Just Fred wrote:

I hate to be repetitive but I am NOT talking about the recent election!!!!!!!

AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!  Neither am I.  I'm talking about the CONCEPT of the thing. 

And, I'll repeat this for the third time (and got no response by the way) ....... Why not adopt an electoral system to elect the next governor of Pennsylvania if it's such a swell idea?
 

Let me throw some thoughts out there. Apologies in advance on the scattershotedness of them.....

First off, states could very well go to an electoral college system. All they need to do is change the constitution and there you go. I am just not sure why they would.

Why?

For one thing, a state is simply a state. It has its own issues of priorities and needs and a state only needs to concern itself with, well, itself.

The United States is a conglomeration of fifty states and as the governing body of those states, it has many priorities and needs and it requires itself to balance those needs across all of the nation.

As we know, keeping all of those needs in balance is a difficult thing to do. Putting money into highways so your typical urban commuter isn't spending half her day in traffic is just as important as making sure there are dams, and irrigation pathways for farmers in the rural midwest. We should not give constant priority to one over the other.

A state, due to it's smaller scale and in most cases, the similarity of its landscape doesn't have the range or scope to deal with that the federal government. Pennsylvania's budget is roughly 30 billion, the federal government's is 10 trillion. Nor does a single state have to manage the affairs of other states.

So I think a popular vote process for states makes more sense. But again, constitutionally, states are able to manage their own voting processes and could theoretically not have what we would call traditional voting at all. We could caucus to pick our governor, or pick a name out of a hat if that's what the people of the state agreed to do. 

But with the a country built out of 50 separate entities, united under one flag, we're always on the precipice of having the whole thing fall apart. I mean, it happened already. So like it or not, we put a check on having a few states having the ability to choose our president. I don't think that's a bad thing.

I am reminded that back in the 1800's when America was a far different place, Democrats won on average 80-95% of the popular vote in what was called "the Solid South". The electoral college kept a check on that. 

Last edited by TheLagerLad (11/22/2016 10:56 am)

Just Fred wrote:

....we put a check on having a few states having the ability to choose our president.

Ok, Lager, then could one make the same argument about Pittsburgh and Philadelphia having the ability to choose our governor?
 

No, they could not because a state with 12 million people that you can drive across in five hours is a far cry from a country that has 300 million people and takes 3 days and four time zones to drive across.

Oh, and for the most part, by the number of voters, Philly (& the Philly Suburbs), and Pittsburgh pretty much do elect the Pennsylvania governor.


 

Just Fred wrote:

Well, there you go.  The Philly and suburbs along with Pittsburgh call the shots.  So why not adopt an  electoral college system to choose a governor?

You might want to mention it to Senator Wagner ! 
 

Not sure where we are going with this, Lager, but if you feel the popular vote is fine for electing school board members, township supervisors, dog catchers, mayors, judges, governors, state legislators etc., but not good enough for electing a president of an the entire country, then that is that.

 We will simply have to disagree on this issue. 

Bottom line, IF you feel committed to the popular vote to replace the current system, it is NOT going to change because of anything here. Write your Congressmen and get involved locally to create a movement. It WILL take a Constitution amendment, so plan to spend a LOT of time and effort on your pursuit.