Spanberger signs bill sending VA electoral votes to winner of popular vote.

[forkup]

You can turn that around by disadvantaging the less popular states.
That's what the EC does is balance the other.

I agree. That's how I responded to the OP, by turning his premise around.

And I'll also respond to your "balance" argument the same way.

What you're describing is not balance. It's creating an inbalance. An inbalance to protect a specific minority... yours.

By doing this you are disenfranchasing other minorities.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning it perse. It makes perfect sense from your perspective. But the truth is is not about the Constitution or "balance", it's about power and how to keep it.

 

[Care4all]

That question indicates you don't understand the basis of the Constitution.

1. The states formed the Union. Not the other way around.
2. The Constitution favors state autonomy. So a state tieing the votes of it's citizens to the votes of citizens in other states is completely at odds with the Constitution.
3. What the constituion says is that the majority of people in a majority of states (weighted by EC votes) selects the president.
4. When Arizona choses a candidate with 50.1% of the vote or 99% of the vote does not matter. Arizona chose it's candidate as if it were an single entity.....i.e. a state. That the 49.9% of the losers are not represented isn't an issue.
5. Of course, the statkes were never supposed to be this high. Nobody thought the Federal Government would become the stupidly bloated, inefficient, corrupt, money grubbing, winner picking POS that it is today.

Fyi regarding to what I was talking about....

When states decided to make electors winner takes all, were the founding fathers disappointed?



Yes, key founding fathers were deeply disappointed. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton envisioned electors as independent, deliberative free agents chosen by congressional districts, rather than a rubber stamp for partisan, statewide blocks. Madison explicitly criticized the winner-take-all system for perverting the popular will, though states ultimately adopted it anyway to maximize their political power.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

Well, there it is. Virginia could vote for a candidate 100% and still award the other candidate its EC votes to the other one with the most popular votes. Throw in some 6-month vote window, mail in papers, voting assistance and you have a real program going down. Vote shading and handling and misrepresenting the count so it could be sold as a "landslide". Of course, a "landslide" converts into "mandate" to enable more bullshit in the name of the People. Your vote still counts, just not how you think it does. MSN

I wonder if this could backfire?

 

[HikerGuy83]

Fyi regarding to what I was talking about....

When states decided to make electors winner takes all, were the founding fathers disappointed?



Yes, key founding fathers were deeply disappointed. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton envisioned electors as independent, deliberative free agents chosen by congressional districts, rather than a rubber stamp for partisan, statewide blocks. Madison explicitly criticized the winner-take-all system for perverting the popular will, though states ultimately adopted it anyway to maximize their political power.

Those founding fathers might have been disappointed, but if they were surprized....that would be news.

States were jealous of their power and that is why we had the Articles of Confederation and a pretty strong pushback on the Constitution.

Beyond that, I recall the discussion around independent electors. Just imagine the cluster-**** that would be in today's world where dark money and corruption abound. Would you really want that kind of system.

This system is simple and it keeps the powers of the states front and center. In theory a president could win election with about 35% of the popular vote. That does not bother me.

Next thing you need to realize is that D.C. was never supposed to be anywhere near as big as it has become. The money that that flows to that place to gain influence is unreal. Again....independent electors with no accountability (except through appointment) would a TOTAL MESS in todays world.

 

[BackAgain]

This heavily favors the states with the largest populations that are concentrated with differing values. It does not represent different independent State's wishes in favor of mashing numbers. What do you have against the electoral congress, which correctly identifies differing regional interests?

You’re right.

This so-called interstate compact, is really an attempt to effectively do an end run around the Electoral College

And it also injures the voters. Amplifying what you said in your OP, the vast majority of the State’s voters could favor candidate A. Yet their States Electoral College votes might go to candidate B.

This law needs to be challenged as a State denial of its own citizens’ franchise.

 

[berg80]

I agree. That's how I responded to the OP, by turning his premise around.

And I'll also respond to your "balance" argument the same way.

What you're describing is not balance. It's creating an inbalance. An inbalance to protect a specific minority... yours.

By doing this you are disenfranchasing other minorities.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning it perse. It makes perfect sense from your perspective. But the truth is is not about the Constitution or "balance", it's about power and how to keep it.

Despite the best intentions of the Founders, the compromises they made in order to get the Constitution ratified have resulted in unforeseen flaws in the execution of our governance. Notably, the disproportionate congressional representation of conservatives living in rural states by virtue of each state having two senators despite huge disparities in state's population numbers. And the disenfranchisement of millions of voters by the EC's design.

 

[Care4all]

Exactly! Dems would have manufactured hundreds of thousands of votes in every single area they control.
Could have been 5 or 10 million when they were done

Utter bull crap!!!

 

[Care4all]

You’re right.

This so-called interstate compact, is really an attempt to effectively do an end run around the Electoral College

And it also injures the voters. Amplifying what you said in your OP, the vast majority of the State’s voters could favor candidate A. Yet their States Electoral College votes might go to candidate B.

This law needs to be challenged as a State denial of its own citizens’ franchise.

Every state needs to go back to how it was when it began, each State should do it like the State of Maine...

Electors are given by who wins the congressional district and then sent to the electoral college, and whomever has the majority of electors earned in all the congressional districts, gets the two electors representing the 2 US senators for the State.

This keeps the smaller states with their weighted advantage of two electors for their Senators.....vs a monster like a California who Is restricted and also, only gets two electors for their US Senators.....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Despite the best intentions of the Founders, the compromises they made in order to get the Constitution ratified have resulted in unforeseen flaws in the execution of our governance. Notably, the disproportionate congressional representation of conservatives living in rural states by virtue of each state having two senators despite huge disparities in state's population numbers. And the disenfranchisement of millions of voters by the EC's design.

And the disenfranchisement of millions of voters by the EC's design.

No one is disenfranchised by the EC's design.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Utter bull crap!!!

Can you believe the ratio of mail in votes in the LA primary?

How many did Raman receive, after election day?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Electors are given by who wins the congressional district and then sent to the electoral college, and whomever has the majority of electors earned in all the congressional districts, gets the two electors representing the 2 US senators for the State.

That will split the larger states and likely have no impact on the smaller states that you're whining about.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

And the disenfranchisement of millions of voters by the EC's design.

No one is disenfranchised by the EC's design.

The left is. Same with the number of Supreme Court justices.

Wonder why? Lol