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

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Sure thing. Senators elected by popular vote don't represent the states they come from? Got it.

 

[eagle1462010]

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???

No one is saying that the GOP cannot win the popular vote. What I'm saying is their is a foul ODOR anytime the Blue States try to change the rules. They don't push this junk unless they gain political power for it.

They want to change the rules for their benefit and not for Justice. Which is exactly why Reid changed the rules on filabusters so Obama can appoint as many leftist Federal Judges as possible before he leaves office. The Dems used this very tactic on Bush to prevent Judges from being appointed before he left office, and now swing the other way to ensure they get every thing they want.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

Sure thing. Senators elected by popular vote don't represent the states they come from? Got it.

LOL

Had they voted for Obamacare under the system set up by the Founding Fathers they would have been scratching their unemployed Asses.

Do you Got that as well?

 

[The T]

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.

Sure thing. Senators elected by popular vote don't represent the states they come from? Got it.

Actually? They Don't. And YOU have ZERO understanding of why the STATE LEGISLATURES were to APPOINT Senators. The HOUSE was to reflect the popular will of the people.

Again? YOU have no Idea of the Founding...but are glad to tear it usunder.

YOU are the problem and shouldn't be allowed to vote. You're too stupid. You're a progressive nitwit that deserves NO QUARTER.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Sure thing. Senators elected by popular vote don't represent the states they come from? Got it.

LOL

Had they voted for Obamacare under the system set up by the Founding Fathers they would have been scratching their unemployed Asses.

Do you Got that as well?

Think so huh? And how exactly would that have happened, since they have a six-year term and there's nothing illegal about voting on congressional bills? Tell us of this fantasyland of yours...

 

[Nyvin]

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/23/us/state-government-control-since-1938.html?_r=0

As recently as 2010 more state legislatures were blue then red, in the 1970-1980's hardly any state governments were under full GOP control. The current red shift is not a long term trend. If a Republican wins the Presidency in 2016 you can expect a good number of state legislatures to go blue just as they did in Bush Jr's years.

Further you don't address the issue of divided government and how state would work out concessions. It's entirely feasible that a divided government would send 1 Dem and 1 GoP senator to congress.

But the point of the matter is the vote of the people is just as valid as the vote of state legislatures. State legislatures can be bought out with money just as easily as buying the media, if not more so.

 

[eagle1462010]

Sure thing. Senators elected by popular vote don't represent the states they come from? Got it.

LOL

Had they voted for Obamacare under the system set up by the Founding Fathers they would have been scratching their unemployed Asses.

Do you Got that as well?

Think so huh? And how exactly would that have happened, since they have a six-year term and there's nothing illegal about voting on congressional bills? Tell us of this fantasyland of yours...

I suppose the Founding Principles are Fantasy Land to you............Noted..............

In 6 years, they can do a lot of damage........When they speak with Forked Tongue to get elected. It's hard to get rid of them after the fact, when we realize that they are NOT SUPPORTING the WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE.

Under the intent of the Constitution they were HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their actions by the State Legislatures................Not any more. They talk a good game, Lie their butts off and do as they wish for their terms, even as they get blasted by their own State.........

They couldn't do this before Wilson.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

LOL

Had they voted for Obamacare under the system set up by the Founding Fathers they would have been scratching their unemployed Asses.

Do you Got that as well?

Think so huh? And how exactly would that have happened, since they have a six-year term and there's nothing illegal about voting on congressional bills? Tell us of this fantasyland of yours...

I suppose the Founding Principles are Fantasy Land to you............Noted..............

In 6 years, they can do a lot of damage........When they speak with Forked Tongue to get elected. It's hard to get rid of them after the fact, when we realize that they are NOT SUPPORTING the WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE.

Under the intent of the Constitution they were HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their actions by the State Legislatures................Not any more. They talk a good game, Lie their butts off and do as they wish for their terms, even as they get blasted by their own State.........

They couldn't do this before Wilson.

Meaning you have exactly nothing but you think the elites in the legislatures would pick better people than The People? Noted.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

Think so huh? And how exactly would that have happened, since they have a six-year term and there's nothing illegal about voting on congressional bills? Tell us of this fantasyland of yours...

I suppose the Founding Principles are Fantasy Land to you............Noted..............

In 6 years, they can do a lot of damage........When they speak with Forked Tongue to get elected. It's hard to get rid of them after the fact, when we realize that they are NOT SUPPORTING the WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE.

Under the intent of the Constitution they were HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their actions by the State Legislatures................Not any more. They talk a good game, Lie their butts off and do as they wish for their terms, even as they get blasted by their own State.........

They couldn't do this before Wilson.

Meaning you have exactly nothing but you think the elites in the legislatures would pick better people than The People? Noted.

Given that we elect local people to be in the State legislatures to represent us in the State, how are our voices gone......................

You understand that if the 17th is gone your side loses the most........You understand that Obamacare would have had a snow balls chance in hell of being passed.

You would also understand that the Dems would then have to fight to win local legislatures in rural States to get power. Which would force the Dems to elect more BLUE DOGS and move to the Center.

People like you don't like Centrist. You only want those that OBEY and follow lock step with your ultimate agenda.

NOTED.

 

[Nyvin]

It's so hilarious, the right wing crazies want to repeal the 17th so they can load the senate full of GOP senators, but are against going to a popular vote for president cause they think they can't win the popular vote.

 

[eagle1462010]

It's so hilarious, the right wing crazies want to repeal the 17th so they can load the senate full of GOP senators, but are against going to a popular vote for president cause they think they can't win the popular vote.

I want a return to the intent of the Constitution. I want a limited Gov't and return the powers taken from the State Legislatures. These principles are explained very well in the Federalist papers. Perhaps you need to read them.

And again, no one is saying we can't win the popular vote. We understand however that main population centers have a very large voice already in Presidential Elections. We understand that Dem policy on immigration is about stacking the electoral votes in places like Texas. It's not about the Mexicans. It's about POWER and control, and your side knows it.

Every once and a while they slip up and say so.

 

[Pop23]

And the libs are accusing republicans of wanting to disenfranchise voters. This plan could disenfranchise whole states, not just individuals.

Absolutely. Not to mention, residents in the bigger cities will determine the outcome for the rest of the state. Under this plan, why would a politician even bother to campaijgn in rural areas? To win NY, just campaign in NYC. To win IL, stay in Chicago...and so on.

Yep. The flyover doesn't matter a damn, it never did.

Eat much?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Absolutely. Not to mention, residents in the bigger cities will determine the outcome for the rest of the state. Under this plan, why would a politician even bother to campaijgn in rural areas? To win NY, just campaign in NYC. To win IL, stay in Chicago...and so on.

Yep. The flyover doesn't matter a damn, it never did.

Eat much?

Do you think they will all become iPhone coders? Not concerned since there is no reason to be.

We can import but they can't export. See how that works?

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's so hilarious, the right wing crazies want to repeal the 17th so they can load the senate full of GOP senators, but are against going to a popular vote for president cause they think they can't win the popular vote.

EVERYONE is trying to game the system for their party's advantage.

 

[rightwinger]

It's so hilarious, the right wing crazies want to repeal the 17th so they can load the senate full of GOP senators, but are against going to a popular vote for president cause they think they can't win the popular vote.

I want a return to the intent of the Constitution. I want a limited Gov't and return the powers taken from the State Legislatures. These principles are explained very well in the Federalist papers. Perhaps you need to read them.

And again, no one is saying we can't win the popular vote. We understand however that main population centers have a very large voice already in Presidential Elections. We understand that Dem policy on immigration is about stacking the electoral votes in places like Texas. It's not about the Mexicans. It's about POWER and control, and your side knows it.

Every once and a while they slip up and say so.

Where does the Constituion say anything about a limited Government? I can' find it

A voter in a city has less influence than a voter in the country.

 

[dcraelin]

It's so hilarious, the right wing crazies want to repeal the 17th so they can load the senate full of GOP senators, but are against going to a popular vote for president cause they think they can't win the popular vote.

I want a return to the intent of the Constitution. I want a limited Gov't and return the powers taken from the State Legislatures. These principles are explained very well in the Federalist papers. Perhaps you need to read them.

And again, no one is saying we can't win the popular vote. We understand however that main population centers have a very large voice already in Presidential Elections. We understand that Dem policy on immigration is about stacking the electoral votes in places like Texas. It's not about the Mexicans. It's about POWER and control, and your side knows it.

Every once and a while they slip up and say so.

Where does the Constituion say anything about a limited Government? I can' find it

A voter in a city has less influence than a voter in the country.

The electoral college functions way differently than it did at the country's founding. We didnt have the mass media then as we do now and there was more regionalism...instead of the mass advertising we have now(and the massive amounts of money and fundraising that requires).......

That being said, eliminating it would create chaos...imagine a Florida style vote count snafu, only involving 10 or 15 states....or 50. Or the tragedy that such a large count would hide any such voting irregularities.

 

[Navy1960]

The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012. Two-thirds of the general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

1. Florida - $117.4 million2. Ohio - $112.1 million3. Virginia - $85.7 million4. North Carolina - $56.5 million5. Colorado - $54.2 million6. Iowa - $46.6 million7. Nevada - $38.2 million8. New Hampshire - $25.3 million9. Pennsylvania - $19.3 million10. Wisconsin - $8.1 million11. Michigan - $8 million12. Minnesota - $3.2 million13. New Mexico - $49,000

State By State Breakdown Of Presidential Campaign Spending Reveals Surprises

Interesting how those states that would be in play with the largest populations, California, New York, Texas, which would most likely decide the outcome of pretty much every popular vote President are low on this list. I will however concede Florida, and perhaps Ohio. Just a thought here though , do you think that if we were to switch to a popular vote only, that states like New Mexico, Nevada, or for that matter North Carolina would even matter to a potential Presidential candidate both in terms of policy and having to campaign in those states? . . . I am all in favor of a system where where the winner in each state gets the percentage of those electors his or her popular vote suggests they get rather than a winner take all.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

&&&
The Founding Fathers left the choice of method of awarding electoral votes exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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."

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

The proportional method also could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach, the only proportional option available to an individual state on its own, had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.
— United States Constitution Article 4, Section 4

"Democracy is the most vile form of government. ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths."

— James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the U. S.

It's my humble opinion here that the founders were pretty clear that a pure democracy i.e. electing a President by popular vote only would in fact circumvent the Republican form of Govt. that they intended to form. For example if the President were elected by popular vote you would negate the need for electors as mentioned in the constitution or the state legislatures involvement. However, that is not to say that the Constitution cannot be changed , but again, it's my opinion that in direct popular vote of a President no matter how appealing that might sound, it is not what the framers intended for many reasons and its pretty clear they were concerned that everyone have a voice in this Union and that includes states with small populations.

 

[bendog]

What's the effect of this? Isn't it still winner of each state takes all the EV's. Now, in theory, the electors could be awarded to a candidate who didn't win the popular vote. In 2000, it's very possible Gore actually won the vote, but as matter of statistical probability it was a tie. Anyone want to doubt the Fla legislature wouldn't award the EVs to their governonr's big brother?

What I'd like to see is all states awarding EV's by proportion of vote, and no winner take all. but, perhaps I didn't understand the proposal in this.

 

[mvymvy]

It's my humble opinion here that the founders were pretty clear that a pure democracy i.e. electing a President by popular vote only would in fact circumvent the Republican form of Govt. that they intended to form. For example if the President were elected by popular vote you would negate the need for electors as mentioned in the constitution or the state legislatures involvement. However, that is not to say that the Constitution cannot be changed , but again, it's my opinion that in direct popular vote of a President no matter how appealing that might sound, it is not what the framers intended for many reasons and its pretty clear they were concerned that everyone have a voice in this Union and that includes states with small populations.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution--
"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."

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to decide how they award their electoral votes for president. It does not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law.

Historically, major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, now, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all method (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all method is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all method) 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.

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. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states.

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

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.