The need to reconsider the Electoral College (and it has nothing to do with Trump)

[countryboy]

:0) What a fucking ignoramus you are.

Me? You're the one preaching about how the Constitution should be rewritten, and yet, has no idea how that could be done. Your user name should've been "dumb as rocks". Lol.

[toto]

The solution is to expand the number of seats in the house, the number of electors in the EC will follow. There is no reason to end the EC.

Your solution would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes, or make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate

Pragmatically, the National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

NationalPopularVote

[CFM]

"Demographic trends also are straining the American model. Because of the way the Electoral College works, two of the past three presidents first won office while losing the popular vote. And David Birdsell, dean of the school of public and international affairs at Baruch College, notes that by 2040, about 70% of Americans are expected to live in the 15 largest states. They will have only 30 senators representing them, while the remaining 30% of Americans will have 70 senators representing them."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-var...acy-1511193763



Currently, the State of Wyoming has more say in electing a President then the Buffalo, New York metro area which is twice the size of Wyoming in population

Down the road it appears we will not be the representative democracy that the Founding Fathers has imagined

If it had nothing to do with Trump, why the need to mention it?

[SmarterthanYou]

only if its the blood of traitors like the current republican party who cheats Americans out of their rights to vote so that republicans can manage to win elections

they cheat democracy and you support them

I support the constitution, period. If you have a complaint about what I support, maybe it's YOU who should be looking at what it is you want.

[toto]

I support the constitution, period. If you have a complaint about what I support, maybe it's YOU who should be looking at what it is you want.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency

[sear]

"If it had nothing to do with Trump, why the need to mention it?" CFM #123

Not an insensible question, even if the answer is rather obvious.
Many rational persons (including some that post in these fora I should hope) see the world through an Ockham's Razor-colored lens.

U.S. President Trump is the most recent U.S. president, and the only currently serving U.S. president, that won the office, not because of winning the vote, but because of losing the vote, but winning the electoral college swindle.

So in context the topic might seem to be about the current PERSON holding the office.

"If it had nothing to do with Trump, why the need to mention it?" CFM #123

To remind thread participants that the topic is not about a person, but about the underlying principle.
Thus, it's a topic equally worthy of discussion, even if the current U.S. president were named Hillary Clinton.

Got it?

[Jade Dragon]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency

People read whatever they want in the constitution, so it doesn't matter if it says it or not. The Muslim ban was unconstitutional, but watch how much some of the same people defend it.

[Русский агент]

People read whatever they want in the constitution, so it doesn't matter if it says it or not. The Muslim ban was unconstitutional, but watch how much some of the same people defend it.

What "Muslim ban" is that, triggered lizard?

[Русский агент]

Me? You're the one preaching about how the Constitution should be rewritten, and yet, has no idea how that could be done. Your user name should've been "dumb as rocks". Lol.

I wish he would rise up.

I am waiting.

[SmarterthanYou]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency

Art 2, Sec 1, Clause 3.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.

so unless you AMEND the constitution, there it is

[PostmodernProphet]

Matter of semantics, you can legally change what we now define as the Electoral College without going thru an Amendment process, first step would be the allocation of electors within a State thereby eliminating the winner take all method

California is free to do that now and doesn't........you can't mandate it at the federal law without a change in the constitution.....

[PostmodernProphet]

The census bureau is constitutionally mandated to complete a nationwide head count of all residents.

The current system gives "illegal immigrants" a 10 vote advantage in the Electoral College for the Democrats...because they tend to live in safe Democratic states.

An election for President based on the nationwide popular vote would eliminate the Democrat’s advantage in Electoral College members arising from the uneven distribution of non-citizens.

but it would be easier and smarter to simply not count people who cannot vote in calculating the importance of votes.....

[PostmodernProphet]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency

no, but the constitution says the states shall decide, so there IS something in the Constitution which prevent the federal government from making that decision......

[PostmodernProphet]

What "Muslim ban" is that, triggered lizard?

must be the one he read into Trump's executive order.....I hear people read whatever they want into those orders, so it doesn't matter if it says it or not.......

[countryboy]

I wish he would rise up.

I am waiting.

What? Why?