe that voting should still remain in the hands of the state, since many people(outside of gov't office) are not truly knowledgable about the people running for president. Many people complain about the unfairness of the electoral college. Well, it's too bad that we can't do anything about it. The chances of removing are very small, since it would go against a consitutional amendment. For it to be removed, then it must be ratified by 2/3 of states. Personally, I like the electoral college. I hate when presidents win the office due to popular vote by people who have no clue about what the president plans to do. They only tend to know if they're democrats or republicans, and vote based on which side they like. Eh, but that's just some people who do that.
Is it Fair to say that REPUBS HAVE CORRUPTED FAMILY VALUES?
This is superb material! Thank you very much for posting it. I hope you post it elsewhere, as well, it is very educational, it exposes the "family values" issue as utterly, abysmally, disgustingly hypocritical...behold: even while they are engaging in the conduct they criticize others for, they are looting the treasury and attempting to steal a soverign foreign country's oil. They are evil, that is the only word for it, even their neglect for the people of New Orleans was politically driven; to try to flip Louisiana from a blue to a red state. So I applaud you for this material, it is great, and if you can post it in many other venues please do so, like letters to the editor, or submitted as op-ed pieces to major newspapers, or even sent to news departments at TV and radio stations. Anyway, thank you very much!
Is our process of electing the president of the United States fair for third party candidates?
I think big money tends to corrupt things and many of the third party solutions would attack those big money sources so they don't gather the needed moolah to mount massive direct mail, telephone, TV/radio ad campaigns that are a necessary evil of campaigning. My only problem with trying to find a way to regulate it is: I am also a huge believer in First Amendment rights and I have a hard time saying that those are invalidated by virtue of a person simply having more cash available to express them with. If Bill Gates wants to spend $8 billion of his own dollars to buy every billboard from Los Angeles to Anaheim the day before the 2008 election saying "Vote in my guy/gal...he's/she's the best!" he should be able to do that..after all, it's his money, it's not ILLEGAL to express your political preference, so he should be able to do that. I do think we can regulate how unions spend dues re:politics, simply because in a union shop you MUST belong to a union and you shouldn't be forced to contribute money to directly support election of a candidate you have disagreements with. Please note: I am also opposed to the use of "unstated" polical backing such as in the case of my wife's former employer, who required that officers of her bank contribute to a banking PAC which tended to back Republican candidates. Your ability to advance in your career shouldn't be dependent on your holding the "right" political views, be they Democrat, GOP or something else. This is a long way to go to say: Probably...but I think the attempted cure would probably be worse than the problem. I'd just like to see more 3rd party candidates hit that 10% threshhold and get fed matching funds so we have a more robust debate on policy issues.