Abolish the ‘Undemocratic’ Electoral College?

[OKTexas]

FYI
The electoral college ONLY AFFECTS the presidential race, and not any down ballot races, which are won democratically.


---------------

I do not think the electoral college should be eliminated, nor could it be without a constitutional amendment.

But I do believe we should go back to electors distributed proportionately to how their citizens vote for them, and NOT this 'Winner Takes All' elector bulloney!

The feds don't have the authority to dictate that. The Constitution gives the States the authority to allocate their electors as they see fit. An Amendment would be required to change that. At this point only 2 States don't have winner takes all.

.

 

[para bellum]

States have asked congress for a convention of the States, congresscritters have asked for a convention of the States, all have been ignore by congressional leadership. The States have the authority to have their own separate convention or have a gathering of the States in a convention. They don't need congress permission to do that.

.

You need 34 States to ask for a convention, or 2/3 majorities in both houses. That has not happened.

Every time the Constitution has been amended, it was by amendments from the Congress.

No one is disputing the States can hold a convention.

 

[para bellum]

I quoted the post. You been hounding my facts like an idiot.

Your replies are mostly incoherent or incorrect in some manner. Example: "Stating that amendments to the Constitution requires 2/3 of the states to agree is not leaping to a conclusion."

It's just not true, and I don't even know where you are trying to fit that in. Amendments need 3/4, not 2/3 of the States to ratify.

I never claimed that amendments did not need to be ratified, that is a really stupid thing to say.

What I said, about the amendment that is the topic of this thread, is that ratification by the States is moot, because the amendment will never make it out of the Congress.

Your leap to conclusion was the fact that you interpreted that to mean an amendment does not need to be ratified by the States. That is not what I said.

 

[OKTexas]

You need 34 States to ask for a convention, or 2/3 majorities in both houses. That has not happened.

Every time the Constitution has been amended, it was by amendments from the Congress.

No one is disputing the States can hold a convention.

Nope.

The 21st Amendment was ratified on December 5th, 1933, and was the only Amendment to be ratified by state ratifying conventions rather by state legislature, which would mark the prohibition repeal.

Understanding the 21st Amendment

Understanding the 21st Amendment - understand civil rights and violations, obtain attorney services, forms, templates, due process, Understanding the 21st Amendment, LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789, its processes, and crucial LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789 information needed.

constitution.laws.com

.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

All this proposal does is emphasize how dishonest and anti-American the democrat party is.

 

[YoursTruly]

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.

The electoral college. A bunch of unknown people chosen by even more unknown people, who decide who's going to be the next president.

What could go wrong?

 

[para bellum]

Nope.

The 21st Amendment was ratified on December 5th, 1933, and was the only Amendment to be ratified by state ratifying conventions rather by state legislature, which would mark the prohibition repeal.

Understanding the 21st Amendment

Understanding the 21st Amendment - understand civil rights and violations, obtain attorney services, forms, templates, due process, Understanding the 21st Amendment, LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789, its processes, and crucial LAWS.COM - American Constitution 1789 information needed.

constitution.laws.com

.

State ratifying conventions are not an Article V Convention. It is one of the methods of ratification specified in Article V.

"...when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"

The 21st Amendment was drafted and passed through the Congress and sent to the States like every other amendment, including the Bill of Rights.

"On February 16, 1933, the Senate agreed to the joint resolution, as amended, by a vote of 63-23.22 Four days later, after a short debate, the House passed the joint resolution under suspension of the rules by a vote of 289-121.23 With the House’s approval, the Twenty-First Amendment was submitted to the states on February 20, 1933.24"

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt21-S1-2-4/ALDE_00013857/

 

[elektra]

Your replies are mostly incoherent or incorrect in some manner. Example: "Stating that amendments to the Constitution requires 2/3 of the states to agree is not leaping to a conclusion."

It's just not true, and I don't even know where you are trying to fit that in. Amendments need 3/4, not 2/3 of the States to ...

Why did you cherry pick my comment? You really are an idiot. Honestly.

I will start from the beginning, how about that.

 

[elektra]

Your replies are mostly incoherent or incorrect in some manner.

Just more showboating. It would need a 2/3 majority in both houses to move forward, and those votes are not there, not even close.

It would need more than a 2/3 vote. It would require a change to the Constitution which would have to be ratified by the states

Amendments must be ratified by the states.

Incoherent to those of low intelligence. Somehow you took offense to simple facts. Your ego seems to be getting in the way.

Every reply I made you took umbrage to.

 

[para bellum]

Incoherent to those of low intelligence. Somehow you took offense to simple facts. Your ego seems to be getting in the way.

Every reply I made you took umbrage to.

I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension.

No one disputed that amendments need ratification in the States.

I said that an amendment that cannot make it through Congress will never be sent to the States.

You seem to have some problem with that, but that's not my problem...

 

[elektra]

I am not responsible for your lack of comprehension.

No one disputed that amendments need ratification in the States.

I said that an amendment that cannot make it through Congress will never be sent to the States.

You seem to have some problem with that, but that's not my problem...

And i never disagreed and simply added facts that you took umbrage to

 

[para bellum]

And i never disagreed and simply added facts that you took umbrage to

I did not take umbrage, your reply was not relevant to my post, yet you quoted me.

"It would need more than a 2/3 vote. It would require a change to the Constitution which would have to be ratified by the states"

I was referring to getting it out of Congress, that was clear in my post. I am fully aware of all the steps needed to amend the Constitution.

An amendment is by definition a "change to the Constitution", so your reply was nonsensical and redundant. You do not need to change the Constitution in order to change the Constitution.

You apparently hadn't even read Article V, because your next reply was:

"There are two options under article V, I thought there was only one way. 2/3rds of the states can have a constitutional convention to change the electoral college"

Then you presumed to school me on Article V, which I am clearly much more familiar with than you are.

If you want to add something to the thread, add it. If you quote me, I will presume you are addressing me, and I will answer.

 

[elektra]

Then you presumed to school me on Article V, which I am clearly much more familiar with than you are.

Your reply should of been a simple affirmative.

Your post was piss poor and misleading. You think you know more, hence your need to declare you know more, which confirms where we are.

You took umbrage

 

[elektra]

Then you presumed to school me on Article V, which I am clearly much more familiar with than you are.

Much more? Haha. You left out that the states can amend the constitution. You argued that point. You were wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I never said there was anything preventing the States from holding a Convention. I said there was a process that is described in Article V, and that process includes petitioning the Congress for a Convention.

I also explained what the Congress would do if that happens, because a Convention of the States is viewed by the Congress as a threat to their power.

I have been advocating for an Article V convention for decades, but I do not think I will see one in my lifetime.

The process does not require congress reread your linked statement it says legislatures of the states.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Democrats only ***** about the EC when they lose. Same with the Supreme Court size. Democrats will win again as everything moves in tides..When Democrats win, there is no complaint about the EC. As a Conservative, I am a fierce defender of the EC even when my candidate loses. If we shift this to pure popular vote, less populated states get screwed.

 

[kyzr]

Democrats only ***** about the EC when they lose. Same with the Supreme Court size. Democrats will win again as everything moves in tides..When Democrats win, there is no complaint about the EC. As a Conservative, I am a fierce defender of the EC even when my candidate loses. If we shift this to pure popular vote, less populated states get screwed.

No worries. The EC will never change, neither will the 2nd Amendment.
The democrats need something to blame, yet they refuse to look at their policies., which is just fine.

 

[Care4all]

The feds don't have the authority to dictate that. The Constitution gives the States the authority to allocate their electors as they see fit. An Amendment would be required to change that. At this point only 2 States don't have winner takes all.

.

I think the States should choose to go back to electors being distributed proportionately, to reflect their citizen's vote, accurately....

My state is one of those states who still has it that way....and it reflects the citizens within the state, which I like and is a better representative of the state and state citizens.

 

[NetJedi]

I think the States should choose to go back to electors being distributed proportionately, to reflect their citizen's vote, accurately....

I think each state should allocate electors based on the way the majority of citizens living in the state choose to do it, ya know via "democracy".

 

[Care4all]

I think each state should allocate electors based on the way the majority of citizens living in the state choose to do it, ya know via "democracy".

Then why do you support the electoral college?