Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 56
Results 176 to 207 of 207

Thread: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

  1. #176
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Tisbury, MA USA
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanMc View Post
    don't like latest results... burn entire system down....

    sorry guys, the system works fine. it'll keep on working fine.
    Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”
    “I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”
    “I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”

    Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview
    “I would rather have a popular vote. “

    Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
    “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

    In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
    "The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

    In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

    Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Michael Dukakis (D-MA), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

    Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL).

    Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

    Eight former national chairs of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have endorsed the bill

    In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

    Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    The National Popular Vote 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 36 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).

  2. #177
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Tisbury, MA USA
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    With the bill in effect:

    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 winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
    We can limit the power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

  3. #178
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Tisbury, MA USA
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    Have any of you thought about how this will drastically reduce the fun of watching election night returns?
    Now, elections are usually called before the West Coast polls even close.

    We would need to wait for Hawaii and Alaska to vote.

  4. #179
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Tisbury, MA USA
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by Breakaway View Post
    There is no reason to undo the system, and cause the nation discord. People who think their vote will count more in a low population state are free to move to one of those states.

    Kevin
    There are MANY reasons to undo the system.


    In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

    Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.


    Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

    The current system makes it easier to determine the winner of the Electoral College by microtargeting in one of the dozen battleground states.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, misinformation campaigns, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

    There was specific targeting by Russians of "purple states," or swing states, that are critical to the outcome in the Electoral College.

    With the current system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), a small number of people in a closely divided “battleground” state can potentially affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.

    Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel suggests Voter ID helped Donald Trump win the state – 4/13/18

    “Swing States A Special Vulnerability In Achieving Election Security, DHS Says” – 3/21/18
    "The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states," former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
    The current secretary of DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, echoed those comments

    Princeton Election Consortium’s Sam Wang “Today’s Electoral College opens a giant security hole.”

    Reed Hundt, former FCC Chairman, said, "A huge percentage of Americans are right in identifying that the current method of selecting the President makes our democracy vulnerable to foreign interference. Too few voters play too big a role in selecting the President. If the entire national popular vote chose the President it would be nearly impossible for bad actors to twist the thinking of millions of people and thwart the true will of the people."

    In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida determined that the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes would win.

    Less than 80,000 votes in 3 states determined the 2016 election, where there was a lead of over 2,8oo,ooo popular votes nationwide.

    Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in 1, 2, or 3 states would have elected a 2nd-place candidate in 6 of the 18 presidential elections

    If Clinton had gotten 93.7% (rather than 88.2%) of the black vote, equaling Obama, she would have tied Trump in the Electoral College. The election would have been thrown into the U.S. House (with each state casting one vote) and the election of the Vice President would be thrown into the U.S. Senate. Congress would decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.

    No one would have to move anywhere. That's the point.
    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 winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
    We can limit the power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

  5. #180
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Tisbury, MA USA
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    Fantastic stuff mvymvy!

    Not sure i quite understand this one though;



    Seems counter intuitive.

    How about making the number of EC votes odd, instead of even. Then there would always have to be a winner....?
    That would require Congress to agree.
    Constitutionally,the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of
    Congressto which the state is entitled,while the 23rdAmendment grantsthe District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populousstate, currently three.

    Now there could be a 269-269 tie, or a third party candidate winning just 1 electoral vote, from say CA, could keep anyone from getting 270.
    Last edited by mvymvy; 05-09-2018 at 12:45 PM. Reason: more

  6. #181
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Camden, Maine
    Posts
    3,646

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    41 posts, all expert cut and pastes. So is this Russia or do we have a new player?

    Frankly it's annoying.

  7. #182
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    huntsville, al, usa
    Posts
    3,022

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by delecta View Post
    41 posts, all expert cut and pastes. So is this Russia or do we have a new player?

    Frankly it's annoying.


    sounds like russia to me.

  8. #183
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    23,844

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    The 270+ electors from the states enacting the bill will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

    There have been 24,067 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 31 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 29 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

    States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors.

    In Arizona, HB2302 went into effect in August 2017. Electors must cast their vote for candidate and vice president candidate who jointly received the highest number of votes in the state. If the elector refuses to cast that vote, they will no longer be eligible to hold their position as an elector.

    April 10, 2018 - A federal appeals court judge has ruled that Colorado’s presidential electors must vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
    The courts have ruled states can punish faithless electors. They have not ruled that you can reverse an election in which they have been faithless. And party activists are the most likely to defy the state if their candidate won state-wide but not nationally.

  9. #184
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,221

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by delecta View Post
    Frankly it's annoying.
    Its worse than annoying. I meant to post this morning about this.

    mvymvy, be a decent human being and quote your C&Ps and attribute them to the source. Everyone else on this forum does it. Its d!@n disrespectful of your fellow forum members to C&P that much without saying where they come from. It is downright dishonest and IMO should be against the forum rules.

    Either grow up, or get out.

  10. #185
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    20,102

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    And I don't disagree. But I don't think the solution is a plurality popular vote for the president, nor is it a end-around the constitution, exploiting a loophole the framers left in the constitution.
    It's hardly a 'loophole'.... unless you think that the entire 10th amendment was a loophole. The constitution was never meant to be 'utterly definitive'... and it certainly isn't. If it were, there would be no need for a Supreme Court. Our understanding, and interpretation, of the Constitution will evolve as society evolves, whether any of us like it, or not... and the Founding Fathers were NOT saints or Gods.

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    Now, grant it, in the first sentence it was clearly the electoral college which was the antiquated notion. But then after expounding the problem with the "concept of states", which "had (past tense) meaning", you wrote "It is this antiquated notion that perpetuates the electoral college system." Now, in this sentence you could NOT have meant that the antiquated notion was the electoral college itself, because "it is this electoral college that perpetuates the electoral college system" doesn't say too much. So any reasonable interpretation would have been that the antiquated notion was the "concept of states". So yes, you did write that.
    Sorry, but there was no need to work anywhere NEAR that hard... drawing unwarranted conclusions. Yes, I DO think that the electoral college is antiquated... and I also DO believe that it was based on the notion of state sovereignty. Nowhere did I advocate the elimination of the states.

    Wrong. That's what people say who do not have any notion of what the word means.
    Interestingly, when looking up the definition of 'subsidiarity', the first item in Google is a wiki article entitled 'Subsidiarity (Catholicism)'. My own definition of subsidiarity agrees with the 'Catholic' Wiki definition.... do you have a different definition?

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    The Catholic Church certainly teaches that subsidiarity is a key part of social justice. It is giving the Church too much credit to imply it is only a principle of Catholicism.
    Actually, I wouldn't have even thought that there WOULD be a 'Catholic' definition, before I saw the Wiki article... it seemed like a fairly ordinary political belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    I have long held that the legality of abortion should have been left at the state level in our country. Do I believe that it should be illegal in every state, yes I do. Do I want the federal government making that decision, no I do not.
    Then you're OK that civil rights should, or can, vary, from state to state.... I don't see another explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    But it is a red herring argument, no where does the principle of subsidiarity say that nothing should be decided at a higher level, what it says is that a higher level organization should not usurp a decision that can be made at a lower level. Obviously, there is a prudential judgement in this, and that can always be debated.
    Precisely. I don't believe that 'subsidiarity' should be used to establish, or deny, civil rights. The right to vote.... and the right to have one's vote have EQUAL weight, when selecting a federal candidate... ESPECIALLY the President.. cannot, and should not, be subject to state whim. Granting more power and influence to some states, and less, to others, isn't 'subsidiarity', it's politics. In this election cycle, it was an advantage to rural states, which tend conservative, giving conservative voices an undeserved 'leg up' on national politics. Exactly HOW unequal does it have to be, before you might admit that it's a violation of the basic principles of political equality?
    "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."







  11. #186
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,221

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein
    Sorry, but there was no need to work anywhere NEAR that hard... drawing unwarranted conclusions. Yes, I DO think that the electoral college is antiquated... and I also DO believe that it was based on the notion of state sovereignty. Nowhere did I advocate the elimination of the states.
    Norman, learn to carry on a conversation. I did NOT say you had advocated the elimination of the states. I said you had claimed the concepts of the states were an "antiquated notion". You denied this. I proved that you had said it. Don't worry how hard I worked, it didn't take longer than a couple of minutes.

  12. #187
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    20,102

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    Norman, learn to carry on a conversation. I did NOT say you had advocated the elimination of the states. I said you had claimed the concepts of the states were an "antiquated notion". You denied this. I proved that you had said it. Don't worry how hard I worked, it didn't take longer than a couple of minutes.
    When you're done picking the flysh|t out of the pepper, you might want to comment on whether you think that civil rights should vary, from state to state, based on the politics of the particular state. If you do, then you might let us know WHICH civil rights are 'national' in nature and cannot be abridged by the states.... and which one are permitted to be granted or denied by the states.
    "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."







  13. #188
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,221

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein
    Then you're OK that civil rights should, or can, vary, from state to state.... I don't see another explanation.
    This is what pisses me off around this place. People cannot support their arguments so they start lying about what I claim. Yes, lie. That is what I am accusing you of, no less. Why, because I said explicitly in post 169 with regards to subsidiarity:

    "We have a constitution at a federal level, as we should, and it is correct that rights should be protected at that level when necessary. "

    In my previous post, I gave you credit for just being a little sloppy in your conversation. I take that back, you are only interested in misrepresenting what I say and lying about what you said.

  14. #189
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    20,102

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    "We have a constitution at a federal level, as we should, and it is correct that rights should be protected at that level when necessary. "
    YOU are the one who used the 'when necessary' clause in your argument. I'm merely asking you to define what 'necessary' implies. I'm interested in civil rights that you believe can be permitted or denied, by the states.
    "Reason and facts are sacrificed to opinion and myth. Demonstrable falsehoods are circulated and recycled as fact. Narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. Too many now subject events to a prefabricated set of interpretations, usually provided by a biased media source. The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth."







  15. #190
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Camden, Maine
    Posts
    3,646

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Hey Norm, where is the multi quote post addressing the accusations? You going to take this crap from someone from Texas of all places? lol

  16. #191
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    26,019

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein
    YOU are the one who used the 'when necessary' clause in your argument. I'm merely asking you to define what 'necessary' implies. I'm interested in civil rights that you believe can be permitted or denied, by the states.
    I am interested in the answer to that question as well.
    War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.
    Trump is doing beautifully.

    "OK. Fine. So he exaggerated a little on that."





  17. #192
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,221

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    YOU are the one who used the 'when necessary' clause in your argument. I'm merely asking you to define what 'necessary' implies. I'm interested in civil rights that you believe can be permitted or denied, by the states.
    Grow up. If you are interest in my opinion, because I have not been clear, simply ask the question. Rather you chose to simply misstate what I said and claim there is no other explanation.

  18. #193
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Montgomery View Post
    I am interested in the answer to that question as well.
    Perhaps I typed "when necessary" to quickly. As to actual civil rights, they should be universal. Enforcing them, not nessecarily. For example, our most basic right is to life. However, I fully support the proscription of murder and it's penalties being done at the state level. Otherwise, we end up with a centralized police force and judicial system.

  19. #194
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Tisbury, MA USA
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    The courts have ruled states can punish faithless electors. They have not ruled that you can reverse an election in which they have been faithless. And party activists are the most likely to defy the state if their candidate won state-wide but not nationally.
    The 270+ electors from the enacting states would be supporters of the candidate who won the national popular vote.
    That's the point.

    The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

  20. #195
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    23,844

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    The 270+ electors from the enacting states would be supporters of the candidate who won the national popular vote.
    That's the point.

    The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
    I think you need to study the history of the electoral college. Even where states have tried to control electors, there have been faithless electors.

  21. #196
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    East Quogue,NY
    Posts
    15,423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Sure there were (large differences in population, not the state of Wisconsin). Here are the 1790 census results, rounded to the nearest thousand (Source). You can see why counting the slaves was a HUGE issue.

    VA: Total population - 747,000 Slaves - 293,000
    PA: Total population - 434,000 Slaves - 3000
    NC: Total population - 394,000 Slaves - 101,000
    MA: Total population - 379,000 Slaves - 0
    NY: Total population - 340,000 Slaves - 21,000
    MD: Total population - 320,000 Slaves - 103,000
    SC: Total population - 249,000 Slaves - 107,000
    CT: Total population - 238,000 Slaves - 3000
    NJ: Total population - 185,000 Slaves - 11,000
    NH: Total population - 142,000 Slaves - 158
    ME: Total population - 97,000 Slaves - 0
    VT: Total population - 86,000 Slaves - 16
    GA: Total population - 83,000 Slaves - 29,000
    KY: Total population - 74,000 Slaves - 12,000
    RI: Total population - 69,000 Slaves - 1,000
    DE: Total population - 59,000 Slaves - 9,000


    I stand corrected.

    Are those citizen totals plus slaves? Or ate the slaves broken out from the total amount?

    Kevin


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    There are two kinds of boaters: those who have run aground, and those who lie about it.

  22. #197
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    23,844

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    An overstated point. The intent of the framers was to come up with a solution that everyone could accept. Also, it was argued that it would be impossible for everyone to know any national candidate, so electing local representatives would work better. Regardless, the intent of the framers was not to have a popular vote, that notion was abandoned quite early on in the process. I am not saying the electoral college does not need fixing. It does. It preserves a two party system which no longer works. As I mentioned before, it is ironic that I am the one defending it. But no other country has successfully adopted a popularly vote head of government. We should not do that.
    And we should not do an end around the constitution. We have a means of amending the process, lets use it. To get that done will take compromise, will take a serious dialogue. We could start with making each elector selected by a congressional district. Of course, as Maine and Nebraska do. Eliminate the two state wide electors which come from the senators. There would be logic here. It would come closer to the parliamentary system, except that voters can still choose a different party for president than their local congress person, so we would not be guaranteed a presidency and house of the same party, but it would be more likely. This would move us much closer to one person, one vote. It would still keep an area(s) of the country, where one candidate was immensely popular, from controlling the whole shebang.

    This could be a starting point. But work it through the constitutional amendment process. That way, the debate and negotiations are more likely to result in a system that will be satisfactory to many more people.
    Slave states would not accept a constitution in which slaves were not counted for purposes of apportioning congressmen and electoral college votes, nor would they accept one counting slaves as half a person. The lowest they would accept was 3/5.

    The result was to give slave states a third more electors and a third more congressmen than if the slaves hadn't been counted. I don't buy the idea that this was not on their minds, and the electoral college was a way around the popular vote.

    How would you reform the electoral college?

  23. #198
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,509

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by Breakaway View Post
    Are those citizen totals plus slaves? Or are the slaves broken out from the total amount?
    The first number is total population including slaves, the second number is slaves only. Some states had LOTS of slaves; I did a little math.

    VA: Total population - 747,000 Slaves - 293,000, 40% slaves
    PA: Total population - 434,000 Slaves - 3000
    NC: Total population - 394,000 Slaves - 101,000, 26% slaves
    MA: Total population - 379,000 Slaves - 0
    NY: Total population - 340,000 Slaves - 21,000, 9% slaves
    MD: Total population - 320,000 Slaves - 103,000, 32% slaves
    SC: Total population - 249,000 Slaves - 107,000, 43% slaves
    CT: Total population - 238,000 Slaves - 3000
    NJ: Total population - 185,000 Slaves - 11,000, 6% slaves
    NH: Total population - 142,000 Slaves - 158
    ME: Total population - 97,000 Slaves - 0
    VT: Total population - 86,000 Slaves - 16
    GA: Total population - 83,000 Slaves - 29,000, 35% slaves
    KY: Total population - 74,000 Slaves - 12,000, 16% slaves
    RI: Total population - 69,000 Slaves - 1,000, 1.4% slaves
    DE: Total population - 59,000 Slaves - 9,000, 15% slaves
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  24. #199
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,221

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    ]How would you reform the electoral college?
    Really? Try reading the post you quoted.

  25. #200
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,509

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Y'know, peb, I think you may be right that the problems could be fixed without abandoning it altogether. Electoral votes proportional to population would get us most of the way there. Human electors are totally unnecessary; that part could be automatic. Winner-take-all is by state is debatable; I don't favor it, personally, but it's a lesser problem. The turnout effects are small and random enough we can ignore them.

    The obvious problem with passing any kind of constitutional amendment along these lines, and the reason for kludges like the popular vote ideas we've been discussing, is that changing the electoral college would take power away from the small states, and an amendment has to be passed by 3/4 of the states, irrespective of population. We're well into 'cold day in hell' territory.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  26. #201
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    23,844

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by peb View Post
    Really? Try reading the post you quoted.
    I read it, and I still don't know why moving closer to one voter, one vote, is better than just going to one voter, one vote. It seems like doing it by congressional district just increases the benefits of gerrymandering, and in the end, may not get you that much closer.

  27. #202
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    3,576

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by johnw View Post
    I read it, and I still don't know why moving closer to one voter, one vote, is better than just going to one voter, one vote. It seems like doing it by congressional district just increases the benefits of gerrymandering, and in the end, may not get you that much closer.
    Gerrymandering ONLY affects elections for the House of Representatives.
    Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. John Fn Kennedy. (D)

  28. #203
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    24,836

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by mdh View Post
    Gerrymandering ONLY affects elections for the House of Representatives.
    And state House & Senate
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  29. #204
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    49,509

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    State boundaries are the ultimate accidental gerrymander.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  30. #205
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Tisbury, MA USA
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Y'know, peb, I think you may be right that the problems could be fixed without abandoning it altogether. Electoral votes proportional to population would get us most of the way there. Human electors are totally unnecessary; that part could be automatic. Winner-take-all is by state is debatable; I don't favor it, personally, but it's a lesser problem. The turnout effects are small and random enough we can ignore them.

    The obvious problem with passing any kind of constitutional amendment along these lines, and the reason for kludges like the popular vote ideas we've been discussing, is that changing the electoral college would take power away from the small states, and an amendment has to be passed by 3/4 of the states, irrespective of population. We're well into 'cold day in hell' territory.
    Human electors are required by the Constitution.
    You would need a constitutional amendment, that could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population

    When signed by Gov. Malloy, he National Popular Vote bill will be 64% 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.

  31. #206
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Tisbury, MA USA
    Posts
    45

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    The Uniform Law Commission has drafted and recommended a law called the Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act that provides for electors to pledge to vote for a candidate, and for them to be replaced with an alternate in the event that they do not vote as pledged.

    States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors.

    Existing North Carolina law declares vacant the position of any contrary-voting elector, voids that elector’s vote, and empowers the state’s remaining electors to replace the contrary-voting elector immediately with an elector loyal to the party’s nominee.

    In Arizona, HB2302 went into effect in August 2017. Electors must cast their vote for candidate and vice president candidate who jointly received the highest number of votes in the state. If the elector refuses to cast that vote, they will no longer be eligible to hold their position as an elector.

    April 10, 2018 - A federal appeals court judge has ruled that Colorado’s presidential electors must vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

  32. #207
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New jersey
    Posts
    2,962

    Default Re: Another victory towards getting rid of the Electoral College

    Sometimes it helps to just cut to the chase. You just can’t have a system that results in the winner getting three million votes LESS than the loser. You people will argue over anything.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •