Electoral College

Abolish the Electoral College? A Soho Forum Debate

Law professors Richard Epstein and Lawrence Lessig go head-to-head.


HD Download

The Electoral College is the best means of electing a president compared to any others that might be devised.

When Donald Trump won the presidential election in 2016 even though 2.8 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton, everyone from Bill De Blasio, to Michael Moore, to Eric Holder and Bill Maher said that at long last we should abolish the electoral college. Then-California Senator Barbara Boxer introduced a bill to amend the U.S. Constitution to do just that.

A Gallup poll from September of this year showed that 61 percent of Americans support abolishing the electoral college in favor of a national popular vote, although it's an issue that breaks along partisan lines. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans want to keep the electoral college, while 89 percent of Democrats said that we should get rid of it.

Is the electoral college the best system for electing a president? That was the subject of an online Soho Forum debate held on Wednesday, November 11, 2020. Richard Epstein, a law professor at New York University, defended the system against Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

Lessig won the Oxford Style debate by gaining 14.29 percent of the audience's support. Epstein lost 2.04 percent of his pre-debate votes.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Ian Keyser and John Osterhoudt.

Photos: Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons/Flickr; Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA 2.0/Wikimedia Commons; Rick Wilking/REUTERS/Newscom; Mike Stotts/Splash News/Newscom; Gabriele Holtermann-Gorden/Sipa/Newscom; CD1/Mandatory Credit: Carrie Devorah/WENN/Newscom; Erica Price/Sipa USA/Newscom; Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/Newscom; Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/Newscom; Niklas Halle"N/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Brian Cahn/ZUMA Press/Newscom

NEXT: Shelby Steele on the Implications of Michael Brown's Tragic Death

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I’m shocked it’s only 61 %. Most people think we’re a democracy. They don’t understand we are a republic and the government was set up to quell the dictatorship of the majority.

    1. Even if you are right, that does not justify the enshrinement of minority rule. Republicans routinely get less votes then Democrats nationally, they only won the popular vote for President once in the last 30 years. Yet they have a 6-3 majority on the SC, and will at worst have 50 seats in the Senate. At the state level the results are similar with gerrymandering allowing them to have far more seats in state government (Wisconsin) then they should. The EC is the worst example of a system that allows the group with less votes to win.

      1. Too bad. You don’t get what you want, so you change the fucking rules? Well good luck. 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 have to agree. You have no fucking chance in hell of getting that amendment passed.

        Seriously, democrats and liberals are the dumbest fucks on the planet.

        1. 3/4 of states…

          1. Well, pack the Supreme court and use the sort of legal reasoning John Paul Stevens applied to the Second Amendment and Bob’s your uncle. The Electoral College gets declared unconstitutional even though it’s in the Constitution.
            I used to live in Mexico, where this sort of thing is business as usual.

            1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regularF office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…….CLICK DOLLER 666

        2. Changing the rules to get what you want is called “politics” and the Rs do it all the time. Also, pointing out that the EC sucks (even though it will not change) does not make one dumb.

          1. I quit working at shop rite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier. Here’s what I do… WORK24HERE

        3. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be implemented without a constitutional amendment, and according to the interpretation of the constitutions that conservatives are currently pushing, it would be completely legal.

          1. I’m beginning to doubt that. The recent Supreme Court decision said states were free to bind Electors to the vote of the people of their states, not to ignore the will of the people of their states.

            1. The ruling said that the state may bind electors to vote the way they are told. It does not go further to require the states make their electors follow their popular vote.

          2. It would probably be constitutional, but it will never happen. If it ever gets to the point where it could happen, Democrats would have control of the Federal government anyway and it would be moot. Also, the first time any state votes contrary to how the population of that state voted, the Party who pushed this would be in trouble. Any Democratic elected official will only support this until it threatens their own person political position. As long as there is no real chance of something like this actually happening, they’ll be all for it.

            1. If it happens, we need a revolution to overthrow the democrats. Which will likely have to happen soon anyway.

        4. Dumbest fucks yet you’re the one basically being as partisan as fuck.

          Land doesn’t vote you fucking idiot.

          1. An you don’t live in a king monarchy stateless nation either — f*cking id*ot!!!

          2. It is concerning the “Law of the Land” — f*cking id*ot…

            Our Democratic-pitched disfigurement of USA federalism is no excuse. Your city (land borders) of people can legislate, your county (land borders) can legislate, your state (land borders) can legislate but only Constitutional Law should exist across the entire nation.

            The federal government was created SPECIFICALLY for a strong national defense and nation-to-nation affairs ONLY! Something Republican GET and Democrats try to CRIMINALLY break compulsively.

        5. Stupid is overly harsh; I would argue deluded is better. I always get the numbers wrong. 3/4 or 2/3, of the states to approve an ammendment, but in any case that is not gonna happen. I live in California. We would love to see such an ammendment pass. But get real, I would never expect the states that would lose power and influence to vote for such an ammendment because “it’s more fair that way”. This is jut fantasy island crap. I don’t know why people keep bringing it up. In any case, this only really affects one election the Presidency, and since the President is the head a of a Federal Government, representing the States, it makes sense. The real problem is that the Executive branch has way way too much power. Rather than toning it down, each party wants it maxed out when they hold the seat, and complains about Presidential overreach when they don’t. And then brings this kind of stupid stuff to get us to be all outraged one way or another.

          1. “The real problem is that the Executive branch has way way too much power.” — Well Said…. As well as the entire Union of States Government created only for national affairs and defense.

      2. The president is elected by the states, not by the people. Smaller states, like the one I live in (four votes), get a boost in the EC. Without that the votes in less populated states wouldn’t matter. The entire election would be decided by a half a dozen metropolitan areas imposing their will upon the rest of the country. I say keep the EC, even if it’s origin was a compromise with slave states.

        1. No. Without the EC every vote would have equal weight. What you want is to maintain the status where votes in smaller states are worth more and thus the populations in the smaller states get to impose their will on the majority.
          I am just saddened that the idea that everyone’s vote should be equal is controversial.

          1. The word “democracy” appears exactly zero times in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence. They wanted to temper mob rule. Sure, mob rule seems great when you’re part of the mob, but it isn’t great for everyone else.

            1. You don’t want shit on the sidewalks in your state? What an elitist,

            2. Having everyone’s vote count the same is very different from “mob rule”.

              1. If two wolves and a sheep vote on what’s for dinner has the sheep’s vote really been counted equally?

                1. Do you care when you’re a wolf?

              2. President is elected by the states, not the people.

              3. Wrong, ochlocracy is what you propose, and is a terrible idea that the EC is in place to prevent.

          2. What you don’t understand is that the united states all had their own revolutions, and united to form a federal government called The United States; but they would not have done so if each state had no say in the functioning of the federal government. That is why the Electoral College exists; that is why the Senate is per state; and that is why Senators used to be selected by state legislatures. The 19th(?) amendment changed that; if you want to change the Senate distribution, or the Electoral College, do the same. Otherwise you are just howling in the wind.

            1. 17A, the death of federalism and birth of democracy

              1. Except that it is no such thing. The 17th did not arise deus ex machina.

                In FACT, the mechanism of state legislatures selecting senators turned states themselves into simply an arm of the federal government. State elections turned into contests about who they would support as Senator not anything they would do at the state level. And because state-level issues became secondary, it also meant that state level politics became far more corruptible. States themselves finally had enough of that and for very good reason.

                The 17th may not have had the intended effects but nothing ever does. What is actually far worse is the modern hand waving three card monte about the 17th. Which pretends that everything was just peachy pre-17th. Sticking history on a pedestal as long as you ignore all actual knowledge about it.

            2. Thank you for getting here ahead of me. Those who want to discard the EC have top-down, national image of government in which states are mere departments of the federal, carrying out its dictates. We who prize the EC recognize the value of having 50 semi-sovereign entities so we might move from one to another (as I moved from California to Washington) when a state becomes oppressive or confiscatory (or in Cal’s case, both).

            3. ^YES; Perfectly stated.

              Seems Anti-American Nazi’s (National Socialists) all carry the same slaver mentality — Sell your soul to the [WE] mob-rules because you don’t own you (Individual or State); [WE] own you.

          3. 1 is not equal to 100 unless you add 99 to it. Sorry, but you are extremely wrong.

        2. +1.

          The EC acknowledges that Californians are not Nebraskans are not New Yorkers. It encourages local rule and concern for empty and otherwise forgettable places. And it forces the national consensus to actually be national.

          It’s one of the most elegant systems on the planet. The only enhancement I’d want is a wholesale shift to the Maine/Nebraska system of apportionment. And a constitutional amendment that forced the drawing of districts in line with county/municipality borders wherever possible.

          1. “drawing of districts in line with county/municipality borders wherever possible.”
            Why? My township used to be split between two state house districts; we had two legislators fighting for us at the capitol. Now the township is in one district, and has only one legislator fighting for us.

            1. Might just be simple aesthetics, but I’ve always thought it ridiculous that my hometown (population ~90k) sat in three separate Congressional districts. And none of them ever gave passing notice to it even though it’s one of the largest towns in the state.

              But it also allows you to apply the EC principle down to multiple levels of government: sub-national and sub-state boundaries should be meaningful. But aside from petty law enforcement matters and public schooling they often aren’t.

            2. “drawing of districts in line with county/municipality borders wherever possible.”

              Urban Democrats typically oppose that, as doing so puts lots of Democrats into just several Congressional or state legislative districts.

              When gerrymandering new voting districts, majority legislative parties try to create lots of districts where their party has 5%-10% majority of voters, and fewer districts where the opposing party has huge voter margins.

        3. the origin of the EC was a compromise between high population and low population states. the slavery part doesn’t apply anymore.

        4. Really the 3/5 compromise was the bad plan with the slave states. This stuff makes sense because we are federal. What we should really wonder is what will the major metropolitan areas want next, if they could get this fantasy to pass, which will never happen. Obviously, a single chamber congress just based on population. It is more fair that way. But this is a debate about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

        5. “The president is elected by the states, not by the people.”

          When a state can show up to a polling station and fill out a ballot, this will make sense.

        6. We actually agree on something. Kudos.

      3. “The EC is the worst example of a system that allows the group with less votes to win.”

        Before or after all the cheating?

        Asking for a friend.

        1. Doesn’t matter; What’s matters is which party “thinks” (by loads of propaganda) that this country is a democratic (mob-rules) dictatorship and which party upholds EVERY INDIVIDUALS Liberty and Justice (Supreme Law)…

          It’s the very difference between a good citizen and a lawless crook.

      4. The Supreme Court and The Senate don’t have anything to do with any kind of national vote, regardless of whether it’s a popular vote or electoral system. Gerrymandering at the state level requires you to get into power in a pre-gerrymandered system an have a popular majority. Both examples are kind of non-sequitur to electoral voting in my opinion.

      5. Dems controlled gerrymandering for 200 years without complaint. The second it benefitted the Reps they claims it’s a threat to the Republic.


        1. With their radicalization, the democrats have become an existential threat to our constitutional republic.

      6. Idiot. The idea is to prevent overbearing rule by any group, majority or minority. But if you are an authority fetishist, you probably can’t accept that.

      7. Two wolves and a sheep vote on what’s for dinner…you would actually support that arrangement.

        It is not “minority rule,” rather it’s protecting minorities from the mob of ravenous wolves.

      8. Mollygodiva demonstrates just how ignorant most progressives (especially those that claim to be Libertarians) are. If you really want the Orwellian nightmare of one party rule then let’s abolish the Electoral College. How stupid do you have to be to call your self a Progressive/Libertarian these days anyway?

    2. The federal government wasn’t set up to quell anything.
      It was an agreement between 13 independent states.
      The Electoral College was a necessary compromise to get them all to join, just like having a House and a Senate was.
      Liberals act as if the federal government set up the states instead of the other way around.

      1. For them this is what makes sense.

    3. I am now making more than 350 dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything.

      Follow Instructions Here……………. Home Profit System

    4. I am now making more than 3500 dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything.

      Follow Instructions Here…….. Home Profit System

  2. Richard Epstein… that’s who Nick Gillespie interviewed several years ago who predicted so much of the state of the culture we’re in now.

    If I recall, he was making cogent, libertarian arguments and Gillespie was dismissing them in mocking tones saying “Sure, lights are going out all over America”.

    1. Half the people here would mock those of us 10 years ago highlighting woke culture on campus. Lots of idiots in the libertarian movement. They stick to facial analysis and can’t even see future harms to liberty.

      1. Shorter JesseAz: Even when Reason gets it right I’m gonna bitch and moan and whine and cry.

        1. sort of like with Reason and Trump

      2. Not many of those protecting campus crazies are part of the libertarian movement.

        1. But many of the people protecting things that we’re telling you are harmful, like big tech, are libertarian. It’s all live and let live until you realize that you’re dealing with subversives.

    2. I would love to see that link.

      Nick has been very interesting over the past couple years. He tried being the big “Both Sides” guy running through the Obama presidency. However at some point, I think he realized just how over the deep end the Elites have become out in DC.

      1. I remember the interview because at the time I hadn’t heard of Epstein and he made what I thought were very interesting arguments about the state of our democracy– how the federal government was creating a ‘culture of compliance’, not through the normal legislative processes but through nefarious things like “dear colleague letters”. (Interview was at the height of the Obama admin). Epstein was warning of dark times ahead for our political future and at some point NIck said “Sure, lights are going out all over America.” I was kind of taken aback by it because… I dunno, yay, we can watch free porn on our cell phone while waiting for our self-driving cab which will take us to our sustainable shared work-pod!

        Let me try and find it.

      2. Here’s the interview…

        FYI, it’s not a “bad” interview. I think it’s a good interview, and Nick did a good job. Also, in my search, I discovered Nick has interviewed him many times since that, so this certainly wasn’t a one-off. This was just the one I remember, and I think the first time I’d heard of Epstein.

        I found it. Transcript is also included.

        2016 interview. In my head, I remembered as being “in the middle” of the Obama administration, but this was right before the 2016 election.

  3. Not gonna listen, do they just repeat the NYT talking points?

    1. Still waiting for you to produce a single, solitary comment that supports your claim that I’m a leftist, or that I like Biden or Democrats.

  4. Oh in other news, just when you thought it couldn’t get any more fucking retarded.

    The county council voted 9-0 to approve a program known as Community Restorative Pathways, adding funding for it in the county’s $12.59 million biennium budget.

    Instead of facing a judge, juveniles and adults accused of a first-time, non-violent felony offense will be offered an alternative where a non-profit community panel will decide how the accused person can be held accountable for their crime.


    “We can send that person instead (of jail) to a community accountability group, who will define what they think accountability means,” said King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg.


    Accountability would not include jail or even a conviction, said Satterberg, who declined to define what accountability means.

    “That’s up to the community groups,” he said, adding that it would target 800 juveniles and 1,000 adults to start. “These are low-level felonies, property offenses, no domestic violence, no sexual assault cases (and) decisions you would make if you were in my shoes.”

    “Locking people up is very costly and it’s not affirmative for people’s lives,” King County Councilmember and Budget Chairperson Jeanne Kohl-Welles told KOMO News just before the budget vote. “But we also have to make sure to protect the public, so this is hard, it’s not going to be easy.”

    No shit, Constantine…

    1. How long do you thinkg before an unpaid parking ticket gets you a month’s worth of tearing down the wrong team’s political signs cleaning up litter? I give it a year.

      In two, it will be within the “non-profit community panel’s” perview to decide who was mostly peacefully protesting and should be exonerated and who was guilty of violent assaults.

    2. non-profit community panel
      So a jury with an even higher concentration of weirdos than normal, if that’s even possible

    3. The program will eventually be funded through savings in reduced use of courts, jails and legal services, officials from the prosecutor’s office said.

      A not so rare glimpse into the child-like mind of the modern left. “With all the money the government saves, this new program will pay for itself!”

      1. Once the panel is deciding no one should go to jail, you can rest assured that the coffers will be full!

    4. I suspect property values in King County will decrease significantly in the next several months/years, while thefts, property crimes and riots will continue increasing.

      1. I won’t make that prediction– there seems to be no dearth of young, professional, childless hipsters who are willing to spend $1900 a month for a 150 sq ft. sleep pod that’s walking distance away from a “cool” brewpub.

        From my estimation, San Francisco is 5x shittier than Seattle, and 3x more expensive. So I’m very reluctant to predict ‘tipping points’.

        My personal tipping point has been reached, however.

      2. Ever been to the Bay area? People are still paying obscene rent so that they can step in human shit sprinkled with crack pipes on their walk to work.

  5. Do you want to earn cash online from your living room, easily work with a laptop for a few hours a day, earn 550-650 euros a day and get paid every week by deciding on your working hours? it is all true and completely changed my life. Then try this. Here is More information.

  6. Look at the by county or by Congressional district maps, who carried what. Look at West Virginia, which didn’t want to secede.

    What the left will get w/o the EC is a split country (don’t bother talking about the Civil War; that was a century and a half ago and you don’t have slavery to justify killing people over wanting to leave) with a leftist state depending on people they hate for their food, water, and electricity – where are the windmills and solar panels located again?

    Build the wall, crush them, and repopulate with resonable people after the homeless feces is powerwashed into the Pacific.

  7. What a complete waste of time to even discuss this. It would require a constitutional amendment and the states would never get the 3/4 they need to ratify it, even IF the congress could get the 2/3 they need.

    1. Nah, just pack the court, declare the EC unconsitutional because it is a living document, and be done with it.

      1. Just declare the entire Constitution to be unconstitutional. It’s much more efficient.

        1. Do you work for BLM?

    2. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be implemented without a constitutional amendment, and according to the interpretation of the constitutions that conservatives are currently pushing, it would be completely legal.

      1. Yes it would be legal. And it complete opposition to the intent of the Founders and the republic that they tried to create.

        1. The EC was put in to placate slave states, so lets stop pretending it was some part of a noble plan.

          1. The entire constitution was written by slave owners. That doesn’t mean the first amendment is the product of slavery, nor the electoral college.

            1. It is not about who wrote it, it is about the specific parts that are there to make the slave states happy.

              1. While you’re judging by intentions, look up some of the debate around the minimum wage. They proponents weren’t liars about economics and acknowledged that the law would put unskilled people, especially blacks, out of work.

                Then get back to me when you are willing to look at results, not intentions.

              2. there is no 3/5 rule anymore. but there are still high population and low population states, and the low population states aren’t just going to give up power, especially since most of them are Red

                1. That link is quite dated. SCOTUS rejected that, and Trump proves that it does not work anyhow.

          2. No, it wasn’t. It was a compromise between large and small states. The end goal was to get all 13 states to buy into the idea of a single nation. It had nothing to do with slavery. There was that 3/5 rule to treat slaves as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of determining representation in the House, but that part was abrogated a while ago.

          3. The EC was put in to placate slave states,

            No it wasn’t. During the ratification period 4 of the 6 lowest free population states were non-slave (DE,RI,NH,NJ) vs (GA,SC). Including slaves makes this even more extreme meaning non-slave states benefit even more from the EC.

            Left wingers blame everything on slavery because reality is irrelevant to them.

            1. But the inclusion of the 3/5 boosts the number of EC votes for slave states, and gives them more say.

              1. That’s right, but the major reason for “3/5ths” wasn’t to get more electoral votes (the EC was really an afterthought) but to get more Representatives in the House. That’s where the power was.

                It was a shameful but necessary compromise to actually get a Constitution.

              2. Funny how you acknowledge this, but crickets on illegal immigration…

              3. You got that backwards. It was included to LIMIT the influence of slave states. Without it, slaves would be counted for the purposes of reapportionment giving more representation to slave states.

                With it, slaves don’t count “as much” which limits, with a compromise, their influence.

            2. Umm, Delaware was a slave state, actually.

              1. Umm, Delaware was a slave state, actually.

                This is a civil war era standard which defined a slave state as one allowing any slavery. But when ratification occurred only one state (MA) had no slaves meaning this cannot be the standard for 1790. If it were the accusation “benefitting slave states” would make no sense since 92% were slave states. So the standard needs to be different, most relevantly where slavery was prevalent enough to change the relative power positions of the states.

                Delaware had fewer slaves than either NY or NJ, and slaves were ~15% of the total population (<9k). For comparison 4 states (VA,MD,NC,SC) had over 100k slaves each and all of these states had much larger percentages of slaves to total population (from ~30-45%). While GA had a smaller slave population than the 4 states mentioned (~30k) that number was also ~35% of the total population. In these states slavery was prevalent enough to change the relative positions. For example VA was the most populous state but since its population included almost 300k slaves PA's free population was bigger.

                But Delaware's profile is closer to NJ and other states, it just isn't plausible for them to be motivated by slavery to the exclusion of other states.

          4. No. The EC was the Connecticut Compromise. The Virginia plan proposed representation relative to population. The New Jersey plan proposed equal representation for each state. Delaware was the primary advocate for the EC.

      2. And what is the incentive for swing states and rural states to join it? The chance to make mob-worshipers like you feel better about themselves?

        1. You are going to laugh at me, the incentive is that it is the right thing to do. All votes should count the same.

          1. We’re not a democracy. We’re a constitutional Republic.

            1. That doesn’t work for marxists. Nor does individual liberty.

          2. They do. In the state you live in. There are no national elections in the US. Only state elections. Every vote counts the same in all elections in the US. That’s how it works, that’s how it has always worked. If you don’t like it, convince 3/4s of state legislatures to go along with it.
            Practically it’s a good thing too. It makes sure that politicians have to take notice of places other than major media markets.

    3. its only a waste of time because its a moot point now since there will never be another legitimate election

    4. It’s just a bunch of liberals having a fantasy.

  8. Lets also ban Free Speech, unanimous jury verdicts, The US Senate, ….what else can make us more “Democratic” ?

    1. The old notion behind firing squads was that they were legit because with multiple shooters, you couldn’t know who actually killed the accused. Democracy in action!

      1. That defies the laws of physics. Any experienced shooter is going to know the difference between firing a lead projectile and a blank based on recoil. Now, if you mean that other people would not know which member of the firing squad had the real bullet, that would make sense. But really, why would that be a big deal? I would think that a firing squad (all with live rounds), rather than a single shooter, would mean a greater chance that death would be quick and certain.

  9. It’s not very democratic that I can’t vote for California’s Senate and Congressional Representatives or their Governor either, just because I don’t live in California. What the fuck’s up with that shit? And I don’t know about you, but I didn’t vote for Justin Trudeau or Boris Johnson or Vladimir Putin, where the hell do they get off thinking they got a mandate?

  10. You mean, convince 38 of 50 states to give up their power in the Electoral College?

    Next question.

  11. The only way to abolish the Electoral College is by amending the US Constitution, which isn’t going to happen.

    State legislators in less populated Red states are NOT going to vote to reduce/eliminate their state’s influence in electing presidents, especially when doing so would also greatly increase the influence of heavily populated Blue states.

    People should read and understand the Constitution before opining about changing it. Its not easy to amend the Constitution.

    1. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be implemented without a constitutional amendment, and according to the interpretation of the constitutions that conservatives are currently pushing, it would be completely legal.

      1. The compact is states promising to award electors to the candidate who lost their states’ vote under some circumsrances. Good luck!

      2. Liberals like the Compact because they have the numbers now but not the majority of the states. Now imagine they pass it, and the conservative voters in Utah and Alabama and South Carolina all decided to have 15 kids each. In 20 years you’ll be handing California’s 55 votes to someone who makes Trump look like a moderate.

        1. and the conservative voters in Utah and Alabama and South Carolina all decided to have 15 kids each.

          (1) Why do you think they want open borders? There are 7 billion people in the world, no matter how many kids conservatives have there’s a vastly larger pool for the left to draw on.

          (2) Why do you think controlling the education system is such a priority? They don’t need to have their own kids if they can indoctrinate other people’s kids.

      3. You keep saying that but it doesn’t make it true.

        Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution, says “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.” No doubt a lawyer has claimed it’s not a Compact, but it’s still one heck of a road block. No doubt a fully packed (with idiots) SC could disagree, but by that time we no longer have any Constitution at all.

        And by the way, what do you mean by “according to the interpretation of the constitutions [sic] that conservatives are currently pushing, it would be completely legal.” Can you actually substantiate this beyond a bare assertion?

        Many states require Electors to vote in the EC for the candidate that wins the popular vote in their state. I wonder if any of the Democrat-run states have that law on the books.

        As for the NPV itself, I bet ten zillion dollars that the moment it looks like a Republican might win the popular vote they’d run from the NPV like scared rabbits.

  12. The electoral college is a product of federalism: the president is supposed to be elected by states, not the popular vote.

    The federal government wasn’t supposed to be this far away city dictating the lives of people thousands of miles away. I understand why that might bother people who want a strong federal government directly involved in multiple facets of their lives. But, I am not, so I have no sympathy for them.

    1. “I understand why that might bother people who want a strong federal government directly involved in multiple facets of their lives.”

      They don’t want a strong federal government directly involved in multiple facets of their lives. They want one involved in your life.

      1. Think Gretchen Whitmer as the Prez and Gavin Newsom as the VP. With Warren at Treasury and AOC as Attorney General.

    2. You’re the first to come close to the real issue: The presidential electors were designed as a buffer between the people and the president. Some in the Constitutional Convention assumed that the House or some assembly of Congress would select a president parliament-style. Other “founding fathers” thought that would put too much power and too much temptation into the hands of legislators whom they wanted separated from executive power.

      So they came up with the concept of electors who would be a kind of shadow Congress, having a parliament’s power to choose the president, but they’d have no other power. It worked for our first 36 years (5 presidents): Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison & Monroe. Then the states passed laws binding electors to mob-rule, utterly undermining the Constitutional power granted to the electors, and the presidency hasn’t seen a true statesman since.

      The transition president was John Q Adams, and then he was followed by the execrably populist “to the victor go the spoils” Andrew Jackson and his trail of tears.

      Like so many problems in the US, the EC’s weakness is a product of past legislative error, and the short-sighted solution is to accept the error as inevitable and go on to do further damage trying to fix its unintended consequences. I implore you all to wake up and smell the rotten legislation that stole electors’ Constitutionally granted decision-making power in the first place — rather than discarding the damaged organ, excise the rot. Restore real power where power is due* (every elector should be faithless, and the electors should meet to negotiate who should be the next president and VP).

      *The recent SCOTUS decision to bind electors is BS, and I’m horrified that C. Thomas was hoodwinked by it. He completely ignored the plain meaning of the Constitution’s grant of electors’ power in favor of a nebulous respect for state sovereignty. In effect, he amended the US Constitution to delete a clause he either forgot or didn’t understand. It was a sad day indeed 🙁

    3. “The federal government wasn’t supposed to be this far away city dictating the lives of people thousands of miles away.”

      Tell that to all the “progressive” statists and wanna-be socialists. Also, one-world government types.

  13. It’s certainly been a fun trick. Hand over more and more power to the executive, relegate Congress and the Senate to a body that merely bickers on twitter. Than remove the Electoral College and voila! The Death Star will be complete and fully operational.

  14. Democrats: Hillary lost because of the Electoral College. Therefore we must abolish the Electoral College.

    Because the Electoral College provides a voice to states other than five most populous, it must be abolished. California has the moral right to rule over North Dakota. Also, because Hillary.

    But I speak too soon. Wait until December 14th, and the Republicans will be the ones whining that the Electoral College stole an election from them. Sigh.

    1. Nah, I think they will stick with “corrupt lefty cities stole it from us”. I’m not taking a public position on that one.

  15. Note- absolutely no other government has the inane electoral college like the states. Not one. Not even the recent democracies like Iraq and Afghanistan. Wonder why that is…

    It would be far, far less egregious if the House wasn’t capped per the 1929 House Apportionment Act but either way, whatever use it may have once had is long since gone.

    Go popular vote. All the small states still have the Senate where they can fuck up everything for the majority as it is anyhow.

    1. They have prime ministers who aren’t elected by popular vote either.

    2. “Wonder why that is…”

      Keep thinking. Maybe you’ll figure it out. Or not.

    3. Can you imagine how simple this would make things? Why Google and Twatter would no longer have to employ all these crazy liberals to moderate your posts. All they would need to do is restrict it to anyone in the 5 most populous states, and BOOM!

  16. Oh Fuck. How about we just abolish the federal government instead? The states can make some kind of defense and trade compact and leave it at that.

    1. Maybe they could call it a confederation. Create an article to that effect.

      1. could you imagine what would be included in such a thing even the grass would have rights

  17. Funny how the party of “count all votes” advocates the disenfranchisement of 80% of the states.

  18. It will never happen. It would take an amendment, which not even half the states would ever agree to, let alone the 38 they would need.

  19. The republic has slowly been eroded, year after year, more and more we are mob rule. Removal of the EC will bring that along all the more quickly.

    Two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. – Too bad the left can’t figure that out, but then they only care about power.

    1. “Too bad the left can’t figure that out”

      They have figured it out, that’s why they want it. They know they would be the wolves.

  20. Hey, how about fixing the actuality rigged voting machines before changing the theory.

    1. What, the group with the most guns wins?

  21. Those who would abolish the Electoral College because they think it will give the East and West Coasts control of elections better be careful what they wish for.
    By the time a Constitutional Amendment is passed, everyone in California and New York will have moved to Florida and Texas, and it will be the Third Coast holding all the cards. 🙂

  22. Abolishing the Electoral College would transform our constitutional republic into a pure democracy. And from our widely diverse population, the result would be precisely like having two whites and a Black voting on who will be the boss.

  23. “A Gallup poll from September of this year showed that 61 percent of Americans support abolishing the electoral college in favor of a national popular vote, although it’s an issue that breaks along partisan lines. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans want to keep the electoral college, while 89 percent of Democrats said that we should get rid of it.
    (A) In September, a Republican was POTUS because of the Electoral College.
    (B) Now that same Republican POTUS and his acolytes are filing lawsuits to obtain electoral votes – or even suggesting GOP state legislatures appoint faithless electoral voters.
    (C) Partisan lines? More like rural – urban. The rural midwest states want to keep their electoral overrepresentation (with respect to population), while the coastal states, far more densely populated, want the power of their greater numbers.

  24. 89% of Democrats believe that POWER to STEAL = WEALTH.
    It all fits together. Throw out the Senate, Stuff the Supreme Court, Ignore the Constitution [WE] mob-rules and Gov-Gods with guns!!!! This is a Democratic Dictatorship they’ll scream until your ears bleed and the fact that majority of citizens follow this narrative is sickening. YOU PEOPLE DO NOT BELONG IN THIS NATION!!!!! This nation was founded on Individual Liberty and Justice NOT democratic dictatorship… PLEASE MOVE… Why are you here anyways? Just to be destructive for the sake of being destructive??? MOVE to your dream nation and leave this one alone!!!

  25. Abolishing the Electoral College would transform our constitutional republic into a pure democracy. And from our widely diverse population the result would be precisely like having two whites and a Black voting on who will be the boss..https://bit.ly/3lKiW4H

  26. Making Every month more than $13,000 by doing very simple Online job from home.i m doing this job in my part time i have earned and received $13572 last month .I am now a good Online earner and earns enough cash for my needs. Every person can get this Online job pop over here this site…,,

    This One⟶⟶⟶⟶ Read More.

  27. Everything fits together. Toss out the Senate, Stuff the Supreme Court, Ignore the Constitution horde rules and Gov-Gods with guns!!!! This is a Democratic Dictatorship they’ll shout until your ears drain and the way that greater part of residents follow this account is nauseating.


  28. Abolishing the Electoral College might transform our constitutional republic into a natural democracy. And from our widely diverse population, the result would be precisely like having two whites and a Black voting on who could be the boss.


  29. All over the world… Anybody can earn 350dollar+ daily… You can earn from 8000-10,000 month or even more if you work as a full time job.It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish.It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.simply give it a shot on the accompanying site… Read More

  30. Electoral College should be made stronger not weaker. Selecting a Prez should be only the first of its duties. A far more important function would be that the cabinet be drawn from those electors. That would turn the election itself into an election of electors – not a Potemkin election of partisan hack puppets.

    And really this doesn’t even require a change in law. All it would take is a Presidential candidate who actually campaigns on the basis of their electoral slate. It is the easiest way possible for a candidate to demonstrate that they have a bench of people who have their own independent credibility in each state which would reduce the increasing focus on DC. That is far more significant than some EC formula.

    Course that means it would be a third party that does that because until it happens the Ds and Rs will select totally unknown hacks as electors and emphasize the candidate as the charismatic dictator god. The candidate is all.

  31. I would support getting rid of the EC only if we allow multiple parties/parliamentary system. Otherwise, we will have one-party rule by the dems for the next 100 years at least, which of course is exactly what they want.

    1. No, it would mean Republicans have to change some of the things they do in order to win. That’s how it’s supposed to work. One political party having affirmative action is not how any of this was meant to work.

      1. Tony paraphrased, “If Republicans were socialists then the USA would be how it’s suppose to work. Because USA policy is all about [WE] mob winners.”

  32. Keep the college. We are NOT a democracy, we are a representative republic. Our founders were a lot smarter than any of the elected officials alive today. They recognized that true democracy is “mob rule.” Do you really want BLM and the Antifa fascists voting themselves your money by a simple majority? I don’t. The Electoral College ensures that the ‘fly over states’ actually have a say in the operation of their country and will not have the radical agendas of the coastal elites foisted on them against their wills. To get rid of the Electoral College, you need to convince those fly over states to cede what little power they have to radicals in California, Oregon and New York. Some how, I don’t think they will do it.

  33. This redefinition of majority rile as “mob rule” is one of the dumbest fucking things I’ve ever seen. You guys are going to freedumb your way into a republic of the banana variety.

    Majority rule is how all elections everywhere are supposed to work. There is only one election in the known universe where the minority gets its way because it is the minority.

    That is not how the system is supposed to work, it is not a feature of anything, it is simply an accident of history.

    An it’s extra special hearing about “mob” rule from fucking MAGA assholes all demanding that they get to overturn an election… from their mobs.

    1. Majority rule is how all elections everywhere are supposed to work.

      I’m greatly amused with Tony’s complaint elections are “supposed to” be majority rule. Are we supposed to believe the constitutional voters wanted a simple majority election but couldn’t figure out how to write it on a piece of paper?

      Why can’t left wingers handle reality?

    2. lol.. Redefinition? It’s a 1:1…

      Your ignorance lies in the fact of [WE] majority or minority rule INSTEAD of Constitutional Supreme Law (Individual Rule). Democrats policy IS “mob rule” because healthcare, environment, stimulus money, etc, etc, etc, ARE ALL UN-CONSITUTIONAL! Let’s be HONEST – the Democratic entire platform NEVER mentions the Constitution within the context of a Supreme Law.

      Thus; Democrats made the election about “mob rule”…. It’s as simple as that.

    3. And P.S.; The USA isn’t, “simply an accident of history” – so why don’t you MOVE your Anti-American *ss out of here! There are plenty of 3rd world countries that align with your commie ideals – so MOVE!

  34. Just got round to listening to this debate. It was lively, but would have been better had one of the debaters argued in favour of the electoral college. By the end, he seemed confused…

  35. Virtually everyone admits that there will be no constitutional change to the electoral college. The attacks on the electoral college promote some extra-constitutional method to circumvent the Constitution. .. awajis

  36. Those wanting a stronger national government tended to favor Congress, while states’ rights adherents preferred state legislatures. In the end, there was a compromise establishing an independent group chosen by the states with the power to choose the president…Media Helm

  37. Thanks for the blog! here you will also find many useful blogs battleground mobile india apk Thanks! keep rocking.

Please to post comments