It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution: The Electoral College is safe

[Seawytch]

Nobody gives a fuck about the EC until the dimocraps lose.

"My view is that every vote matters. And the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College.”

overwhelming majority of the American public agree. And yet, an overwhelming majority of GOP operatives, public intellectuals, and politicians do not.

The simplest explanation for this discrepancy is that professional Republicans believe (consciously or otherwise) that the existing election rules benefit their party. After all, the GOP has lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections. And since the Electoral College gives disproportionate influence to whiter, more rural states — and the GOP is becoming increasingly reliant on white, rural voters — the existing conservative coalition is poised to continue deriving a benefit from the status quo rules for cycles to come.

This puts conservative pontificators in the unenviable position of having to defend an archaic, undemocratic system that does not work as its authors intended, or as the American public desires, on the grounds that it is a uniquely fair and rational way of electing the nation’s most powerful officeholder.

Here’s Every Defense of the Electoral College — and Why They’re All Wrong

 

[Seawytch]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Correct.



.



(and Jesus was a commie)

.

Incorrect. If enough states (the magic 270) agree to the popular vote compact, it's done.

 

[emilynghiem]

You are 100% correct. Every election would be decided by the States with the most people. All the smile states votes would count for nothing.

No, every election would be decided by the people of America. Each vote having equal value rather than the current system of a vote in Wyoming being worth 3 times the vote of a Californian. One person, one vote.

Seawytch you can achieve the same goal by having
all states agree to split their Electoral Votes proportionally according to how THEIR citizens voted,
not the rest of the nation.

If I recall last time I discussed this in depth with Pogo,
when we went back and split the State votes proportionally,
Clinton either won by a slight margin or it was tied and could have required either
a "run off" or a preferential vote to break the tie without a second run off needed.

As for voting by popular vote, this would change campaigns
where candidates would only invest in lobbying the MOST POPULATED CITIES/AREAS OR STATES.

So Seawytch unfortunately you still would not have everyone voting for President,
but only the votes most concentrated GEOGRAPHICALLY so candidates would save campaign dollars
focusing there. You'd only have people concentrated in TX and CA, NY and other major cities
GETTING ALL THE PERKS YEAR ROUND FROM ALL CANDIDATES TRYING TO BUY THOSE VOTES FOR THEIR PARTIES.

It would not only affect Presidential elections, but parties would kowtow to
give favors to THOSE states trying to get PARTY favor -- ALL YEAR ROUND WITH ALL LEGISLATION both statewide and federal. Just the cities and states that have the numbers to ensure election wins.

Is that really what you want?

If you want a more representative split of Electoral Votes,
again, that can be done by distributing these PROPORTIONALLY
to reflect the POPULAR vote by STATE. So that still protects
smaller and bigger states.

 

[iceberg]

You are 100% correct. Every election would be decided by the States with the most people. All the smile states votes would count for nothing.

No, every election would be decided by the people of America. Each vote having equal value rather than the current system of a vote in Wyoming being worth 3 times the vote of a Californian. One person, one vote.

Seawytch you can achieve the same goal by having
all states agree to split their Electoral Votes proportionally according to how THEIR citizens voted,
not the rest of the nation.

If I recall last time I discussed this in depth with Pogo,
when we went back and split the State votes proportionally,
Clinton either won by a slight margin or it was tied and could have required either
a "run off" or a preferential vote to break the tie without a second run off needed.

As for voting by popular vote, this would change campaigns
where candidates would only invest in lobbying the MOST POPULATED CITIES/AREAS OR STATES.

So Seawytch unfortunately you still would not have everyone voting for President,
but only the votes most concentrated GEOGRAPHICALLY so candidates would save campaign dollars
focusing there. You'd only have people concentrated in TX and CA, NY and other major cities
GETTING ALL THE PERKS YEAR ROUND FROM ALL CANDIDATES TRYING TO BUY THOSE VOTES FOR THEIR PARTIES.

It would not only affect Presidential elections, but parties would kowtow to
give favors to THOSE states trying to get PARTY favor -- ALL YEAR ROUND WITH ALL LEGISLATION both statewide and federal. Just the cities and states that have the numbers to ensure election wins.

Is that really what you want?

If you want a more representative split of Electoral Votes,
again, that can be done by distributing these PROPORTIONALLY
to reflect the POPULAR vote by STATE. So that still protects
smaller and bigger states.

he, like most of the extremes, want what they want today. thinking ahead not really their forte.

 

[Crepitus]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Nobody is abolishing the electoral college. They are working within it to see that the majority is actually represented.

 

[iceberg]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Nobody is abolishing the electoral college. They are working within it to see that the majority is actually represented.

even if it's at the expense of the smaller states?

this really how we push a UNION of American citizens?

 

[Crepitus]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Nobody is abolishing the electoral college. They are working within it to see that the majority is actually represented.

even if it's at the expense of the smaller states?

this really how we push a UNION of American citizens?

Are you OK with it being used to disenfranchise millions of voters in the larger states?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A fair system for the elites since the common citizen was not suppose to elect the president and vice president.

Right, because pre Wilson and FDR, the States were essentially sovereign nations

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Nobody is abolishing the electoral college. They are working within it to see that the majority is actually represented.

even if it's at the expense of the smaller states?

this really how we push a UNION of American citizens?

Are you OK with it being used to disenfranchise millions of voters in the larger states?

Larger state have more EC votes, they're not at all "disenfranchised"

 

[emilynghiem]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Nobody is abolishing the electoral college. They are working within it to see that the majority is actually represented.

even if it's at the expense of the smaller states?

this really how we push a UNION of American citizens?

Dear iceberg
If the Electors can throw their vote anyway they want by conscience,
they can alter their votes not to match what their constituents vote for.

Again, I would recommend they split them proportionally
so each party does get their fair share of POPULAR votes for THEIR STATE.

I would NOT recommend that States base their votes "on the rest of the nation".

If the people or Electors of a State want to vote that way,
the people should just make sure they put in TRANSPARENT Electors
who vote as the people of that State AGREED.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are 100% correct. Every election would be decided by the States with the most people. All the smile states votes would count for nothing.

No, every election would be decided by the people of America. Each vote having equal value rather than the current system of a vote in Wyoming being worth 3 times the vote of a Californian. One person, one vote.

Every election would be decided by states like California and NY which have huge populations.

The smaller states would have no say in who won.

That's why the FF set up the EC.

The illegals and nonliving in NYC and Los Angeles gave Hillary her pyrrhic "popular vote victory"

 

[Crepitus]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Nobody is abolishing the electoral college. They are working within it to see that the majority is actually represented.

even if it's at the expense of the smaller states?

this really how we push a UNION of American citizens?

Are you OK with it being used to disenfranchise millions of voters in the larger states?

Larger state have more EC votes, they're not at all "disenfranchised"

Smaller states EC votes carry more weight. Larger states are indeed disenfranchised by the electoral college.

 

[JWBooth]

A fair system for the elites since the common citizen was not suppose to elect the president and vice president.

Right, because pre Wilson and FDR, the States were essentially sovereign nations

The states as sovereigns concept was militarily crushed by lincoln, not by any act of Wilson or FDR

 

[iceberg]

A fair system for the elites since the common citizen was not suppose to elect the president and vice president.

look around at the common citizens in here.

they have a point.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Nobody is abolishing the electoral college. They are working within it to see that the majority is actually represented.

even if it's at the expense of the smaller states?

this really how we push a UNION of American citizens?

Are you OK with it being used to disenfranchise millions of voters in the larger states?

Larger state have more EC votes, they're not at all "disenfranchised"

Smaller states EC votes carry more weight. Larger states are indeed disenfranchised by the electoral college.

That's been the deal for 240+ years. You're talking about setting up an entirely new system of government and you should do it far, far away from here

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A fair system for the elites since the common citizen was not suppose to elect the president and vice president.

Right, because pre Wilson and FDR, the States were essentially sovereign nations

The states as sovereigns concept was militarily crushed by lincoln, not by any act of Wilson or FDR

Good point

 

[occupied]

My presidential vote has never counted because of the EC. Half of America gets their vote thrown in the trash because of this thing that was only ever meant to keep the slaves enslaved.

 

[iceberg]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Nobody is abolishing the electoral college. They are working within it to see that the majority is actually represented.

even if it's at the expense of the smaller states?

this really how we push a UNION of American citizens?

Dear iceberg
If the Electors can throw their vote anyway they want by conscience,
they can alter their votes not to match what their constituents vote for.

Again, I would recommend they split them proportionally
so each party does get their fair share of POPULAR votes for THEIR STATE.

I would NOT recommend that States base their votes "on the rest of the nation".

If the people or Electors of a State want to vote that way,
the people should just make sure they put in TRANSPARENT Electors
who vote as the people of that State AGREED.

if we have to push for a compromise i could see this at least as a way to do that so the states are at least represented among themselves. but for a state to give their votes to whoever gets overall popular vote is not taking care of the people within your state.

 

[rightwinger]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

Evidently not

 

[bodecea]

...and it takes a Constitutional amendment, not an interstate compact, to abolish the Electoral College.

States don't vote...people vote.