Why don't we have a popular vote for President?

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Bignate603
Some of it also is so that the "educated" could control who came into office if they felt it was necessary. I'm being completely serious. To this day there are few states that have any punishment more then a slap on the hand for the person that is sent to the electoral college to vote if they don't actually vote like they are supposed to. This was written in so that in a state of emergency the people who controlled the money and power could stick in someone they thought was necessary to do the job and do it all legally.

do you have some documentation to support that?

did you find that in the federalist papers somewhere?

Take a look at the system. Can you think of a reason WHY they wouldn't hold the representatives to what the people wanted? It was a safety valve to protect the masses from themselves when it was written. It's not hard to see, and they wouldn't really write too much about it (obviously the people wouldn't like it). But by the current system if the electoral representatives could be convinced that someone else was a better candidate then they could constitutionally put another candidate in place.

I didn't come up with this, my former history teacher who has studied a significant amount of constitutional law pointed this out to us.

 

[Bignate603]

1872 - Sixty-Three Democratic Electors



The Democratic Party nominated Horace Greeley for President in 1872.



However, Greeley died after the November election but before the Electoral College had cast their votes. 63 of the 66 Democratic Electors refused to give their votes to a deceased candidate.

So three voted for a dead candidate?

 

[tcsenter]

This was written in so that in a state of emergency the people who controlled the money and power could stick in someone they thought was necessary to do the job and do it all legally.

do you have some documentation to support that? did you find that in the federalist papers somewhere?

No, and there is no documentation. This is the "ghetto" understanding of the Electoral College system, and if you spend enough time around the ghetto, you will learn that in none of the presidential elections did the electoral college vote reflect the popular vote. Part of the overall 'the constitution is just a facade, a 'veneer', to make people think they live in a democratic country. Four, or maybe its five, very wealthy and powerful people run the whole country, including who gets to run for office, who gets elected, etc.' conspiracy theory that is wildly popular in the ghetto.

 

[BoberFett]

For those who want to go to a purely popular vote (which with voting corruption what it is, is that reliable either?) should we remove the Senate as well? Why should every state have two senators?

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

1872 - Sixty-Three Democratic Electors



The Democratic Party nominated Horace Greeley for President in 1872.



However, Greeley died after the November election but before the Electoral College had cast their votes. 63 of the 66 Democratic Electors refused to give their votes to a deceased candidate.

So three voted for a dead candidate?

what surprise is that? in the 2000 election, the voters of missouri elected a dead guy, what is the big deal of 3 people in 1872 voting for a dead guy? :/

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ergeorge
yes, but in most states, the winner of the popular vote takes that states entire electoral college. ie, even if the dems win a state with a vote of 51/49 and they have 10 electoral votes, they get all 10 votes.

There are some valid reasons to maintain the electoral college, but I'd prefer to see electoral college votes divided along the lines of the popular vote.

Like you said not in all states... electors can vote however they want and some states allow split electoral votes anyways.