New Bill to eliminate the Electoral College

[Fanatical Meat]

I figure it's more obtainable than a Constitutional amendment.

I wonder that, I think if there were a real effort the handful of battleground states may change their opinion with the simple promise idea of “are you tired of two years of election ads and robo calls and mail? Vote to eliminate the EC”

 

[woolfe9998]

I figure it's more obtainable than a Constitutional amendment.

I think it is a Constitutional Amendment. You amend the Constitution either with 2/3's of Congress or with state legislatures from states with 2/3's of the electoral vote. That proposal is currently going through the state legislatures. Cohen's bill is the other track.

I too think the state legislature approach is more likely to succeed. If you look at my link, there are enough blue and purple states who haven't yet enacted to pass it. Just add in Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico and we're over the top. We don't even need the now red leaning Ohio or the impossibly screwed up North Carolina.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Meh. It's base pandering of a sort, considering it has every chance of a snowball in Hell.

I see that, my point is eliminating the electoral college is something Dem voters want, IMXP.

 

[interchange]

I like the idea behind the electoral college and think it's not the problem. The problem is the winner take all setup that most states employ. The system has 2 functions. One is to make sure smaller states aren't made irrelevant which works well by giving them the 2 extra votes although more precision with the population dependent representation would be good to me. The other is to allow rational people a mechanism to prevent a corrupt victor from winning, although state laws might interrupt that. If it didn't stop Trump, I'm not sure this mechanism is meaningful in this day and age. Can certainly see more utility at the country's founding.

That limits us. Not sure it would be constitutional to dictate how states assign their electoral votes, and I think they are not going to change one by one. I'm not sure if the idea of states banding together to require electoral college votes for the popular vote winner has legs. Obviously it would work and bypass need for federal/Constitution change.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yes, majority rule. I’d predict fewer extreme candidates on both sides too.

Certainly not fair how a vote in Alaska counts 4 times as much at deciding whom the President is than mine.

Do you really think "majority" should rule at all times?

I'm not saying one way or the other - just asking an honest question. Keep in mind - do you think people in a hipster city should be deciding things like regulations for farming or energy? These are things that the majority of voters have no real knowledge of - hence why having representation at the local level makes sense.

 

[fskimospy]

It seems highly unlikely that the electoral college will ever be removed. My reasoning is that in order for it to be removed 1 party has to have an extreme majority. Do you think a party with an extreme majority would ever support such a proposal? It is like somebody who is already winning to try to stack the cards further in their favor.

This is incorrect, an extreme majority is not required, just states with 51% of electoral votes agreeing to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

To take your idea further...why not vote on issues in a general populist vote rather than congress doing it? If the public could get to vote for term limits/retirement packages/healthcare for congress, it would probably pass the first time around. Congress will never vote in favor of things that impact them personally.

How about issues concerning healthcare,energy or the wall. Let there be cases were the public can vote on issues that force changes to the direction of the country. Congress are dinosaurs that simply try to hang on to that power until their dead. It doesn't matter who you vote for, they always just endlessly block each other from any progress at all.

You're arguing for the abolition of representative democracy here, which I would not support. What I am arguing for is making the presidency actual representative democracy instead of a weighted parlor game.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Do you really think "majority" should rule at all times?

I'm not saying one way or the other - just asking an honest question. Keep in mind - do you think people in a hipster city should be deciding things like regulations for farming or energy? These are things that the majority of voters have no real knowledge of - hence why having representation at the local level makes sense.

Yes
There is no good reason why a few thousand or maybe 10a of thousands in a particular state should decide whom the President will be.
There is no good reason why some votes cast in smaller states carry multiple times more weight than the same vote in a larger state.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think it is a Constitutional Amendment. You amend the Constitution either with 2/3's of Congress or with state legislatures from states with 2/3's of the electoral vote. That proposal is currently going through the state legislatures. Cohen's bill is the other track.

I too think the state legislature approach is more likely to succeed. If you look at my link, there are enough blue and purple states who haven't yet enacted to pass it. Just add in Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia and New Mexico and we're over the top. We don't even need the now red leaning Ohio or the impossibly screwed up North Carolina.

Negative. The national popular vote compact would be an agreement between the states, like the Colorado river water compact. Once states having 270 electoral votes ratify it, the rest doesn't matter.

 

[woolfe9998]

Do you really think "majority" should rule at all times?

I'm not saying one way or the other - just asking an honest question. Keep in mind - do you think people in a hipster city should be deciding things like regulations for farming or energy? These are things that the majority of voters have no real knowledge of - hence why having representation at the local level makes sense.

We have limitations on majority rule. For example, a popularly elected legislature and/or POTUS can't take away our individual rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution. Not unless they can amend it with a super majority which is nigh impossible these days.

We certainly need protections against the tyranny of the majority but in elections, yes, the candidate with the most votes should win.

For the POTUS election especially, why should POTUS candidates tailor their messaging and policies to only people in 10 swing states. Trump's trade policies were geared toward winning voters in the rust belt, but are they good policies for the whole of the country?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Do you really think "majority" should rule at all times?

I'm not saying one way or the other - just asking an honest question. Keep in mind - do you think people in a hipster city should be deciding things like regulations for farming or energy? These are things that the majority of voters have no real knowledge of - hence why having representation at the local level makes sense.

Lol at majority in quotes.

 

[woolfe9998]

Negative. The national popular vote compact would be an agreement between the states, like the Colorado river water compact. Once states having 270 electoral votes ratify it, the rest doesn't matter.

OK, I didn't fully understand how it works. Read up on it more fully. It's an agreement among states to assign their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. While that may be an easier way than amending the Constitution, it could well lead to states assigning their votes to candidates who lost badly in their states. A constitutional amendment, if possible, would be preferable.

 

[fskimospy]

I like the idea behind the electoral college and think it's not the problem. The problem is the winner take all setup that most states employ. The system has 2 functions. One is to make sure smaller states aren't made irrelevant which works well by giving them the 2 extra votes although more precision with the population dependent representation would be good to me. The other is to allow rational people a mechanism to prevent a corrupt victor from winning, although state laws might interrupt that. If it didn't stop Trump, I'm not sure this mechanism is meaningful in this day and age. Can certainly see more utility at the country's founding.

That limits us. Not sure it would be constitutional to dictate how states assign their electoral votes, and I think they are not going to change one by one. I'm not sure if the idea of states banding together to require electoral college votes for the popular vote winner has legs. Obviously it would work and bypass need for federal/Constitution change.

I've never understood why areas should get additional representation based on arbitrary lines drawn on a map. Is there a particular reason why someone's vote in Rhode Island should count more than the guy down the street who happens to have crossed the border into Massachusetts? Remember, any state east of say, the Mississippi had its lines drawn almost entirely arbitrarily by the federal government at the time they were created. (that's why they are often neat little boxes!) Why should these decisions exert such enormous influence on the governance of our country?

 

[woolfe9998]

I like the idea behind the electoral college and think it's not the problem. The problem is the winner take all setup that most states employ. The system has 2 functions. One is to make sure smaller states aren't made irrelevant which works well by giving them the 2 extra votes although more precision with the population dependent representation would be good to me. The other is to allow rational people a mechanism to prevent a corrupt victor from winning, although state laws might interrupt that. If it didn't stop Trump, I'm not sure this mechanism is meaningful in this day and age. Can certainly see more utility at the country's founding.

That limits us. Not sure it would be constitutional to dictate how states assign their electoral votes, and I think they are not going to change one by one. I'm not sure if the idea of states banding together to require electoral college votes for the popular vote winner has legs. Obviously it would work and bypass need for federal/Constitution change.

If all the states assigned their electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote in each state, wouldn't that be the same thing as having a national popular vote, with the electoral college being a more or less useless appendage in the process?

 

[soulcougher73]

Do you really think "majority" should rule at all times?

I'm not saying one way or the other - just asking an honest question. Keep in mind - do you think people in a hipster city should be deciding things like regulations for farming or energy? These are things that the majority of voters have no real knowledge of - hence why having representation at the local level makes sense.

Well lets flip that. Do you think minority should rule? Do you want a few farmers to tell all the big cities how to regulate? The problem with minority rule is when do you stop? 2nd runner up? Single vote wins and makes all the rules? Majority rules makes the most sense and always has in the history of the world really. And remember were talking about the president here of all 50 states. The only position in the country that represents everyone.

 

[soulcougher73]

If all the states assigned their electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote in each state, wouldn't that be the same thing as having a national popular vote, with the electoral college being a more or less useless appendance in the process?

Yes. The EC would serve no purpose really if that was the ruling. Might as well just get rid of it.

 

[soulcougher73]

What is funny is the EC is supposed to be numbers generated on population of each state. Using Wyoming as the base (since its the least populous). California should have 199 EC points, instead of its current 55, based on its current population.. That is the most extreme example. So the system is just broken in many ways.

 

[Sunburn74]

The electoral college is just plain bad. If it was a good idea, there would be other situations where people would copy it. To my knowledge I can think of no private business or other such institution that would do that because it's stupid.

 

[woolfe9998]

What is funny is the EC is supposed to be numbers generated on population of each state. Using Wyoming as the base (since its the least populous). California should have 199 EC points, instead of its current 55, based on its current population.. That is the most extreme example. So the system is just broken in many ways.

Per the Constitution, the number of electors is equal to each state's representatives in Congress, including the Senate. Since the Senate representation is not proportional to population, neither is the EC. This is another huge problem with the EC. It's one thing for small states to get extra power by way of Senate representation, another still to give them a disproportionate vote for POTUS.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The electoral college is just plain bad. If it was a good idea, there would be other situations where people would copy it. To my knowledge I can think of no private business or other such institution that would do that because it's stupid.

It’s a dated idea, original idea was to have a body decide what the voters wanted. If a blizzard delayed the vote counting in Maine a guy from Maine would represent what the voters wanted, it also was used as a prevention that is to say let’s pretend someone unelectable won like King George or Jesus or even Dave Smith. I’ve read there could have been dozens of Dave Smiths running for President in multiple states, which Dave Smith won the election.
Technology has made those concerns irrelevant.

 

[fskimospy]

Per the Constitution, the number of electors is equal to each state's representatives in Congress, including the Senate. Since the Senate representation is not proportional to population, neither is the EC. This is another huge problem with the EC. It's one thing for small states to get extra power by way of Senate representation, another still to give them a disproportionate vote for POTUS.

It’s especially strange given the nature of elections in the US. Literally every other office is achieved through gaining a plurality of votes by that office’s constituents.

Would people stand for it if the person a mile down the road got four votes for mayor while they only got one? No way. So why do it here?

 

[woolfe9998]

It’s especially strange given the nature of elections in the US. Literally every other office is achieved through gaining a plurality of votes by that office’s constituents.

Would people stand for it if the person a mile down the road got four votes for mayor while they only got one? No way. So why do it here?

It's too bad we had to wait for such a partisan climate to try to change this. Dems want it because we've lost two elections for POTUS over it, and repubs are against it for the opposite reason. The system has always been deeply flawed. Should have been fixed decades ago.

 

[kage69]

The EC no longer protects democracy, and makes some voters count more than others. It should be done away like any other institution that no longer serves it's purpose.

We should adopt this crazy principle where the person who receives the most voter support, wins. All for eradicating gerrymandering too, I'm for anything that helps ensure voters aren't disenfranchised by partisan corruption. If you can't get into office based on majority support for your ideas and solutions, then you shouldn't be in office. Period. The EC includes people willing to drink the talk radio Koolaid, willing to embrace the harmful demagogue they were meant to shield democracy from. It's gotta go.

 

[ElFenix]

It's too bad we had to wait for such a partisan climate to try to change this. Dems want it because we've lost two elections for POTUS over it, and repubs are against it for the opposite reason. The system has always been deeply flawed. Should have been fixed decades ago.

It wasn't as out of whack decades ago - Congress used to add Congresscritters every decade. They stopped doing that back in the early 1900s. Since then, the population of the country has gone up 3.5x. It still wouldn't be much issue if everywhere had gone up 3.5x, but that isn't the case.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It wasn't as out of whack decades ago - Congress used to add Congresscritters every decade. They stopped doing that back in the early 1900s. Since then, the population of the country has gone up 3.5x. It still wouldn't be much issue if everywhere had gone up 3.5x, but that isn't the case.

Problem is it would look like the Star Wars Senate in that shitty Star Wars movie.

 

[TheVrolok]

I wish..