Abolish the ‘Undemocratic’ Electoral College?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I was not aware of your crime family until now. Sorry you endure that.

Did you miss the part where they were falsely accused?

 

[Robert W]

Did you miss the part where they were falsely accused?

So you said!!!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So you said!!!

Another man admitted to the murder. Did you miss that part also?

You really need to work on your reading skills.

 

[Robert W]

Another man admitted to the murder. Did you miss that part also?

You really need to work on your reading skills.

So you said!!!!

 

[ThisIsMe]

MSN

Senate Democrats are moving to try to abolish the Electoral College after their party suffered defeats up and down the ballot in November’s elections.

Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee released the S.J. Res. 121 on Dec. 12, which proposes a Constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College system altogether and replace it with a simple national popular vote system. Senate Democrats Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Peter Welch of Vermont sponsored the resolution.

Comment:
The Democrats are cheaters.
They can't win fairly so they want to change the rules.
It would take a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.
That will never happen.

If they can successfully ammend the cotus, then they can do it...but I think that isn't going to happen.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The EC already disenfranchises millions of voters so that is hardly a valid argument.

Nah it doesn't. It gives millions of voters a voice they would not have under the popular vote system

 

[ThisIsMe]

Works for me, why are you against it?

Afraid you can't win in a straight up fight?

Yu probably golf with a handicap too.

Because it's in the cotus...

 

[ThisIsMe]

A popular vote election system would disenfranchise millions of voters.

The only reason the dems want popular vote is because they know it favors them. If it weren't for that, they wouldn't care less about who's disenfranchised.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not quite.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments..."

Article V specifies "on the application of the Legislatures of 2/3 of the several States". That means some kind of petition to the Congress.

There is nothing anywhere in Article V that talks about "who pays", I don't know where you get that.

There are no rules for the convention, those would be established by the convention itself. IOW, there is no 2/3 requirement to pass a proposed amendment out of a convention, that would be decided at the convention.

The only fixed requirement is 3/4 of the States to ratify.

Now back to what I was saying- if 34 States did petition Congress for a Convention, and Congress refused to call one, I think the States would be free to organize one on their own, without the consent of the Congress. Article V says "shall call", it does not say "may call".

But the language in Article V is clear enough, it's the Congress that is supposed to call the convention.

They have never done that- every time the Constitution has been amended, the Congress has always written and passed the amendment first, and then sent it to the States.

Sounds about right, but in either case, if the states call for a convention, congress has to convene one.

 

[para bellum]

Sounds about right, but in either case, if the states call for a convention, congress has to convene one.

Agree. Article V does not give the Congress discretion. Shall call is the language, not may call.

The Congress can set the time and place, but the Constitutional requirement is to call a convention on application of 2/3 of the States.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can see for yourself that a Wyoming voter has twice the weight as I do in Virginia.

You need to review your civics lessons.
The people in Wyoming don't vote in the same election as you people in VA.
They vote for their electors, you vote for yours; every vote in their election carries the same weight, just as every vote in your election carries the same weight.

 

[alang1216]

You need to review your civics lessons.
The people in Wyoming don't vote in the same election as you people in VA.
They vote for their electors, you vote for yours; every vote in their election carries the same weight, just as every vote in your election carries the same weight.

You need to review your math:

	population	EC votes	votes/EC vote	Value of one vote
Wyoming	586,485	3​	195,495	0.0000051
Virginia	8,752,300	13​	673,254	0.0000015

As you can see the value of a Wyoming voter is over 3x that of mine in a Presidential election.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As you can see the value of a Wyoming voter is over 3x that of mine in a Presidential election.

Nothing here addresses what I said.
Feel free to try again.

 

[task0778]

You need to review your math:

	population	EC votes	votes/EC vote	Value of one vote
Wyoming	586,485	3​	195,495	0.0000051
Virginia	8,752,300	13​	673,254	0.0000015

As you can see the value of a Wyoming voter is over 3x that of mine in a Presidential election.

Yeah, but Virginia has 4 times as many EC electors in the EC. You'd rather have it so the voters in small states wouldn't have any say at all. Suck it up.

 

[Z99]

Yeah, but Virginia has 4 times as many EC electors in the EC. You'd rather have it so the voters in small states wouldn't have any say at all. Suck it up.

I'm totally fine with eliminating the electoral college, provided my state (Oklahoma) can secede from the union.

 

[Z99]

The only reason the dems want popular vote is because they know it favors them. If it weren't for that, they wouldn't care less about who's disenfranchised.

Democrats certainly don't care about the MILLIONS of people they "disenfranchised" through abortion.

 

[scruffy]

I'm totally fine with eliminating the electoral college, provided my state (Oklahoma) can secede from the union.

Welcome aboard.

I'll be heading out to see you in a couple of days.

We're in Broken Arrow. Lovely place. No tornados lately.

 

[scruffy]

Democrats certainly don't care about the MILLIONS of people they "disenfranchised" through abortion.

Half the Dems are mad they didn't get a primary vote. The other half don't care.

Tells me fully half the Dems are partisan sheeple. They're okay with the lawyers in charge.

 

[Z99]

Half the Dems are mad they didn't get a primary vote. The other half don't care.

Tells me fully half the Dems are partisan sheeple. They're okay with the lawyers in charge.

Leftists are statists. Statism is their God and their religion.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You need to review your math:

	population	EC votes	votes/EC vote	Value of one vote
Wyoming	586,485	3​	195,495	0.0000051
Virginia	8,752,300	13​	673,254	0.0000015

As you can see the value of a Wyoming voter is over 3x that of mine in a Presidential election.

Wyoming cannot have less than 3 electoral votes. DC has 3 electoral votes and they have no representative and no senators.

Do you want to give Virginia 39 votes to make it more equitable? How many would California get at that rate? How many states would have their electoral vote reduced to keep the total at 535?

You really have no clue as to how this works. I suggest, being a good liberal, you try educating yourself and shut up until you do.