Alternative to the Electoral College

[Lewdog]

According to my calc, in California, Johnson with 3% of the vote would get 1.6 out of 55. Rounding up that's 2.

The 270 rule should go out with a change in allocated EV's change. Either the election goes to the plurality winner, or you have a run off.

Ok, so that means It would be 268/268/2. Does it matter?

Well you have to go through every state. No it doesn't 'matter', because it's just a theoretical exercise.

But, even if I went through every state and took away votes for Gary Johnson, neither Clinton nor Trump would GAIN any votes, so they would both still be bellow the 270 needed.

Like I said, the 270 requirement should either be dropped or decided with a runoff.

There's nothing that says the winner has to have 270 if more than 2 candidates gained electoral votes, the winner would be the one with the most.

What?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, so that means It would be 268/268/2. Does it matter?

Well you have to go through every state. No it doesn't 'matter', because it's just a theoretical exercise.

But, even if I went through every state and took away votes for Gary Johnson, neither Clinton nor Trump would GAIN any votes, so they would both still be bellow the 270 needed.

Like I said, the 270 requirement should either be dropped or decided with a runoff.

There's nothing that says the winner has to have 270 if more than 2 candidates gained electoral votes, the winner would be the one with the most.

What?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

 

[Lewdog]

Well you have to go through every state. No it doesn't 'matter', because it's just a theoretical exercise.

But, even if I went through every state and took away votes for Gary Johnson, neither Clinton nor Trump would GAIN any votes, so they would both still be bellow the 270 needed.

Like I said, the 270 requirement should either be dropped or decided with a runoff.

There's nothing that says the winner has to have 270 if more than 2 candidates gained electoral votes, the winner would be the one with the most.

What?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

Ok dummy. Read this from what you posted:

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;

270 IS the majority of the whole numbers of Electors appointed.

 

[OKTexas]

But, even if I went through every state and took away votes for Gary Johnson, neither Clinton nor Trump would GAIN any votes, so they would both still be bellow the 270 needed.

Like I said, the 270 requirement should either be dropped or decided with a runoff.

There's nothing that says the winner has to have 270 if more than 2 candidates gained electoral votes, the winner would be the one with the most.

What?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

Ok dummy. Read this from what you posted:

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;

270 IS the majority of the whole numbers of Electors appointed.

I guess you missed this part.

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 by Ballot one of them for President;

 

[Lewdog]

Like I said, the 270 requirement should either be dropped or decided with a runoff.

There's nothing that says the winner has to have 270 if more than 2 candidates gained electoral votes, the winner would be the one with the most.

What?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

Ok dummy. Read this from what you posted:

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;

270 IS the majority of the whole numbers of Electors appointed.

I guess you missed this part.

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 by Ballot one of them for President;

No, what I said is correct. They didn't put in an exact number because they knew that states would be added later and didn't want to have to amend it every time.

 

[FA_Q2]

Like I said, the 270 requirement should either be dropped or decided with a runoff.

There's nothing that says the winner has to have 270 if more than 2 candidates gained electoral votes, the winner would be the one with the most.

What?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

Ok dummy. Read this from what you posted:

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;

270 IS the majority of the whole numbers of Electors appointed.

I guess you missed this part.

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 by Ballot one of them for President;

You are misunderstanding what majority means in this context:
Definition of MAJORITY
In this case majority is meant to mean:
"number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"

IOW, the fact they have an equal number is irrelevant because they do not have at least half. It was possible at the time of the founding to have more than one person exceed half the maximum votes because electors cast 2 votes each. That has since changed because of the 12th but the requirement to meet at least half the votes still stands.

 

[FA_Q2]

There's nothing that says the winner has to have 270 if more than 2 candidates gained electoral votes, the winner would be the one with the most.

What?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

Ok dummy. Read this from what you posted:

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;

270 IS the majority of the whole numbers of Electors appointed.

I guess you missed this part.

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 by Ballot one of them for President;

No, what I said is correct. They didn't put in an exact number because they knew that states would be added later and didn't want to have to amend it every time.

I do not think the exact number is the issue with interpreting this particular passage. I believe that the fact that the house decides if there was more than one that received such a majority is. Obviously such a case is literally impossible under the current system if majority means at least more than half but was quite possible under the rules that the constitution set up for electors originally.

 

[OKTexas]

There's nothing that says the winner has to have 270 if more than 2 candidates gained electoral votes, the winner would be the one with the most.

What?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

Ok dummy. Read this from what you posted:

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;

270 IS the majority of the whole numbers of Electors appointed.

I guess you missed this part.

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 by Ballot one of them for President;

No, what I said is correct. They didn't put in an exact number because they knew that states would be added later and didn't want to have to amend it every time.

So how does "more than one have such a Majority"? You think majority meant something different in the late 1700s? Like what we call a plurality today?

 

[FA_Q2]

People who argue against the PV against the EC always argue that that the President will always be elected by the big cities and the rest of the people's votes won't matter. What they refuse to address, is that under the EC, pretty much the entire election most years is decided by a handful of swing states. This election alone was decided by MI, WI, PA, OH, NC, and FL. Each year, most states vote the same party... every year, and essentially they don't matter. So how is that any different?

You've made it part way to the logical conclusion of all this, well done. What you've done here is pointed out that, with the electoral college, it is possible to pander only to the swing states and rely on the predictable and monolithic voting patterns of the rest of the states to ensure that those swing states along have the power to get you over the top. So, essentially, both the EC and the PV have the potential to siphon all federal benefits to a few areas. Same-same, right?

Wrong. Here's the difference. If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

With the popular vote, nobody outside of the main population centers even has the possibility of recourse. The sad fact of the matter is that growing your city larger than Houston is a considerably less practical course of action than switching your vote.

No, because the normal states who vote for a particular party vote for that party based on that party's beliefs and not necessarily for the candidate. Take for example Kentucky where I live. They believe in essential things like God, guns, coal, and less government oversight. Those are primary principles of the Republican party. Kentucky will, almost without a doubt, EVERY year vote Republican. Trump could have done ZERO rallies in KY and still won the state. Many other states are the same. Only the states with mixes demographics matter, thus why they are called "Swing states."

Nobody said anything about the specific candidate, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

Part of why the monolithic states haven't significantly altered their voting patterns is because they're generally satisfied with the results of their habits. If suddenly those 6 states you mentioned started receiving, say, 30 percent of all the federal highway funds, you bet your ass the electorate in the monolithic 44 would be considerably less predictable.

If we went to PV, even if all the people outside of the population centers DID get pissed enough to completely switch their voting habits, it would be meaningless. There would be ZERO potential for practical recourse against federal politicians who decided to COMPLETELY fuck everyone else over for the benefit of the foremost population centers.

Well, no they really would not.

Lets say that you live in a republican state. Would you seriously consider changing your vote to a democrat because the current democrats in power shoveled all the money to swing states?

I doubt you would do such a thing at all.

 

[Lewdog]

What?

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

Ok dummy. Read this from what you posted:

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;

270 IS the majority of the whole numbers of Electors appointed.

I guess you missed this part.

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 by Ballot one of them for President;

No, what I said is correct. They didn't put in an exact number because they knew that states would be added later and didn't want to have to amend it every time.

I do not think the exact number is the issue with interpreting this particular passage. I believe that the fact that the house decides if there was more than one that received such a majority is. Obviously such a case is literally impossible under the current system if majority means at least more than half but was quite possible under the rules that the constitution set up for electors originally.

Well it is odd that they would put in a requirement to get a majority of half the total, which at the moment is 270, instead of just saying the person that receives the majority of total votes cast by the electors.

 

[FA_Q2]

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

Ok dummy. Read this from what you posted:

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;

270 IS the majority of the whole numbers of Electors appointed.

I guess you missed this part.

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 by Ballot one of them for President;

No, what I said is correct. They didn't put in an exact number because they knew that states would be added later and didn't want to have to amend it every time.

I do not think the exact number is the issue with interpreting this particular passage. I believe that the fact that the house decides if there was more than one that received such a majority is. Obviously such a case is literally impossible under the current system if majority means at least more than half but was quite possible under the rules that the constitution set up for electors originally.

Well it is odd that they would put in a requirement to get a majority of half the total, which at the moment is 270, instead of just saying the person that receives the majority of total votes cast by the electors.

That is what majority means - more than half the total.

 

[FA_Q2]

What?

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

Ok dummy. Read this from what you posted:

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;

270 IS the majority of the whole numbers of Electors appointed.

I guess you missed this part.

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 by Ballot one of them for President;

No, what I said is correct. They didn't put in an exact number because they knew that states would be added later and didn't want to have to amend it every time.

So how does "more than one have such a Majority"? You think majority meant something different in the late 1700s? Like what we call a plurality today?

I just explained that to you. Electors were able to cast 2 votes each. If there are 100 electors then the candidate must receive at least 50 to win. As the electors cast 2 votes each is was entirely possible to have 2 people achieve that total.

 

[OKTexas]

There's nothing that says the winner has to have 270 if more than 2 candidates gained electoral votes, the winner would be the one with the most.

What?

What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

Sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that scenario.

Article 2, Section 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 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 the President. But in chusing 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 from them by Ballot the Vice President.

This has not been change by any amendment.

Ok dummy. Read this from what you posted:

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;

270 IS the majority of the whole numbers of Electors appointed.

I guess you missed this part.

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 by Ballot one of them for President;

You are misunderstanding what majority means in this context:
Definition of MAJORITY
In this case majority is meant to mean:
"number or percentage equaling more than half of a total"

IOW, the fact they have an equal number is irrelevant because they do not have at least half. It was possible at the time of the founding to have more than one person exceed half the maximum votes because electors cast 2 votes each. That has since changed because of the 12th but the requirement to meet at least half the votes still stands.

My mistake, I have misplaced my pocket Constitution and I missed the 12th when I was going down the list of Amendments.

 

[Meathead]

The States can change it.

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it

Can anyone find a thread between those states that want to change it?

The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including four small jurisdictions (RI, VT, HI, DC), three medium- size states (MD, MA, WA), and four big states (NJ, IL, NY, CA).

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

People who argue against the PV against the EC always argue that that the President will always be elected by the big cities and the rest of the people's votes won't matter. What they refuse to address, is that under the EC, pretty much the entire election most years is decided by a handful of swing states. This election alone was decided by MI, WI, PA, OH, NC, and FL. Each year, most states vote the same party... every year, and essentially they don't matter. So how is that any different?

You've made it part way to the logical conclusion of all this, well done. What you've done here is pointed out that, with the electoral college, it is possible to pander only to the swing states and rely on the predictable and monolithic voting patterns of the rest of the states to ensure that those swing states along have the power to get you over the top. So, essentially, both the EC and the PV have the potential to siphon all federal benefits to a few areas. Same-same, right?

Wrong. Here's the difference. If, at some point, the swing state pandering goes too far, and enough people in the right non-swing state(s) get properly fed up with it, the potential is there for them to buck the system by switching their vote and becoming, themselves, (a) swing state(s).

With the popular vote, nobody outside of the main population centers even has the possibility of recourse. The sad fact of the matter is that growing your city larger than Houston is a considerably less practical course of action than switching your vote.

No, because the normal states who vote for a particular party vote for that party based on that party's beliefs and not necessarily for the candidate. Take for example Kentucky where I live. They believe in essential things like God, guns, coal, and less government oversight. Those are primary principles of the Republican party. Kentucky will, almost without a doubt, EVERY year vote Republican. Trump could have done ZERO rallies in KY and still won the state. Many other states are the same. Only the states with mixes demographics matter, thus why they are called "Swing states."

Nobody said anything about the specific candidate, I'm not sure who you're arguing with here.

Part of why the monolithic states haven't significantly altered their voting patterns is because they're generally satisfied with the results of their habits. If suddenly those 6 states you mentioned started receiving, say, 30 percent of all the federal highway funds, you bet your ass the electorate in the monolithic 44 would be considerably less predictable.

If we went to PV, even if all the people outside of the population centers DID get pissed enough to completely switch their voting habits, it would be meaningless. There would be ZERO potential for practical recourse against federal politicians who decided to COMPLETELY fuck everyone else over for the benefit of the foremost population centers.

Well, no they really would not.

Lets say that you live in a republican state. Would you seriously consider changing your vote to a democrat because the current democrats in power shoveled all the money to swing states?

I doubt you would do such a thing at all.

LMFAO! I voted for Obama in '08, bud. Like many, I was less than pleased with the economic mess we had deteriorated into under Bush II and figured a change was in order. I also wasn't yet very well versed in the social justice madness that now seems to completely own the democrat party. Point being, yes, I actually would vote for a democrat if I felt they were the better choice for WHATEVER reason, and regardless of whether I was in a blue or red state.

And I'll say it again. Fairly recent history has shown that it's not only possible for states to shift their party loyalty, but it actually happens. As recently as 1960 Texas and Illinois were swing states. So yes, the EC system has considerably more potential mobility in terms of which areas are currently important than we would have with a PV system that would eventually perpetually incentivize people to live in the foremost population centers.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I gotta say, I find it funny that you think it's an absolute travesty that one vote could potentially decide for an entire state, and yet you favor a national popular vote election, wherein a single vote could decide for the entire nation. I been scratching my head for a few minutes, and I just can't seem to figure out how you make yourself believe that a single individual being the deciding factor for 6 million people makes no sense, but a single individual being the deciding factor for 300 million people is perfectly reasonable. Maybe you could clue me in?

Yes I can clue you in. The popular vote is currently not the final vote, therefore a state deciding for one candidate by 1 vote,

and then giving that candidate a 20 to zero vote (or whatever the electoral count is for that state) for the final phase of the election completely eliminates the voters on the losing side of that 1 vote win from having any voice in the final say of who will be president.

Deciding the presidency by popular vote, even if he or she wins by ONE vote, at least gave everyone a say in that final decision.

In the electoral system, your vote is not allowed to compete in the national election, you are only allowed to compete against the other residents of your state.

The entire purpose of that question was to point out the logical inconsistencies in Pogo's reasoning. Unless you also feel that it's unjust for a single vote to potentially decide the outcome for 6 million specifically because it gives that vote too much potential power, but it's not unjust for a single vote to have the potential power to decide for 300 million, then the question/argument to which you're responding doesn't even apply to you.

If you -are- capable of the sort of cognitive dissonance required to declare X to be overpowered, and at the same time declare that 50X is just right, then perhaps you'd care to explain to me how your vote being allowed to "compete" at nationals as opposed to only being allowed to "compete" at state somehow makes those two mutually exclusive statements both true at the same time?

 

[Crixus]

Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:

We should build a giant thunder dome, two candidates enter, one candidate leaves.

 

[Pogo]

the EC system has considerably more potential mobility in terms of which areas are currently important than we would have with a PV system that would eventually perpetually incentivize people to live in the foremost population centers.

Huh?? Why would it do that? Whether you live in a city or not has no bearing on what your vote means, PV or no PV.

Who would live in a city if they weren't financially forced to? Not me.

 

[Pogo]

Liberal nation wants to change the game because they lost. Lost in their emotions, they lack the ability to comprehend there's good reason we don't allow metropolises to dictate how the entire country is run. The larger the city the greater the decay. That's just how shit works. The citizens are more likely to fall prey to propaganda, and they're more likely to be socially dependent. In other terms, they're more likely corrupt, they're followers. Imagine the cost, chaos and rapid dumbing down if these people dictated how every county is run. Perhaps an alternative is one of these, though Trump would have won regardless:

We should build a giant thunder dome, two candidates enter, one candidate leaves.

What about third parties?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

While we are wishing for things that won't happen lets wish that ONLY property owners had the vote after all they have a stake in it when the dregs do not.