'Hacking the Constitution': States Quietly Plan to Ditch Electoral College

[Nutz]

The founding fathers set up the electoral college because they believed in states rights. To them the states were countries and something like the EC was obviously essential. All elections, even of federal officials, had to be conducted at the state level.

Those that wish to rid us of the EC want the feds running everything.

And the EC was essential to prevent larger states like VA from determining the outcome of the elections.

Get rid of the EC and CA, TX, NY, FL and IL would determine just about every election as they have about 1/3 of the nations population.

 

[Nutz]

And the libs are accusing republicans of wanting to disenfranchise voters. This plan could disenfranchise whole states, not just individuals.

Absolutely. Not to mention, residents in the bigger cities will determine the outcome for the rest of the state. Under this plan, why would a politician even bother to campaijgn in rural areas? To win NY, just campaign in NYC. To win IL, stay in Chicago...and so on.

Yep. The flyover doesn't matter a damn, it never did.

Are you actually going to offer an opinion?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Absolutely. Not to mention, residents in the bigger cities will determine the outcome for the rest of the state. Under this plan, why would a politician even bother to campaijgn in rural areas? To win NY, just campaign in NYC. To win IL, stay in Chicago...and so on.

Yep. The flyover doesn't matter a damn, it never did.

Are you actually going to offer an opinion?

I did...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Stirewalt pointed out that this plan is part of a larger trend on the part of "frustrated" liberals who haven't been able to bring about the changes they want.

Ignorant partisan nonsense.

Having won four of the last six presidential elections, ‘liberals’ aren’t ‘frustrated’ about anything.

He has a point. Bush being elected by the Supreme Court once and the people a second time still pisses me off.

 

[Nutz]

Yep. The flyover doesn't matter a damn, it never did.

Are you actually going to offer an opinion?

I did...

I forgot who I was dealing with...never mind, somehow you were deleted from my ignore list. Gonna have to correct that...

Carry on, your back on mute.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Are you actually going to offer an opinion?

I did...

I forgot who I was dealing with...never mind, somehow you were deleted from my ignore list. Gonna have to correct that...

Carry on, your back on mute.

You are welcome to hide from the truth, most people do...

 

[blackhawk]

Reality bites eh...

No but stupidity does which is what this idea is.

The president being elected by a popular vote is stupid? Interesting...

Considering that states with small populations would be basically ignored yes it is. I believe that was the reason for the electoral college.

 

[Seawytch]

The need for the Electoral College is over folks. It's the 21st century. We are capable, in the 21st century, of electing our President by popular vote. People living in bumfuck don't get their news by wagon train anymore. The hicks in bumfuck can be as educated as the folks in the "inner cities" are.

10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem

Our Electoral College system is weird — and not in a good way

 

[nodoginnafight]

And the libs are accusing republicans of wanting to disenfranchise voters. This plan could disenfranchise whole states, not just individuals.

It has nothing to do with distrust for the masses.

The electoral college gives more weight to rural voters because throughout American history, rural Americans have feared that urban voters would railroad them.

That still holds true today.

 

[rightwinger]

And the libs are accusing republicans of wanting to disenfranchise voters. This plan could disenfranchise whole states, not just individuals.

Absolutely. Not to mention, residents in the bigger cities will determine the outcome for the rest of the state. Under this plan, why would a politician even bother to campaijgn in rural areas? To win NY, just campaign in NYC. To win IL, stay in Chicago...and so on.

Isn't that the way Electoral votes work now?

Win NYC and you will win NY State and all the Electoral votes

 

[rightwinger]

And the libs are accusing republicans of wanting to disenfranchise voters. This plan could disenfranchise whole states, not just individuals.

It has nothing to do with distrust for the masses.

The electoral college gives more weight to rural voters because throughout American history, rural Americans have feared that urban voters would railroad them.

That still holds true today.

Rural voters have more power per capita than Urban voters. That is how Bush got elected

 

[nodoginnafight]

And the libs are accusing republicans of wanting to disenfranchise voters. This plan could disenfranchise whole states, not just individuals.

Absolutely. Not to mention, residents in the bigger cities will determine the outcome for the rest of the state. Under this plan, why would a politician even bother to campaijgn in rural areas? To win NY, just campaign in NYC. To win IL, stay in Chicago...and so on.

Isn't that the way Electoral votes work now?

Win NYC and you will win NY State and all the Electoral votes

Not only that, but considering the "reliably red and reliably blue" states, a candidate can focus about 80% of his/her attention on a few, well-populated swing states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, etc.

 

[Londoner]

States Quietly Sign Onto Plan to Change Election System | Fox News Insider


Guess which party rules these states.

Rather than getting your talking points from FOX NEWS, why not debate the particulars? The reason given by Cuomo was that presidential candidates over-weight states with high population counts, or they just focus on the states "in play" while ignoring states with small electoral counts. With this law, they would be "aligning the Electoral College with the voice of the nation’s voters, we are ensuring the equality of votes and encouraging candidates to appeal to voters in all states, instead of disproportionately focusing on early contests and swing states."

You may ultimately decide that you disagree (I know I do), but it would be nice if for once people like you formulated thoughts and arguments on your own. Let's discuss all the details. Let's argue for/against every single reason these States are giving for seeking to legally change election law. Rather than just being a Republican lemming and repeating talking points, why not enlighten us about election law and the Constitution by citing actual statutes and actual language from the Constitution? Prove to us - just once - that you understand these issues rather than merely repeating the words of "Dear Leader".

Here is what I'm getting at. It's not clear that you are thinking for yourself. For instance, George Bush and the Republican Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling 4 times. Your side had 100% control over government and you raised the debt ceiling multiple times. But people like you didn't complain because you didn't know about it. You didn't know about it because FOX didn't cover it. This suggests that you are getting all your information - not just the data but the actual interpretation of the data - from a political movement, from government. This is not only scary, it is the greatest irony in the history of US politics.

 

[nodoginnafight]

And let's not forget that in 2013 there was a GOP led drive to make EC votes proportional (rather than winner take all) in Florida, Pennsylvania and a couple of other states where Republicans held majorities in the state legislature, but where the GOP was losing all the state's electoral votes to Democratic candidates. The GOP figured picking off about 40% of those EC votes would turn the tide for them.
No one is above trying to "game the system"

 

[DiamondDave]

Lest the left forgets... each branch is chosen differently ON PURPOSE... to ensure there is not just a system of tyranny of the masses... the electoral college gives the voice to the STATES... you know.. those things that actually give the power to the fed (not the other way around)... each state then has a voice, pretty important in a union of states

 

[rightwinger]

Lest the left forgets... each branch is chosen differently ON PURPOSE... to ensure there is not just a system of tyranny of the masses... the electoral college gives the voice to the STATES... you know.. those things that actually give the power to the fed (not the other way around)... each state then has a voice, pretty important in a union of states

The Constitution says the states get to decide how their electoral votes are allocated. If a state says it will allocate based on the national popular vote, isn't that the voice of the state?

 

[DiamondDave]

Lest the left forgets... each branch is chosen differently ON PURPOSE... to ensure there is not just a system of tyranny of the masses... the electoral college gives the voice to the STATES... you know.. those things that actually give the power to the fed (not the other way around)... each state then has a voice, pretty important in a union of states

The Constitution says the states get to decide how their electoral votes are allocated. If a state says it will allocate based on the national popular vote, isn't that the voice of the state?

Not really.. for if the state votes 70% in favor of candidate A, 30% in favor of candidate B and Candidate B gets 50.01% of the national vote, it is not being done for the voice of the state, rather the voice of the other parts of the country... If a state chooses to divide its votes based on result in different parts of the states, all well and good as it is still about the state.... this is not the case with your scenario

 

[nodoginnafight]

Lest the left forgets... each branch is chosen differently ON PURPOSE... to ensure there is not just a system of tyranny of the masses... the electoral college gives the voice to the STATES... you know.. those things that actually give the power to the fed (not the other way around)... each state then has a voice, pretty important in a union of states

The Constitution says the states get to decide how their electoral votes are allocated. If a state says it will allocate based on the national popular vote, isn't that the voice of the state?

Not really.. for if the state votes 70% in favor of candidate A, 30% in favor of candidate B and Candidate B gets 50.01% of the national vote, it is not being done for the voice of the state, rather the voice of the other parts of the country... If a state chooses to divide its votes based on result in different parts of the states, all well and good as it is still about the state.... this is not the case with your scenario

Whichever scenario is selected by a state - that is the state's choice.
Why should anyone outside of Florida tell Florida how to allocate their EC votes?

 

[Londoner]

Lest the left forgets... each branch is chosen differently ON PURPOSE... to ensure there is not just a system of tyranny of the masses... the electoral college gives the voice to the STATES... you know.. those things that actually give the power to the fed (not the other way around)... each state then has a voice, pretty important in a union of states

This is exactly right - and it's a good point. One argument given by Cuomo is that the Electoral system is no longer effectively protecting voters in small non-swing states. Candidates spend all their time in places like Ohio and Florida while ignoring too much of the country. He's proposing a legal change to election law which would give presidential candidates an incentive to visit and listen to voters that are currently being ignored because, under the current system, they do not represent an electoral payoff. Does this change better capture what was originally intended by the Electoral College, with its desire to effectively distribute electoral power across regions that would otherwise be crushed by a popular vote? I don't know - and that's why it's important to discuss these things in detail. However - and this is my point - FOX doesn't want a debate; they just want to press the same tired psychological buttons of their captive audience, who will then spill into the public square with hysterical talking points about the end of America.

FYI: I'm not as concerned about what people ultimately decide as much as I'm concerned about the absolute failure of civic literacy that comes when voters reflexively import talking points without displaying an ability to understand all sides of the debate. This is emphatically a bipartisan problem.

Also, I'm not sure Cuomo's move is a slam dunk for Democrats. Think about it. New York is solidly Blue - and current demographic trends are going to make it even more Blue. So you'd think he would have no interest in changing that. However, if a charismatic Independent or Republican candidate won the popular vote, than Cuomo is saying that New York's votes would be shifted to the Republican, which could flip the election in favor of the Right. This is obviously just one hypothetical, and I don't think its one Cuomo fears. Regardless, my instinct is to be against this change, but I'd need a lot more information before making a decision.

 

[Vigilante]

Because of the amnesty push, now approved by the RINO GOP leaders, (suicide is simple, isn't it!) we better hope that the EC is dropped, as undocumented democrats are going to now control, Texas, and all of the other border states, including Florida, and that will tip the EC into a continual Democratic win cycle. The DIRECT vote is the only way the RIGHT could even have a small chance of taking back the country.....think about that!