Is it Time for the Electoral College to Go?

[Trajan]

The sort of worst kept secret as to why conservatives are so madly in love with the electoral college method of electing the President?

It suppresses turnout, a condition conservatives are also madly in love with.

so does the media 'calling' states waaaay early....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd like to impose a rule that in order to vote you have to show photo ID and demonstrate that you passed a US citizenship test. Libs are right, the Constitution is outdated and need to catch up with the times.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I'd like to impose a rule that in order to vote you have to show photo ID and demonstrate that you passed a US citizenship test.

A citizenship test? I didn't know I had to take one. Shit. Where do I sign up?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'd like to impose a rule that in order to vote you have to show photo ID and demonstrate that you passed a US citizenship test.

A citizenship test? I didn't know I had to take one. Shit. Where do I sign up?

It shows you have a knowledge of our nation on par with new immigrants. Given the posts here, I expect that 80% of Libs would fail the test.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It shows you have a knowledge of our nation on par with new immigrants.

That was covered in my High School Civics class, thanks.

 

[Missourian]

It would be unconstitutional for the Federal Government to involve itself in how states administer elections..

That's not generally true. The 14th amendment grants Congress certain powers over how states conduct elections.

.that is a power specifically granted by the Constitution to the states.

The power to choose electors is, but a Constitutional amendment can change that.

2) An equal protection law suit decided by the Supreme Court.
One is unlikely and two, while more plausible, would also probably fail.

That wouldn't even make sense.

We are talking about the same thing.

A case would have to be made that a citizen was not receiving equal protection under the winner take all rule.

That case would need to be decided by the high court for the Federal government to evoke the 14th amendment.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A case would have to be made the a citizen was not receiving equal protection.

That case would need to be decided by the high court for the Federal government to evoke the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment didn't repeal the way the Constitution spells out how the electoral college is done, it merely imposed and additional restriction on states that choose to conduct the electoral college by popular vote; namely, that suffrage cannot be race based. I don't understand your argument.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The legislature is extremely skewed by the Senate, where states with tiny populations get the same representation as states with large populations.

That adds even more balance.... do not forget that it is the States that grant the power to the Fed and not the other way around....

Balance by how the branches/representatives are chosen, balance by popular vote and balance by representation based on not only populace are indeed good things.... it is what makes our system better than a popular vote system that promotes tyranny of the masses

Most conservatives hate the idea of democracy, I get it.

Absolute democracy is a horrible system.
One more time....The USA has not a democratic type government system. We have here a representative republic.
The Electoral College protects the minority(small states) by giving each state a voice based on it's population.
If each state were to be represented as an equal, then Wyoming would have the same voice in the presidential election as California.
I find it hard to believe anyone on the political Left would agree to this.

 

[Missourian]

A case would have to be made the a citizen was not receiving equal protection.

That case would need to be decided by the high court for the Federal government to evoke the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment didn't repeal the way the Constitution spells out how the electoral college is done, it merely imposed and additional restriction on states that choose to conduct the electoral college by popular vote; namely, that suffrage cannot be race based. I don't understand your argument.

My argument is that in order to evoke the 14th amendment to overturn a system that the states feel is within their constitutional purview, a proof or precedent would need to be established that the winner-take-all system denies a citizen equal protection under the law.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That adds even more balance.... do not forget that it is the States that grant the power to the Fed and not the other way around....

Balance by how the branches/representatives are chosen, balance by popular vote and balance by representation based on not only populace are indeed good things.... it is what makes our system better than a popular vote system that promotes tyranny of the masses

Most conservatives hate the idea of democracy, I get it.

Absolute democracy is a horrible system.
One more time....The USA has not a democratic type government system. We have here a representative republic.

Although it certainly was not at its founding, the U.S. government is present an indirect democracy.

The Electoral College protects the minority(small states) by giving each state a voice based on it's population.
If each state were to be represented as an equal, then Wyoming would have the same voice in the presidential election as California.
I find it hard to believe anyone on the political Left would agree to this.

Me too. Why did you even bring it up? No one is advocating that each state get one vote in the EC.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My argument is that in order to evoke the 14th amendment to overturn a system that the states feel is within their constitutional purview, a proof or precedent would need to be established that the winner-take-all system denies a citizen equal protection under the law.

It doesn't though.

 

[Missourian]

My argument is that in order to evoke the 14th amendment to overturn a system that the states feel is within their constitutional purview, a proof or precedent would need to be established that the winner-take-all system denies a citizen equal protection under the law.

It doesn't though.

You'll have to explain that...or point to to a page I can read that explains it...because that is not my understanding.

The winner take all system must be challenged to deem it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment before any changes could be mandated.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My argument is that in order to evoke the 14th amendment to overturn a system that the states feel is within their constitutional purview, a proof or precedent would need to be established that the winner-take-all system denies a citizen equal protection under the law.

It doesn't though.

You'll have to explain that...or point to to a page I can read that explains it...because that is not my understanding.

The winner take all system must be challenged to deem it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment before any changes could be mandated.

It isn't unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. I don't think anyone has ever even made that argument.

 

[Missourian]

It doesn't though.

You'll have to explain that...or point to to a page I can read that explains it...because that is not my understanding.

The winner take all system must be challenged to deem it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment before any changes could be mandated.

It isn't unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.

OK...you've completely lost me.

If it isn't unconstitutional....then under what pretext can the federal government usurp the constitutional power granted to the states?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
The Electoral College protects the minority(small states) by giving each state a voice based on it's population.
.

You imbecile. The popular vote gives each small state a voice based on its population.

 

[Missourian]

It doesn't though.

You'll have to explain that...or point to to a page I can read that explains it...because that is not my understanding.

The winner take all system must be challenged to deem it unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment before any changes could be mandated.

I don't think anyone has ever even made that argument.

It's an argument that could be made.

A citizen whose vote is discarded is certainly not receiving treatment equal to a citizen who representation is multiplied by the winner take all law.

I doubt if it would succeed, but there is an argument to be made.

 

[Missourian]

[
The Electoral College protects the minority(small states) by giving each state a voice based on it's population.
.

You imbecile. The popular vote gives each small state a voice based on its population.

California republican votes alone would total more than the votes of the entire population of my state...plus Kansas, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

You are completely lost my man...you should quit while your behind.

We have a federal government system...constitutionally...the sooner you accept that, the happier you'll be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
The Electoral College protects the minority(small states) by giving each state a voice based on it's population.
.

You imbecile. The popular vote gives each small state a voice based on its population.

California republican votes alone would total more than the votes of the entire population of my state...plus Kansas, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

You are completely lost my man...you should quit while your behind.

We are a federal form of government...the sooner you accept that, the happier you'll be.

California's electoral votes do the same thing.

 

[Missourian]

You imbecile. The popular vote gives each small state a voice based on its population.

California republican votes alone would total more than the votes of the entire population of my state...plus Kansas, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

You are completely lost my man...you should quit while your behind.

We are a federal form of government...the sooner you accept that, the happier you'll be.

California's electoral votes do the same thing.

Do I have to go back to the list...the one you have ignored.

 

[Missourian]

Here it is again...


Nonsense. New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes were canceled out by Rhode Island's 4 electoral votes.[/quote]

Ok...here you go.


The 2000 Presidential Election.

Bush.............................Gore
--------------------------------

Montana 3.....................D.C. 2
North Dakota 3...............Vermont 3
South Dakota 3...............Delaware 3
Wyoming 3.....................Rhode Island 4
Alaska 3.........................Maine 4
Idaho 4..........................Hawaii 4
Nevada 4........................New Mexico 5
New Hampshire................Iowa 7
Utah 5...........................Oregon 7
Nebraska 5.....................Connecticut 8
West Virginia 5................Maryland 10
Kansas 6........................Minnesota 10
Arkansas 6......................Wisconsin 11
Alabama 7......................Washington 11
Arizona 8.......................Massachusetts 12
Colorado 8......................New Jersey 15
Oklahoma 8.....................Michigan 18
Kentucky 8.....................Illinois 22
South Carolina 8..............Pennsylvania 23
Mississippi 9....................New York 33
Louisiana 9.....................California 54
Missouri 11
Tennessee 11
Indiana 12
Georgia 13
Virginia 13
North Carolina 14
Ohio 21
Florida 25
Texas 32




Does this help make it more clear?

See how the Bush states are only up to 9 while the Gore states have climbed all the way to 33 and 54 electoral votes...

Gore won the popular vote...but not the electoral college.

Now here is where it come right back to federalism and protecting the small states.

The Electoral College divides electoral votes by the number of U.S. Representatives plus Senators each state is allocated.

538 electoral votes, 100 for each Senator and 435 for the Representatives plus 3 for DC via the 23rd Amendment.


That's how the electoral college protects small less populous states from larger more populous states.