11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[g5000]

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?

Actually, Montana's 3 electors carry more weight than California's 55.

There are only one million people in Montana, represented by 3 electors.

If that ratio was used in California, with a population of 40 million, they would be entitled to 120 electors.

Per elector, sure. Overall, not so much.

If you want your vote to have more weight, move to Montana.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Perhaps it's time to take the power of Federal elections out of the hands of the States and place it with the Federal government itself.

One set of standards for how Popular Votes are translated into Electoral College Votes.

Even if it means amending the Constitution to do it.

Very progressive idea, give the Feds even more power


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[ChrisL]

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?

Well, it equals out a lot more than if they were to go by popular vote alone. Each state is guaranteed to have some representation when it comes to federal matters, regardless of the geographic square miles it contains.

Does it really, though? With most states having a winner-takes-all system for electors, doesn't the representation actually get skewed even more? For example, Trump got somewhere around 31% of the votes in California, but Clinton got all 55 electors. On the other end, Clinton got about 43% of the vote in Texas, but Trump got all 38 electors.

There have only been 5 times where a president was elected without winning the popular vote. In only 4 of those elections did the president get enough electors to win (John Quincy Adams was selected by the House of Representatives). Just as arguing that a candidate would have won if an election used a popular vote seems silly, arguing that a couple of states will decide every election with a popular vote seems silly. Almost every election has gone the way the popular vote ended up, anyway.

There are pros and cons to each of the systems in question. I think I would prefer more states to use systems that select electors proportionately based on voting.

Huh? Well the electors, I assume, would go with whomever won the most votes in their respective states, in MOST instances. I would think they would have to have a good reason for going with the losing candidate. Percentages of votes to each candidate are not really relevant, but who got the most votes in each state.

Now, CA and NY have a larger population, so naturally they get more EC votes. However, they do not get to MONOPOLIZE the system. The other states also get representation because they have all have a vested interest in federal policies/procedures.

 

[Montrovant]

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

Let me apologize, I posted too quickly and wrote something incorrect. As I said in the edit I added, the electors from the House are proportional. It's true that the states are represented equally in the EC from the Senate. That leaves a system which is somewhere in between: far from equal representation, but not truly proportional, either.

Yet more proportional than if we were to allow the two largest states to elect a POTUS, correct?

Maybe. It's hard to say for certain. As I pointed out in another post, the majority of presidential elections have already gone the way the popular vote has gone. More, there is no way to be sure how elections might change with a popular vote system in place. It would almost certainly lead to changes in presidential campaigning. It might also lead to changes in the way people vote, or the number of people who vote. The popular vote would certainly be more in line with the idea of 'one person, one vote'. I think it's really a question of whether one considers the voices of individual voters to be the most important thing, or of the states. Our current system is about the states, popular vote proponents are advocating for individual voters to be the important thing.

 

[Pogo]

This is how it starts. To change or a repeal an amendment to the Constitution requires that 2/3's of the Senate & 2/3's of the house vote for it and then it has to be ratified by 36 state legislatures. This is good for this country & including both parties. Because this election was really a National brain fart, and had 73K stupid people in 3 blue states not voted for Trump, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS today. That's not going to HAPPEN ever again, which will be bad for Republican Presidential nominee's, so the popular vote is the only way to go to insure that this nation gets the President they want and that each and every vote is counted to determine who the President will be.

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

A state's government is not the same thing as a state's Electors, now is it.

Show us anywhere the Constitution prescribes how a state chooses Electors.




Yeah, exactly.

 

[Pogo]

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

You would be correct in that assessment.
And if you acknowledged that states are already dispensing with up to 49.9% of its electorate's wishes, you'd be not only correct but honest too.

But again you're (deliberately it seems) conflating a state's government with its Electors. While the Constitution may require a state's government to be selected at the pleasure of its citizens, it holds no such requirement for that state's Electors.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

How about if the legislators make a law saying all electors, no matter what happens in the State-wide vote, always go to Party X?

Again, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from doing just that.

 

[Pogo]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

And Rump didn't do well in California, New York (his own state) or your region.

--- What's your point?

My point is, California and New York don't "call" the elections as far as the winner or loser and screw all the other states. Lol. That is not how America works.

That's a non sequitur. You started with a point that Candy X did well 'here' and not 'there'; I countered that Candy Y did well 'there' and not 'here'.

---- So again, what's your point? Are you arguing that 'there' counts more than 'here'? That's where it appears you're going.

 

[rightwinger]

One more time, the reason for the electoral college is so that every state in the union gets equal representation when it comes to federal elections.

Then it's a failure. An Electoral Vote from Wyoming represents 143,000 people, while one from Florida represents more than three times that.

You continuously fail to see the need for the EC because you keep trying to swing it back to being about PEOPLE. PEOPLE decide the outcome at the state level and the EC gives each STATE then a proportional voice so that all of them are represented fairly. Otherwise, every election would be decided not only by a handful of states like CA and NY, but by a handful of CITIES in those states, and none of the rest of the states would have any voice at all.

As opposed to giving too much influence to rural areas

Let THE PEOPLE elect the President, one man, one vote

The Senate is proportioned to protect the interests of unpopulated states

 

[rightwinger]

This is how it starts. To change or a repeal an amendment to the Constitution requires that 2/3's of the Senate & 2/3's of the house vote for it and then it has to be ratified by 36 state legislatures. This is good for this country & including both parties. Because this election was really a National brain fart, and had 73K stupid people in 3 blue states not voted for Trump, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS today. That's not going to HAPPEN ever again, which will be bad for Republican Presidential nominee's, so the popular vote is the only way to go to insure that this nation gets the President they want and that each and every vote is counted to determine who the President will be.

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

Who is proposing a dart board?

 

[Pogo]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

National popular vote arguments are really pretty silly when talking about Electoral College elections. The candidates would almost surely campaign differently if the presidency were decided by the popular vote, so there is no way to know what the results might have been if the election had been set up that way. Maybe Trump would have won if the election had been by popular vote anyway.

I understand the frustration when a candidate wins an election without winning the popular vote, but I don't like when people make it seem as if those results would have been the same if there were no Electoral College.

If comparing an EC result with a hypothetical PV system, it's reasonable to assume the popular vote preference would not change, although the numbers therein certainly would. With a turnout of 55% as it was in 2016, it's plausible that many MANY more would have voted; Californians who wanted Rump but didn't see the point in voting, and Texans who wanted Clinton but didn't see the point in voting, would have then had an actual reason to go do it. And all those states where the end results were close, would have suddenly had ALL their votes count.

So it's impossible to predict what the numbers would have been but it's entirely reasonable to expect that the end preference would have been the same, unless the case can be made that one side's voter is more/less likely than the other side to see that there's no point in their vote.

 

[Pogo]

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

Who is proposing a dart board?

I mentioned that a state could if it wanted to use a dart board to assign its Electors and it would be Constitutional.

Marty can't handle that point so he wants to change it to a state using a dart board to select its government.

 

[Pogo]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

National popular vote arguments are really pretty silly when talking about Electoral College elections. The candidates would almost surely campaign differently if the presidency were decided by the popular vote, so there is no way to know what the results might have been if the election had been set up that way. Maybe Trump would have won if the election had been by popular vote anyway.

I understand the frustration when a candidate wins an election without winning the popular vote, but I don't like when people make it seem as if those results would have been the same if there were no Electoral College.

Oh, I agree 100%. Most of the people who are complaining about it are only complaining because, well, Trump. Lol.

I've been pointing all this out for years including way before the 2016 election happened. Because it has Zero to do with results; it has to do with having one's vote count.

Hell I lived in Louisiana eighteen years ago, I could see that my state's vote was predetermined regardless what I did, so I went and cast a protest third party vote. Know what it got me? Bupkis. Nobody even noticed. So this buthurt bullshittery fantasy about "waah, they just don't like Rump" rings hollow here in the real world.

 

[iceberg]

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

Let me apologize, I posted too quickly and wrote something incorrect. As I said in the edit I added, the electors from the House are proportional. It's true that the states are represented equally in the EC from the Senate. That leaves a system which is somewhere in between: far from equal representation, but not truly proportional, either.

Yet more proportional than if we were to allow the two largest states to elect a POTUS, correct?

Maybe. It's hard to say for certain. As I pointed out in another post, the majority of presidential elections have already gone the way the popular vote has gone. More, there is no way to be sure how elections might change with a popular vote system in place. It would almost certainly lead to changes in presidential campaigning. It might also lead to changes in the way people vote, or the number of people who vote. The popular vote would certainly be more in line with the idea of 'one person, one vote'. I think it's really a question of whether one considers the voices of individual voters to be the most important thing, or of the states. Our current system is about the states, popular vote proponents are advocating for individual voters to be the important thing.

yep. can't make a huge change like that and pretend nothing else would change with it.

 

[Pogo]

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?

Well, it equals out a lot more than if they were to go by popular vote alone. Each state is guaranteed to have some representation when it comes to federal matters, regardless of the geographic square miles it contains.

Does it really, though? With most states having a winner-takes-all system for electors, doesn't the representation actually get skewed even more? For example, Trump got somewhere around 31% of the votes in California, but Clinton got all 55 electors. On the other end, Clinton got about 43% of the vote in Texas, but Trump got all 38 electors.

There have only been 5 times where a president was elected without winning the popular vote. In only 4 of those elections did the president get enough electors to win (John Quincy Adams was selected by the House of Representatives). Just as arguing that a candidate would have won if an election used a popular vote seems silly, arguing that a couple of states will decide every election with a popular vote seems silly. Almost every election has gone the way the popular vote ended up, anyway.

There are pros and cons to each of the systems in question. I think I would prefer more states to use systems that select electors proportionately based on voting.

Huh? Well the electors, I assume, would go with whomever won the most votes in their respective states, in MOST instances. I would think they would have to have a good reason for going with the losing candidate. Percentages of votes to each candidate are not really relevant, but who got the most votes in each state.

Now, CA and NY have a larger population, so naturally they get more EC votes. However, they do not get to MONOPOLIZE the system. The other states also get representation because they have all have a vested interest in federal policies/procedures.

And as I showed you in the map you ignored, CA and NY not only do not get to MONOPOLIZE..... they don't even get PARITY. When it takes three and a half Californians to equal one Wyomingist, that's called DISparity.

 

[Pilot1]

Waaa, waaaaa, waaaa. Trump won. Get over it.

 

[Montrovant]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

National popular vote arguments are really pretty silly when talking about Electoral College elections. The candidates would almost surely campaign differently if the presidency were decided by the popular vote, so there is no way to know what the results might have been if the election had been set up that way. Maybe Trump would have won if the election had been by popular vote anyway.

I understand the frustration when a candidate wins an election without winning the popular vote, but I don't like when people make it seem as if those results would have been the same if there were no Electoral College.

If comparing an EC result with a hypothetical PV system, it's reasonable to assume the popular vote preference would not change, although the numbers therein certainly would. With a turnout of 55% as it was in 2016, it's plausible that many MANY more would have voted; Californians who wanted Rump but didn't see the point in voting, and Texans who wanted Clinton but didn't see the point in voting, would have then had an actual reason to go do it. And all those states where the end results were close, would have suddenly had ALL their votes count.

So it's impossible to predict what the numbers would have been but it's entirely reasonable to expect that the end preference would have been the same, unless the case can be made that one side's voter is more/less likely than the other side to see that there's no point in their vote.

I disagree about expecting the end preference, which I take to mean end result, would be the same. I disagree because there are too many potential factors which could change if the system is changed. Not only would candidate campaigns likely be adjusted, the number of voters who turn up to vote could change drastically. You pointed that out, but I don't know if it can be assumed that the proportions of voters who might decide to vote would be the same; maybe more conservatives than liberals might decide to vote.

The possible change that appeals most to me is the idea that more people might be willing to vote independent/third party if the system were national popular vote rather than the EC. So it could be that instead of the same percentages of people voting for Clinton and Trump, more of those voters might have been siphoned off to vote for Johnson, or Stein, or some other third party candidate. Perhaps Bernie Sanders would have run as an independent rather than backing Clinton. Then again, maybe things would be almost exactly the same as they were with the election we had. It's just too hard to say IMO.

 

[DJT for Life]

This question has probably been asked. I'm not going to go back and
read 40 pages to see it.

Would this even hold up before the Supreme Court?

Our system is our system. Our system is the Electoral College. I doubt,
constitutionally, that a state could give its votes away from the will of
ITS citizens, to a popular vote.

There is already debates on some individuals selected changing their vote
from what their state has decided. If challenged, I don't think any of it
would hold up before the present SCOTUS

 

[Montrovant]

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?

Well, it equals out a lot more than if they were to go by popular vote alone. Each state is guaranteed to have some representation when it comes to federal matters, regardless of the geographic square miles it contains.

Does it really, though? With most states having a winner-takes-all system for electors, doesn't the representation actually get skewed even more? For example, Trump got somewhere around 31% of the votes in California, but Clinton got all 55 electors. On the other end, Clinton got about 43% of the vote in Texas, but Trump got all 38 electors.

There have only been 5 times where a president was elected without winning the popular vote. In only 4 of those elections did the president get enough electors to win (John Quincy Adams was selected by the House of Representatives). Just as arguing that a candidate would have won if an election used a popular vote seems silly, arguing that a couple of states will decide every election with a popular vote seems silly. Almost every election has gone the way the popular vote ended up, anyway.

There are pros and cons to each of the systems in question. I think I would prefer more states to use systems that select electors proportionately based on voting.

Huh? Well the electors, I assume, would go with whomever won the most votes in their respective states, in MOST instances. I would think they would have to have a good reason for going with the losing candidate. Percentages of votes to each candidate are not really relevant, but who got the most votes in each state.

Now, CA and NY have a larger population, so naturally they get more EC votes. However, they do not get to MONOPOLIZE the system. The other states also get representation because they have all have a vested interest in federal policies/procedures.

And as I showed you in the map you ignored, CA and NY not only do not get to MONOPOLIZE..... they don't even get PARITY. When it takes three and a half Californians to equal one Wyomingist, that's called DISparity.

Wyomingist? Is that the right word?

 

[DOTR]

The founders instituted the electoral college because they wanted each state to be equally represented in federal matters. This is pretty easy concept to understand. Otherwise, some states would be completely left out of any federal decision making processes. This applies to election processes as well.

First, the states are not equally represented. California gets more electors than Texas, which gets more electors than Michigan, which gets more electors than Montana. The representation is supposed to be proportional, not equal.

Second, that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors however they see fit. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..." As long as the method does not violate some other portion of the Constitution (as martybegan has argued this national popular vote system does), the state legislatures can pick electors however they want.

I'm not arguing that the EC should be abolished here. I'm just pointing out that Article 2, Section 1 gives state legislatures the power to pick electors using whatever method they decide is best. States haven't always had their citizens vote when choosing electors, and electors are not bound by the Constitution or federal law to vote in accordance with the results of state elections.

It is so that EACH STATE has equal representation when it comes to federal matters, including presidential elections. Period.

Let me apologize, I posted too quickly and wrote something incorrect. As I said in the edit I added, the electors from the House are proportional. It's true that the states are represented equally in the EC from the Senate. That leaves a system which is somewhere in between: far from equal representation, but not truly proportional, either.

Yet more proportional than if we were to allow the two largest states to elect a POTUS, correct?

Maybe. It's hard to say for certain. As I pointed out in another post, the majority of presidential elections have already gone the way the popular vote has gone. More, there is no way to be sure how elections might change with a popular vote system in place. It would almost certainly lead to changes in presidential campaigning. It might also lead to changes in the way people vote, or the number of people who vote. The popular vote would certainly be more in line with the idea of 'one person, one vote'. I think it's really a question of whether one considers the voices of individual voters to be the most important thing, or of the states. Our current system is about the states, popular vote proponents are advocating for individual voters to be the important thing.

It wont change anything. Its just another leftist temper tantrum. There are many Republicans who support it but then again leftist and Republican arent always mutually exclusive. But lets try this scenario...

A Republican wins the popular vote by 500,000 votes and California and New York throw their 84 votes to the GOP? Not going to happen. You have seen the fits they throw. And they wield real power in those states. They will never allow it.

Secondly following this plan would lower the voting power of Democrats.. Under a popular vote plan California loses at least 10% of its say in National Elections. The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes,

These are empty threats.