Electoral College reform

[Procrustes Stretched]

The electoral college has almost never worked as originally intended. It was meant as a nominating body to choose candidates for Congress to select from, with exceptions only rarely happening when one candidate has widespread support (aka George Washington)

Electors are not the independent voters that the Founders envisioned.

But the decision has only gone to Congress twice (maybe it was 3?)

I propose the following constitutional amendments:

1) No state may compel an elector to be contractually obligated to vote for any candidate (as most states do now - you are obligated to vote for the candidate you pledged to vote for)

2) No elector may state whom he will vote for prior to the actual vote

3) Presidential "candidates" may not ask people to vote for them - this is dishonest on its face, as you don't vote for Presidential candidates, you vote for electors

Stick your proposal where the sun don't shine. Some of us like the system the way it has always been. It works.

plus Jesus would never allow Americans to mess with it. He will punish you if you try.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think I may have overdosed on meds or something. Tuba is actually making sense...

withdrawal can be a mutha

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Id like to see an end to winner take all state rules.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

who dat

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I can't show you a state law, but I can show you the U.S. Constitution.

Article II Section 1


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


State legislatures have near absolute authority in determining their state's electors, restrictions are few (for instance, if the legislature does decide to hold an election, they can't deny the vote to blacks)

In fact in 2000 the Florida legislature considered legislation to outright name the Republican slate and put the whole election mess to bed.



Wrong AGAIN.

A majority of the states legislatively selected presidential electors in both 1792 and 1800, and half of the states did so in 1812.[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)





That statement doesn't even make sense.


Didn't you once take an oath to defend the Constitution? Shouldn't you know what's in it?

Once again retard, the legislatures are constrained by STATE Constitutions and State laws. Find any law or Constitution that allows the States to ignore the popular vote in that State and appoint some elector to vote for some third party.

Hell using your logic the President should have been a Democrat a lot more then he was since more State legislatures were Democratically controlled.

The devil is in the fine print dumb ass. You have claimed States can just pick anyone they want based on the will of the Legislature, PROVE it.

It doesn't matter what state laws or constitutions state, the authority of the legislatures to choose electors is granted by the Constitution of the United States - which is the highest law in the land - and thus trumps any state law or constitution in this regard.


It doesn't matter what my logic is. The Constitution says what it says.

Once again you dumb ass show some evidence any state can just pick some third party candidate and vote for him in the electoral college. Provide some evidence State law and State Constitutions do not in fact restrict those legislatures in their options.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Once again retard, the legislatures are constrained by STATE Constitutions and State laws. Find any law or Constitution that allows the States to ignore the popular vote in that State and appoint some elector to vote for some third party.

Hell using your logic the President should have been a Democrat a lot more then he was since more State legislatures were Democratically controlled.

The devil is in the fine print dumb ass. You have claimed States can just pick anyone they want based on the will of the Legislature, PROVE it.

It doesn't matter what state laws or constitutions state, the authority of the legislatures to choose electors is granted by the Constitution of the United States - which is the highest law in the land - and thus trumps any state law or constitution in this regard.


It doesn't matter what my logic is. The Constitution says what it says.

Once again you dumb ass show some evidence any state can just pick some third party candidate and vote for him in the electoral college. Provide some evidence State law and State Constitutions do not in fact restrict those legislatures in their options.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT STATE LAW SAYS THE CONSTITUTION IS THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND.

As a retired serviceman how do you not know this? The authority of legislatures to chuse electors is stated explicitly in the constitution - no state law can change this.

 

[mvymvy]

Under the current system of electing the President, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, of course, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

 

[mvymvy]

The Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.

There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.


The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The Founding Fathers said in the U.S. Constitution (only after debating among 60 ballots for choosing a method): "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote.

In 1789 only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all rule to award electoral votes.

There is no valid argument that the winner-take-all rule is entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in a particular state) is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the debates of the Constitutional Convention, or the Federalist Papers. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all rule.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.


The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

There's also another method - Constitutional amendment.

The Founders were quick to amend the electoral college when it turned out to not work so well.

The electoral college today is a joke. Its a game of ridiculous and arbitrary rules that make no sense whatsoever. Its not what the founders intended.

We should amend the Constitution to fix the electoral college. We can start by giving to Congress what it should have had in the first place - authority to choose the President and Vice President.

I propose that the election for President be decided by the House among the top 3 candidates regardless of whether or not one candidate has a majority.

This would also break this absurd 2-party system.

 

[FireGod]

It has worked perfectly fine for over 200 years. I see no reason to change it.

Do you remember 2000?

It doesn't matter what state laws or constitutions state, the authority of the legislatures to choose electors is granted by the Constitution of the United States - which is the highest law in the land - and thus trumps any state law or constitution in this regard.


It doesn't matter what my logic is. The Constitution says what it says.

Once again you dumb ass show some evidence any state can just pick some third party candidate and vote for him in the electoral college. Provide some evidence State law and State Constitutions do not in fact restrict those legislatures in their options.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT STATE LAW SAYS THE CONSTITUTION IS THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND.

As a retired serviceman how do you not know this? The authority of legislatures to chuse electors is stated explicitly in the constitution - no state law can change this.

Just because one serves the Constitution does not mean that one has to know it.

Read the words again ^^^^^^^ before trying to spank me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It has worked perfectly fine for over 200 years. I see no reason to change it.

Do you remember 2000?

Once again you dumb ass show some evidence any state can just pick some third party candidate and vote for him in the electoral college. Provide some evidence State law and State Constitutions do not in fact restrict those legislatures in their options.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT STATE LAW SAYS THE CONSTITUTION IS THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND.

As a retired serviceman how do you not know this? The authority of legislatures to chuse electors is stated explicitly in the constitution - no state law can change this.

Just because one serves the Constitution does not mean that one has to know it.

Read the words again ^^^^^^^ before trying to spank me.

You're telling me people who take an Oath to defend the Constitution against all Enemies do not need to know that its the highest law in the land?

 

[FireGod]

It has worked perfectly fine for over 200 years. I see no reason to change it.

Do you remember 2000?

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT STATE LAW SAYS THE CONSTITUTION IS THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND.

As a retired serviceman how do you not know this? The authority of legislatures to chuse electors is stated explicitly in the constitution - no state law can change this.

Just because one serves the Constitution does not mean that one has to know it.

Read the words again ^^^^^^^ before trying to spank me.

You're telling me people who take an Oath to defend the Constitution against all Enemies do not need to know that its the highest law in the land?

There was no Constitution test when I went in

 

[kyzr]

The winner-take-all of a states' electoral votes works best. Proportional electors is a bad idea, so are real people electors who can rob millions of votes.
I'm for 1-man 1-vote and winner take all for each state. Otherwise its a popular election and will devolve into regionalism. It ain't broke, so don't fix it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The winner-take-all of a states' electoral votes works best.

Works best HOW? At preserving a two party system at the expense of 3rd parties?

Proportional electors is a bad idea,

They certainly are if you want to keep the likes of Ralph Nader and Ron Paul out of the game.

Otherwise its a popular election and will devolve into regionalism.

Yeah, the electoral college has never devolved into regionalism.

Regionally - out of the lower 48 - there is but ONE group of red states and TWO groups of blue states and a single lone blue state.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Spider is an idiot. The Constitution mandates an electoral college HOWEVER the States determine how the electors are chosen. State law and their Constitutions determine how Electors work in the Electoral college.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[beowolfe]

The electoral college has almost never worked as originally intended. It was meant as a nominating body to choose candidates for Congress to select from, with exceptions only rarely happening when one candidate has widespread support (aka George Washington)

Electors are not the independent voters that the Founders envisioned.

But the decision has only gone to Congress twice (maybe it was 3?)

I propose the following constitutional amendments:

1) No state may compel an elector to be contractually obligated to vote for any candidate (as most states do now - you are obligated to vote for the candidate you pledged to vote for)

2) No elector may state whom he will vote for prior to the actual vote

3) Presidential "candidates" may not ask people to vote for them - this is dishonest on its face, as you don't vote for Presidential candidates, you vote for electors

And this would be a good thing....why?