Proportional Allocation of Eelectoral Votes

[M14 Shooter]

It WAS a nation of sovereigns (maybe). it is now a country.

No. The states are sovereign entities; they can dissolve the union any time they wish, with the fed Gvmnt having no power to stop them. They agree to be bound together by the US constitution, but this doesn't take away theor sovereignty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What is the downside of dividing the EC by proportional vote within each state? That would enfranchise all voters.

Aside from the fact that all voters are already enfranchised... None.
However, conservative states tend to be more conservative than liberal states are liberal - see TX v CA. This means that the conservative/GOP candidate will benefit from such a thing more than the liberal/Dem candidate.
This is why liberals/dems favor the popular vote over the electoral vote.

Might I add here, for a country that was founded on the principle that govt was all about the people, you folk sure do give one individual a hell of a lot of power - whether it be a Clinton or a Bush.....

That's because we found that a -very- weak national government with a -very- weak executive didnt work very well.

 

[Dr Grump]

No. The states are sovereign entities; they can dissolve the union any time they wish, with the fed Gvmnt having no power to stop them. They agree to be bound together by the US constitution, but this doesn't take away theor sovereignty.

Who can dissolve the union? One state? Several states? If they are boudn by the constituation but decide to leave, then they are not bound by the Constitution??

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who can dissolve the union? One state? Several states? If they are boudn by the constituation but decide to leave, then they are not bound by the Constitution??

The states can pass an amendment that renders the constitution null and void, an action they can take w/o any permission or interference from the federal government.. If the federal government, not the states, were sovereign, then the states could not do this. Ultimately, the union exists because the states want it to.

So long as the Constitution is in force, the states are bound, but as I said, the states can eliminate the Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No. The states are sovereign entities; they can dissolve the union any time they wish, with the fed Gvmnt having no power to stop them. They agree to be bound together by the US constitution, but this doesn't take away theor sovereignty.

No state can leave the Union without the permission of the Federal Government. That was decided by the Civil War.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No state can leave the Union without the permission of the Federal Government. That was decided by the Civil War.

The states can dissolve the federal government, without permission from the federal government.

The only thing that was decided by the civil war is that the North could force the South back into the union - the issue itself weas never resolved like most constitutional issues are.

 

[indago]

Dr Grump wrote:

It WAS a nation of sovereigns (maybe). it is now a country. You have a common currency

From an article I published:
------------------------------------------
Judge Abel P. Upshur, considered one of the finest legal minds in the United States, Judge of the General Court of Virginia from 1826 to 1841, and Secretary of the Navy in 1841, then Secretary of State, succeeding Daniel Webster in 1843 in the Tyler administration, wrote of the relationship of the general government, the States, and the people, noting that the British subject had his liberties and privileges as a consequence of his allegiance to the King of Great Britain. This extended to the colonies as long as they were subject to the realm; and these thoughts were ingrained in many of the inhabitants of the colonies. A congress of representatives of the various colonies, which met from time to time, was a deliberative and advisory body only; inquiring into the state of things in the colonies; airing their grievances with Great Britain; and, most important of all, not wishing to break their ties with the mother country. An act to unite the colonies into a general, or national, government would have been an act of open rebellion. Following such oppressions as the Stamp Act, Writs of Assistance, and etc., this deliberative body became bolder in its assertion of the rights of the colonies to unite into a union against these oppressions, and asserted their independence from Great Britain in a declaration entitled, "The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America". The Judge noted that in the acts of this Congress, reference was made to the colonies; not to the people, as such. This Congress of representatives of the various colonies was not empowered to act directly upon the people. The citizens were known as citizens of the various States; not of a United States. The United States was not a party to any compact between the States, but a result of it. The parties to the compact are the States. Justice Henry Billings Brown, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, reiterated this in the opinion of the Court in the case of US v Perkins in 1895, declaring that the United States is a corporation; political, or governmental in nature. The opinions of the various federalists, that the Constitution of the United States was formed by the people, are founded exclusively on the particular terms of the preamble to this instrument; and is an attempt to negate the history of the formation of the United States. The States retain all of the powers not granted by the States to the federal government, as declared in Article Ten of the Bill of Rights; and the people retain all of the powers not granted to either of them. There is no sovereignty in the United States. A free State, and a free people, was so important in the minds of those who created the Bill of Rights that Article Two of the Bill of Rights was declared that the right of the people to keep and bear arms for their security shall not be infringed so that the new government would not transcend its powers. Many believe that the people created the United States government, and that it is a people's government. It is unreasonable to believe that having created this new constitutional government, the people were so afraid of it that they attached a Bill of Rights to it to protect themselves from it.
------------------------------------------

We have a "common currency" because it is written into the charter that the Congress shall coin the money.

 

[ReillyT]

That's up to the states, themselves.
The question HERE is if CA should adpot this.

No, it shouldn't. I have no problem with the proposal if all states adopted it. That would indicate that the election reflects the will of the people. However, if only some states adopt this, it skews elections even more than the current system. For instance, if only the states with Republican majorities adopted this system, then no Republican would be elected to the presidency in the foreseeable future, even if the majority of the people wanted him/her. The same applies here to California (the most populous state). If California grants electoral votes proportionally, then it is unlikely that a Democrat will win the presidency in the foreseeable future - even if a significant majority of the population voted for him. It is a stupid idea if not carried out systematically, and the end result would be essentially greater disenfranchisement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it shouldn't... if only the states with Republican majorities adopted this system, then no Republican would be elected to the presidency in the foreseeable future, even if the majority of the people wanted him/her. The same applies here to California (the most populous state). If California grants electoral votes proportionally, then it is unlikely that a Democrat will win the presidency in the foreseeable future

How does this trump the idea that election results should represent the will of the people as much as possible?

Remember that the election is for the electors fro, the state, not for the Presiden of the United States -- in those terms, what any other state doesnt isn't relevant to what CA does.

 

[ReillyT]

How does this trump the idea that election results should represent the will of the people as much as possible?

Remember that the election is for the electors fro, the state, not for the Presiden of the United States -- in those terms, what any other state doesnt isn't relevant to what CA does.

My understanding of the link, and what I have read in news reports, is that this initiative would call for the proportional allotment of electoral votes for the presidency of the United States. Thus, California would become like Maine in this regard. Am I mistaken in my understanding of this initiative?

 

[M14 Shooter]

My understanding of the link, and what I have read in news reports, is that this initiative would call for the proportional allotment of electoral votes for the presidency of the United States. Thus, California would become like Maine in this regard. Am I mistaken in my understanding of this initiative?

That is correct, at least as far as I understand the issue.

 

[ReillyT]

That is correct, at least as far as I understand the issue.

Then what California does is relevant to every other American voter, whether in California or not. If California is the only major state that adopts this system, and California primarily votes Democratic (no doubt about that), then this will affect the entire balance of power between Republicans and Democrats in the United States. It will make the votes of Democrats in Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, etc. less important, because Republicans will have a structural advantage that they did not have before. If every state (or no states) were to adopt this, there would be no structural advantage in the system.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then what California does is relevant to every other American voter, whether in California or not.

CA voters vote for CA electors, and nothing more.
All elections are state elections, and represent the will of the people in the state. That the outcome os a state election might have an effect elsewhere does not create an argument that the will of the people of CA should NOT be respresented in the outcome of an election as best possible.

If California is the only major state that adopts this system, and California primarily votes Democratic (no doubt about that), then this will affect the entire balance of power between Republicans and Democrats in the United States.

So what?
Isnt the 'will of the people' all that matters?

 

[ReillyT]

CA voters vote for CA electors, and nothing more.
All elections are state elections, and represent the will of the people in the state. That the outcome os a state electiom might have an effect elsewhere does not create an argument that the will of the people of CA should NOT be resporesented in the outcome of an election as best possible.

Is your question "IF the California voters want to adopt this system, should they?" or "Should California adopt this system?" Those are two different questions with (possibly) two different answers.

So what?
Isnt the 'will of the people' all that matters?

Yes, but when you are talking about national politics, the "people" are the people of the nation. Structural changes that advantage one party electorally over another can have dramatic impacts on the ability of the will of the people to be heard. For example:

George Bush won the last election by a handful of votes (about a million?). If every state that ultimately voted for Bush were to have adopted the California initiative system prior to the election (and none of the states that voted for Kerry), he would have lost the electoral vote handlily. For the sake of argument, let's assume that 40% of the people in those states voted for Bush, so Bush would have gotten only 60% of the electoral votes that he actually did receive. Kerry would have won in an electoral college landslide, even though he got less of the popular vote. Selective application of this type of system skews the electoral vote from the popular vote even more than it is skewed today. In this way, it defeats the will of the people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is your question "IF the California voters want to adopt this system, should they?" or "Should California adopt this system?" Those are two different questions with (possibly) two different answers.

I asked the second question.
The first is irrelevant -- if they want to, they will.

Yes, but when you are talking about national politics, the "people" are the people of the nation.

We arent. We're talking about a state election for state representatives.
ALL elections are state elections.

Note too that your argument could be applied to Congressmen as well, as whomever any state elects has an impact on the rest of the country.

Structural changes that advantage one party electorally over another can have dramatic impacts on the ability of the will of the people to be heard.

This is temporary, situational, and therefore, meaningless.

You;re looking at this as 'how it will screw the Dems'.
I'm looking at this as 'how the voter is best represented'.
Why should the voter of the state of CA NOT be represented as well as he could be, just becacuse some political party might lose some power?

George Bush won the last election by a handful of votes (about a million?).

He won by 34 votes.

If every state that ultimately voted for Bush were to have adopted the California initiative system prior to the election (and none of the states that voted for Kerry), he would have lost the electoral vote handlily.

Um... no. You -really- need to look at the numbers.
And in any event -- so what?
Why does 'who would win' matter more than 'the results better represent the will of the people'?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Is your question "IF the California voters want to adopt this system, should they?" or "Should California adopt this system?" Those are two different questions with (possibly) two different answers.

Yes, but when you are talking about national politics, the "people" are the people of the nation. Structural changes that advantage one party electorally over another can have dramatic impacts on the ability of the will of the people to be heard. For example:

George Bush won the last election by a handful of votes (about a million?). If every state that ultimately voted for Bush were to have adopted the California initiative system prior to the election (and none of the states that voted for Kerry), he would have lost the electoral vote handlily. For the sake of argument, let's assume that 40% of the people in those states voted for Bush, so Bush would have gotten only 60% of the electoral votes that he actually did receive. Kerry would have won in an electoral college landslide, even though he got less of the popular vote. Selective application of this type of system skews the electoral vote from the popular vote even more than it is skewed today. In this way, it defeats the will of the people.

You guys keep forgetting that we are a Repubic, not a Democracy per se. The people in a national election are represented by their STATES (areas of land with borders) which is reflected in the electoral vote. Libs want to eradicate our Republic and replace it with a mob Democracy.

 

[ReillyT]

I asked the second question.
The first is irrelevant -- if they want to, they will.


We arent. We're talking about a state election for state representatives.
ALL elections are state elections.

We are talking about electors for the presidency. This is a national election issue and it is just stupid to try to pretend that it only concerns California voters.

He won by 34 votes.


Um... no. You -really- need to look at the numbers.
And in any event -- so what?
Why does 'who would win' matter more than 'the results better represent the will of the people'?

Let's look at the map. I will pick the four of the larger states to vote Republican and three smaller states. Kerry won 49% in Ohio, 37% in Texas, 47% in Florida, 46% in Virginia, 44% in Arizona, 26% in Utah, and 43% in Tennessee. Now, I will assume based upon these samples of states with higher and lower populations that Kerry won roughly 40% of the votes in Bush voting states (although based on these percentages, he probably won more). Thus, if the Bush voting states had selectively voted on a proportional basis, Bush would have won 171 electoral votes to Kerry's 366 (obviously, there is rounding error). Nonetheless, this would have been a beat down by Kerry, made all the more surprising by the fact that Bush won the popular vote.

Who wins does matter. A national election system that so far skews the result from the will of the national populace is not a good thing. That is why this is a bad idea. If the winner doesn't reflect the will of the people, that is bad.

** Caveat: My 40% analysis assumes that Congressional districts are apportioned in the same manner as population party allegiance. That might not be the case, so it could be differ either up or down. Nevertheless, I think the example is illustrative.

 

[ReillyT]

You guys keep forgetting that we are a Repubic, not a Democracy per se. The people in a national election are represented by their STATES (areas of land with borders) which is reflected in the electoral vote. Libs want to eradicate our Republic and replace it with a mob Democracy.

It is true that we are a Republic and not an outright democracy. However, I can't imagine anyone who thinks that changing the system to make it even less responsive to the will of the national population is a good thing.

 

[ReillyT]

Why should the voter of the state of CA NOT be represented as well as he could be, just becacuse some political party might lose some power?

Actually, even from a California perspective, this doesn't advance the will of the people of California. That majority of the people of the state of California generally vote Democratic in presidential elections (and every time they vote Republican, they are voting with the winning person). However, this change makes it more likely for a Republican to win the presidency. Thus it is difficult to see how even the people of California are better served by this measure. It makes it less likely that the will of the majority of the people of California is represented.

 

[ReillyT]

I have to go, as I have an engagement to get to. However, there is one more reason that this might be a bad idea. It will prompt even greater attempts to gerrymander Congressional districts. If you can draw boundaries to capture as much of the opposition in the fewest number of districts, then you can increase your chances of winning at the State, Congressional and (now) Presidential levels.

Anyway, nice chatting with you.