'Hacking the Constitution': States Quietly Plan to Ditch Electoral College

[The T]

He has a point. Bush being elected by the Supreme Court once and the people a second time still pisses me off.

If you were not so ignorant about the Constitution, you would know that Bush was going to become the President regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled.

BTW, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2, that the Florida recount was unconstitutional. That stopped the patently illegal recount. Then the Court ruled 5 to 4, that time had run out and the Florida Supreme Court did not have time to conduct a legal recount.

Yes I know, the court gave him the election. He lost the Popular vote.

The COURT didn't give him ANYTHING. The Court demanded the shenanigans cease.

In a per curiam decision, the Court, by a 5-4 vote,[1][2] ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 ("Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"), which was December 12. However, seven of the justices agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using different standards of counting in different counties.[3] Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes to stand. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College and defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a District of Columbia elector abstained).

Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Simple.

Just require Presidents to win BOTH the popular AND the electoral vote.
Then everyone is happy that their criteria are met. Require BOTH
to ENSURE the Candidate(s) represent the people on both counts.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

That will ALWAYS be the democrat.

 

[mudwhistle]

The will of the people wouldn't matter anymore.

It become a matter of who can stuff the ballet-box the most.

 

[Nyvin]

I know it does

And those states are deciding on how they want to distribute their electoral vote

If it is based on state results or results of counties or parishes within the state, I have no problem with it... if it is based on something OUTSIDE the state like the popular vote of the rest of the country, I have a problem with it

Let's give every county in the US a vote that will be determined by who wins the most votes in that county. The majority of counties in a State will determine that state's EC vote.

The ~10 million people in Los Angeles County probably won't be happy with this.

The 71 people in Loving County, TX, would be thrilled though.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Yes I know, the court gave him the election. He lost the Popular vote.

President is not to be and should not be chosen by popular vote.. you have the legislative branch that already is chosen by popular vote

The legislative branch represents the states.......the president represents the people of the United States

The Senate used to represent the states but not anymore. No thanks to the 17th amendment.

 

[The T]

President is not to be and should not be chosen by popular vote.. you have the legislative branch that already is chosen by popular vote

The legislative branch represents the states.......the president represents the people of the United States

The Senate used to represent the states but not anymore. No thanks to the 17th amendment.

And it was a Progressive Amendment along with the 16th under Wilson. That one too needs to be repealed.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Rural voters have more power per capita than Urban voters. That is how Bush got elected

States choose the President, as it should be.

Rightwinger thinks we live in a true Democracy. He's an idiot.

He's been agreeing with both sides of the argument.

 

[The T]

States choose the President, as it should be.

Rightwinger thinks we live in a true Democracy. He's an idiot.

He's been agreeing with both sides of the argument.

Ok. Add confused to my comment.

 

[eagle1462010]

This is Democrap policy. They currently have an Advantage with California and New York as they are basically guaranteed those states in the Presidential Elections. Their new purpose is to permanently take Florida and Texas, via immigration policy for Texas. If they own the votes in the big states they control the elections and thus the power of the Presidency.

This move is to insure voting blocks of highly populated urban areas have all the control, which they basically have already. Whereby, the less populated rural voters voices are drowned into OBLIVION.

Wilson killed the State Legislatures voice, and Libs will not be happy until they kill the voice of anyone opposed to their policies. They don't care how they do it. The end justifies the means and they should be challenged at every venue.

 

[Nyvin]

Small states would be at no disadvantage at all from this being enacted btw, that should be obvious to most.

The only ones losing out from this would be mega swing states like Ohio and Florida, who currently get too much attention due to their importance in the EC count.

 

[Nyvin]

This is Democrap policy. They currently have an Advantage with California and New York as they are basically guaranteed those states in the Presidential Elections. Their new purpose is to permanently take Florida and Texas, via immigration policy for Texas. If they own the votes in the big states they control the elections and thus the power of the Presidency.

This move is to insure voting blocks of highly populated urban areas have all the control, which they basically have already. Whereby, the less populated rural voters voices are drowned into OBLIVION.

Wilson killed the State Legislatures voice, and Libs will not be happy until they kill the voice of anyone opposed to their policies. They don't care how they do it. The end justifies the means and they should be challenged at every venue.

What does having California and New York in the Dem column have anything to do with the GOP winning the popular vote?

 

[eagle1462010]

This is Democrap policy. They currently have an Advantage with California and New York as they are basically guaranteed those states in the Presidential Elections. Their new purpose is to permanently take Florida and Texas, via immigration policy for Texas. If they own the votes in the big states they control the elections and thus the power of the Presidency.

This move is to insure voting blocks of highly populated urban areas have all the control, which they basically have already. Whereby, the less populated rural voters voices are drowned into OBLIVION.

Wilson killed the State Legislatures voice, and Libs will not be happy until they kill the voice of anyone opposed to their policies. They don't care how they do it. The end justifies the means and they should be challenged at every venue.

What does having California and New York in the Dem column have anything to do with the GOP winning the popular vote?

The EC was supposed to be an equalizer on the voice of smaller populated states, yet it the number of votes per state are based on population anyway. Yet I do believe it allows the voice of the smaller states to have more of an impact than it would by switching to a popular vote completely.

Either way, the large populated States rule the roost either way, which is exactly why the Founding Fathers created the Senate, which was supposed to be the voice of the State legislatures, but Wilson ensured that ended.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This is exactly right - and it's a good point. One argument given by Cuomo is that the Electoral system is no longer effectively protecting voters in small non-swing states. Candidates spend all their time in places like Ohio and Florida while ignoring too much of the country. He's proposing a legal change to election law which would give presidential candidates an incentive to visit and listen to voters that are currently being ignored because, under the current system, they do not represent an electoral payoff. Does this change better capture what was originally intended by the Electoral College, with its desire to effectively distribute electoral power across regions that would otherwise be crushed by a popular vote? I don't know - and that's why it's important to discuss these things in detail. However - and this is my point - FOX doesn't want a debate; they just want to press the same tired psychological buttons of their captive audience, who will then spill into the public square with hysterical talking points about the end of America.

FYI: I'm not as concerned about what people ultimately decide as much as I'm concerned about the absolute failure of civic literacy that comes when voters reflexively import talking points without displaying an ability to understand all sides of the debate. This is emphatically a bipartisan problem.

Also, I'm not sure Cuomo's move is a slam dunk for Democrats. Think about it. New York is solidly Blue - and current demographic trends are going to make it even more Blue. So you'd think he would have no interest in changing that. However, if a charismatic Independent or Republican candidate won the popular vote, than Cuomo is saying that New York's votes would be shifted to the Republican, which could flip the election in favor of the Right. This is obviously just one hypothetical, and I don't think its one Cuomo fears. Regardless, my instinct is to be against this change, but I'd need a lot more information before making a decision.

. Horseshit. A candidate can "visit" one borough of New York City and meet more people than he would in all of Iowa.

What difference does it make if we have one man, one vote?

All votes are equal regardless of where they are. Right now, Florida and Ohio votes are worth more than NY votes and Iowa has more clout than it deserves

New York gets 31' California gets 55. Iowa gets 7. Big states get there fair share.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Look at a map of the US on election night.
Most of the country is tagged red....

Then look at California and NY tagged blue...
California (55) New York (29),

California and NY...55 and 29... electoral votes.

Those are big numbers that beacuse of the liberal makeup of those states they will always vote
Democrat.

Republicans win a whole lot of States but Democrats get California and NY and all those wins by the GOP get wiped out by 2 states.....

. As it should. I'm willing to accept that outcome. Liberals want NPV to ensure a democrat gets elected every time.

 

[Nyvin]

This is Democrap policy. They currently have an Advantage with California and New York as they are basically guaranteed those states in the Presidential Elections. Their new purpose is to permanently take Florida and Texas, via immigration policy for Texas. If they own the votes in the big states they control the elections and thus the power of the Presidency.

This move is to insure voting blocks of highly populated urban areas have all the control, which they basically have already. Whereby, the less populated rural voters voices are drowned into OBLIVION.

Wilson killed the State Legislatures voice, and Libs will not be happy until they kill the voice of anyone opposed to their policies. They don't care how they do it. The end justifies the means and they should be challenged at every venue.

What does having California and New York in the Dem column have anything to do with the GOP winning the popular vote?

The EC was supposed to be an equalizer on the voice of smaller populated states, yet it the number of votes per state are based on population anyway. Yet I do believe it allows the voice of the smaller states to have more of an impact than it would by switching to a popular vote completely.

Either way, the large populated States rule the roost either way, which is exactly why the Founding Fathers created the Senate, which was supposed to be the voice of the State legislatures, but Wilson ensured that ended.

The Senate still undeniably favors small states, the 17th did nothing to affect how many Senators small states get. It just took away the state legislature's ability to hand out senate seats as party favors. That has nothing to do with how much of a voice small states get in the Senate.

The HOR is also tilted to favor small states, but to a much smaller margin. Basically the biggest five states lose seats to the smaller 3-4 rep states.

 

[The T]

This is Democrap policy. They currently have an Advantage with California and New York as they are basically guaranteed those states in the Presidential Elections. Their new purpose is to permanently take Florida and Texas, via immigration policy for Texas. If they own the votes in the big states they control the elections and thus the power of the Presidency.

This move is to insure voting blocks of highly populated urban areas have all the control, which they basically have already. Whereby, the less populated rural voters voices are drowned into OBLIVION.

Wilson killed the State Legislatures voice, and Libs will not be happy until they kill the voice of anyone opposed to their policies. They don't care how they do it. The end justifies the means and they should be challenged at every venue.

What does having California and New York in the Dem column have anything to do with the GOP winning the popular vote?

The EC was supposed to be an equalizer on the voice of smaller populated states, yet it the number of votes per state are based on population anyway. Yet I do believe it allows the voice of the smaller states to have more of an impact than it would by switching to a popular vote completely.

Either way, the large populated States rule the roost either way, which is exactly why the Founding Fathers created the Senate, which was supposed to be the voice of the State legislatures, but Wilson ensured that ended.

True history. The Progressives foisted that gem on us 100 years ago. I say we dig their asses up and kill them again for what they've done to this Republic. They deserve NO respect. Neither do Modern-Day Progressives.

 

[Nyvin]

Look at a map of the US on election night.
Most of the country is tagged red....

Then look at California and NY tagged blue...
California (55) New York (29),

California and NY...55 and 29... electoral votes.

Those are big numbers that beacuse of the liberal makeup of those states they will always vote
Democrat.

Republicans win a whole lot of States but Democrats get California and NY and all those wins by the GOP get wiped out by 2 states.....

. As it should. I'm willing to accept that outcome. Liberals want NPV to ensure a democrat gets elected every time.

Why??? Are you saying the GOP cannot win the popular vote???

 

[eagle1462010]

What does having California and New York in the Dem column have anything to do with the GOP winning the popular vote?

The EC was supposed to be an equalizer on the voice of smaller populated states, yet it the number of votes per state are based on population anyway. Yet I do believe it allows the voice of the smaller states to have more of an impact than it would by switching to a popular vote completely.

Either way, the large populated States rule the roost either way, which is exactly why the Founding Fathers created the Senate, which was supposed to be the voice of the State legislatures, but Wilson ensured that ended.

The Senate still undeniably favors small states, the 17th did nothing to affect how many Senators small states get. It just took away the state legislature's ability to hand out senate seats as party favors. That has nothing to do with how much of a voice small states get in the Senate.

No it did not. If you look at the Federalist papers it was designed to be SPECIFICALLY the voice of the State Legislatures. So now the media machine can spend vast amount of money on smear campaigns and swing votes in the smaller states to get a Democratic majority in the Senate, while the State Legislatures of this country are overwelmingly Red...........If the 17th were not in place, the Dems would only have about 40 Seats in the Senate.

In regards to Obamacare, the States overwelmingly rejected it, and No Senator would have vote Aye to it knowing that the State legislatures would FIRE THEM. It is a safe guard to prevent the few from going against the will of the States with their votes.

While corruption can occur at any level, it is easier to deal with the corruption at more local areas than via larger ones.

Had we wanted a Pure Democracy as the Dems want, then the Senate wouldn't even be necessary at all.

 

[rdean]

If Republicans had good policies, they could run on those policies. Yes Virginia, it really is that simple.

 

[The T]

If Republicans had good policies, they could run on those policies. Yes Virginia, it really is that simple.

Was this supposed to mean something? My translator is broken.

Deany? YOU are an IDIOT.