It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

[rightwinger]

I wouldn't mind that either because in some states the minority party really has no real vote in the elections.

Very true

If you vote Republican in a Blue State, your vote got registered for the Democrat


.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

It would definately change how candidates run and it would definately benefit the republican party more since new york and California's electorial votes would be split. Rural areas tend to vote republican as well.

 

[rightwinger]

It would definately change how candidates run and it would definately benefit the republican party more since new york and California's electorial votes would be split. Rural areas tend to vote republican as well.

Rural states have EVs in excess of their population favoring Republicans
States like California and NY would split their EVs

Definite favor of Republicans and allows them to win elections while taking less than half the vote

 

[ShootSpeeders]

We can still be Federalist with a popular vote for President

Hey einstein. Federalism means states rights and that means all elections, even for federal officials, must be done at the state level. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Na, with the federal government disregarding the 10th amendment. Nothings gonna be fair

Got that right. The 10A makes it clear that nearly everything is to be handled at the state level. States need to assert that but they never do.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The federal government is the legitimate supreme governmental authority in this country.

HAHAHA. Where does the constitution say that?? It is NOT in the supremacy clause. If anything the tenth amendment says states are above the feds. THINK, freedom-hater.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The population of the United States was largely uneducated at the time; however, that is no longer true.

HAHAHA. Did you really say that.? With all the illiterate blacks and illegals and legal immigrants in america today, the country is less educated than ever.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The constitution is the supreme authority in the Country, only to be overridden if the will of the people exceeds 3/4 of the States and 2/3rd's of the federal legislature.

That's incorrect. The states can amend the constitution all by themselves by calling a constitutional convention. They do NOT need the feds at all.

OTOH, the feds CANNOT amend their own constitution. More proof that the FF placed the states above the federal govt.

 

[rightwinger]

We can still be Federalist with a popular vote for President

Hey einstein. Federalism means states rights and that means all elections, even for federal officials, must be done at the state level. THINK

No it doesn't

We would still have state governments with independent governors, still have a House and Senate filled with state representatives

Removing the president from that equation does not mean we are no longer a Republic

 

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution is the supreme authority in the Country, only to be overridden if the will of the people exceeds 3/4 of the States and 2/3rd's of the federal legislature.

That's incorrect. The states can amend the constitution all by themselves by calling a constitutional convention. They do NOT need the feds at all.

OTOH, the feds CANNOT amend their own constitution. More proof that the FF placed the states above the federal govt.

That's ONE power they gave the states. Overall the federal government rules.

 

[kaz]

WTF are you talking about? Try addressing my point. This is like the fourth time in a row you couldn't. You a mutt or a *****?

Democrats Gerrymandered for 50 years. What is wrong with you that you don't even grasp that's what I'm saying? I mean duh, what does it take for you to process a point?

Swish. I thought you were older than me, and you still don't get it? Democrats Gerrymandered the majority of my life. You're like WTF, they did? OK, well, now it's the Republicans and you're against it ... all of a sudden ...

GOP have always gerrymandered when possible, just like the Dems. Your bold assertions mean nothing without evidence. I knew both of those thing in my teens.

That's what I said you ******* retard. What does it take for you to grasp a point? My point, Jake, is that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig and when the Democrats do it you ho hum. But they both do it. Buy a clue

You always squeal when you get caught in your lies. When have I ever not condemned or excused gerrymandering? You put words in other peoples' mouths they did not say because you don't have the truth. You are a mental midget.

What lie? You didn't disagree with anything I said, dumb ass.

You have a serious alcohol problem, don't you, Jake?

 

[martybegan]

The constitution is the supreme authority in the Country, only to be overridden if the will of the people exceeds 3/4 of the States and 2/3rd's of the federal legislature.

That's incorrect. The states can amend the constitution all by themselves by calling a constitutional convention. They do NOT need the feds at all.

OTOH, the feds CANNOT amend their own constitution. More proof that the FF placed the states above the federal govt.

Good point.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Swish. I thought you were older than me, and you still don't get it? Democrats Gerrymandered the majority of my life. You're like WTF, they did? OK, well, now it's the Republicans and you're against it ... all of a sudden ...

GOP have always gerrymandered when possible, just like the Dems. Your bold assertions mean nothing without evidence. I knew both of those thing in my teens.

That's what I said you ******* retard. What does it take for you to grasp a point? My point, Jake, is that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig and when the Democrats do it you ho hum. But they both do it. Buy a clue

You always squeal when you get caught in your lies. When have I ever not condemned or excused gerrymandering? You put words in other peoples' mouths they did not say because you don't have the truth. You are a mental midget.

What lie? You didn't disagree with anything I said, dumb ass.You have a serious alcohol problem, don't you, Jake?

Personal attacks, bold assertions, lies, etc., shows kaz to be a dull person.

you wrote that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig but excuse the Dems

Dull Person Kaz, that is a lie.

 

[martybegan]

The constitution is the supreme authority in the Country, only to be overridden if the will of the people exceeds 3/4 of the States and 2/3rd's of the federal legislature.

That's incorrect. The states can amend the constitution all by themselves by calling a constitutional convention. They do NOT need the feds at all.

OTOH, the feds CANNOT amend their own constitution. More proof that the FF placed the states above the federal govt.

That's ONE power they gave the states. Overall the federal government rules.

But its only supposed to rule on items specifically given to them as proscribed powers and responsibilities.

Not "everything under the sun because "commerce clause, fuh fuh fuh, promote general welfare, fuh fuh"

 

[JakeStarkey]

Article V convention: the unused process is for 2/3ds of the states to call for a convention, then 3/4 of the states to approve of any amendments proposed by the convention.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The probability of such an Art V convention is not likely.

 

[mvymvy]

We can still be Federalist with a popular vote for President

Hey einstein. Federalism means states rights and that means all elections, even for federal officials, must be done at the state level. THINK

With the National Popular Vote bill, the presidential election would continue to be done at the state level.

Current federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the "canvas") in what is called a "Certificate of Ascertainment." They list the electors and the number of votes cast for each. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, 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 matter in the state counts and national count.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

 

[mvymvy]

I wouldn't mind that either because in some states the minority party really has no real vote in the elections.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution, in presidential elections, the minority party voters in each state do not matter to their candidate.

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state, are wasted and don't matter to presidential candidates.

Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004.

Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).

8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

 

[candycorn]

I like the back and fourth on this and strange bedfellows are being made as a result.

What it comes down to is simple; do we want the people to decide or do we want a slate of electors to decide who is elected President and Vice President.

Why not have both? Keep the majority of the EVs be the threshold but add one more condition; you also have to win the popular vote. If not, the current remedy of the House picking the POTUS comes into effect.

It is positively crazy that in this day and age, we do not insist that the POTUS be elected by a plurality of the voters.

 

[mvymvy]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Federalism.

We can still be Federalist with a popular vote for President

If an amendment is passed, sure.

The U.S. Constitution says "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 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 would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, 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 matter in the state counts and national count.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.

All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.