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

PostmodernProphet said:
no it couldn't.....
Click to expand...
Yea it could. States are constitutionally empowered to decide how electoral votes are proportioned in their States. First past the post winner take all or equally proportioned. It would only take a coalition of States totaling at least 270 EV's to decide that all Electoral votes in their respective States would be delegated to the candidate who wins the national popular vote for the Electoral College to be mooted and no Constitutional Amendment would be needed. The States are perfectly with in their Constitutional Rights to make such a decision on how Electoral Votes are delegated. If enough States with enough EV's decide to form such a coalition it can be done without a Constitutional Amendment. Technically speaking the Electoral College would still exist but it would be mooted.
 
Last edited:
The U.S. Supreme Court Reads It

Jade Dragon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
 
1200px-Flag_of_the_German_Reich_%281935%E2%80%931945%29.svg.png


Nazi college!
 
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.

With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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......
Click to expand...

Enacting the National Popular Vote is NOT a federal decision.

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.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Without states with 270 electoral votes, it would be stupid for any state to do that now, on its own.

The bill is NOT a federal law. The bill is a state law.

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.


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.
 
toto said:
Enacting the National Popular Vote is NOT a federal decision.

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.
Click to expand...

dude.....the federal government passing a law saying how a state MUST apportion its votes is obviously a federal decision.......how can you pretend otherwise......
 
toto said:
The electors would continue to elect the President. Nothing would be changed in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
sure it would......the Constitution says the states have to decide not "enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538"
 
Thing1 said:
Two things Republicans fear above all else:

1) Every adult citizen voting
2) Every adult citizen's vote counting equally
Click to expand...

Three things Democrats want above all else:
1 - Allowing the dead to vote
2 - Allowing illegal aliens to vote
3 - To win by any means possible

:truestory:
 
toto said:
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
Click to expand...

Winning the national popular vote isn't a requirement to be President. Winning the majority of electoral votes is.

Winning the statewide popular vote in order to get a State's electoral votes isn't in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution says very little about each State's electoral votes other than how the number for each state is determined and that Congress determines the day that each state's electors vote. Beyond that, States dictate far more about elections than the federal government.
 
sear said:
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.

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?
Click to expand...

The reason it's a question is rather obvious. Snowflakes like you are pissed your bitch lost and you have to have something to whine about.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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......
Click to expand...

Nor does the Constitution say that a State has to use popular votes to decide who gets their electoral votes. The Constitution does say how the number of EV for each state is determined and that Congress decides the day in which they vote. Beyond that, it's up to the States. If it wasn't up to the States, Nebraska and Maine couldn't use the district method for dividing it's electoral votes.
 
archives said:
"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-variedand-globalthreats-confronting-democracy-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
Click to expand...

It's a federalist system, it has to do with individual state representation at the federal level, not "metro area" representation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top