What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Electoral College Needs to Go

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,190
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

States ALREADY give all their EVs to a candidate its voters didn't vote for. As I just noted above.

For example in 2016 exactly that happened in:

  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Maine*
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Nebraska*
  • New Mexico
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin
*Maine and Nebraska partially split EVs by district; neither Maine district elected a non-majority candidate but the state as a whole, did, while NE-2 awarded its EV to a candidate the voters did not select​
That's the second point addressed upstairs in post 156. This is also what's behind the OP's call for runoffs and/or ranked choice voting.

As far as the Compact being "unConstitutional" we all know by now that the COTUS Article 2 declares that states shall choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" --- the Compact would simply be the Manner they direct. That Article was strongly used as basis last year when SCOTUS (unanimously) upheld state so-called "faithless elector" laws, despite such laws running contrary to the original spirit of the EC (again see post 156).

CORRECTION: I forgot another state here -- Nevada.

So the more complete list of states where the EV winner could not win 50% of the state would look like:

  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Maine*
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Nebraska 2nd district
  • New Mexico
  • Nevada
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin

They don't need 50% to win, they need a plurality.

Under the Compact even States where the Majority voted for Candidate X, Candidate Y would "win" based on votes OUTSIDE the State.

Outside AND inside. See previous post.

AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

They are also guaranteed a republican form of government, and darts on a board wouldn't fit that.

Just like allowing people outside your State to decide a vote inside your State.

Again, I invited anyone to show us where the Constitution specifically codifies that.

I'm not aware of such a clause, if there is we have yet to see it.

I stated the two reasons, republican form of government, and equal protection. you can accept or reject those, but you can't say I haven't shown you.

How about you show me where abortion is mentioned in the constitution?

We all know where arms are mentioned, but progs like you seem to love to ignore that.

I haven't brought up "abortion", not here or anywhere else. I'm not female. This is a flailing red herring attempt.

I have however brought up arms, many times, in fact it was the impetus for my joining this site in 2012, so that red herring gets tossed back into the sea.

NEITHER is the topic here.

You stated "republican form of government" several times and you've been asked to quote where the COTUS codifies that. We have yet to see it. You mentioned "equal protection" once and never explained what you meant or how it's supposed to apply.

You went on about "where in the constitution is it", that was my response.

The issue will be decided in the courts, because no one has tried to nullify the vote of a person in a State for a State election by allowing outside voters to decide the outcome of said election.

Sooooooooo you're saying what you called "unconstitutional" cannot be shown to be so, within the Constitution. And yet you can;'t concede.

And in part two ---and we already did this several times --- persons in EVERY state have had their votes nullified for centuries, and it's entirely Constitutional --- which again, and we did this several times too --- does not require any kind of popular vote for President.

I believe it to be unconstitutional, just like I believe Roe V Wade to be, and just like I believe the Dred Scott and Plessey decisions were.

Just like I think gun laws in NYC are unconstitutional.

Not being part of the plurality is not having your vote nullified, the person with the most votes in the jurisdiction of the election won. Nullifying would be saying "X and Y" got more votes total, but Z got the most votes out of the three, so lets decide between X and Y.

Nope. Not working.

No, that's just you disagreeing and trying to pass off such as me being "wrong"
 

Muhammed

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
24,599
Reaction score
10,800
Points
950
Location
North Coast, USA
By JoeB131

The 2020 Election has proven one thing, that it is past time for America go get rid of the 18th century anachronism of the Electoral College.

The reasons that the electoral college is detrimental can be identified pretty easily.

  • The presidents it chooses over the will of the people always turn out to be bad for the country. Not only the modern examples of George W. Bush (crashing the economy, getting us into a war based on lies), and Trump (the list is too long of his failings) but the earlier ones like Rutherford B. Hayes, whose administration reversed victory in the Civil War, or John Q. Adams, who corrupted congress to win. They are almost always a mistake the voters needed to correct the next election.
  • It creates a false sense of mandate. Even when the people are clear in their choice, a 60/40 win like Reagan in 1984 or Nixon in 1972 appear to have a mandate with a mostly single color map when in fact there were plenty who didn’t support them.
  • It makes it impossible for third parties to gain any traction. Every year, we hear about how we are “Stuck with the lesser of two evils”. American history is full of third parties that challenged the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, but none of them really last beyond an election cycle or two. Why? Because at the end of the day, the best they could hope for is to throw the election into Congress. Case in point, the Reform Party. Ross Perot was a bit eccentric, but he brought issues to the fore that other parties didn’t. Yet by 2000, the Reform party was done.
  • At some point, it will make it impossible for the GOP to win. This is something that the GOP should consider. Texas came closer to turning blue this time than it ever has, and demographic changes will make that inevitable. Once that happens, it will be nearly impossible for the GOP to get an electoral majority, even if they win the popular vote.
  • It depresses voter participation. If you didn’t live in one of the ten “Swing states”, there was really not much reason for you to come out and vote, was there? Even though 2020 was a record turnout, 80 million Americans, or about 34% of the eligible electorate, did not vote. Why should they, when they were already painting their state red or blue before a single vote was counted.
  • It causes candidates to pander to the interests of small groups over the good of the country. The Cuban American community in Florida is still bitter about a revolution that happened 60 years ago, but it still factors into our politics, keeping us from normalizing relations with Cuba. Meanwhile, in Iowa, we are still spending money to subsidize ethanol nobody really wants to put in their cars. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
  • It’s kind of racist. The fact that small homogenous rural states have outsized influence over diverse urban states in this system is a real problem in a country that has historically oppressed minorities. The fact is that it has contributed to the racial divide in this country, where one party has effectively become a white identity party, while the other had tied its fortunes to minority turnout.
  • It is subject to a lot of potential mischief after the votes are tallied. The 2020 election itself was not in doubt. Biden won by 7 million votes. Yet we have had endless arguments about some 45,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin. State Legislatures, federal and state courts, faithless electors and congress have all been called upon to change the results, calling the whole system into question.
There is a very simple solution to the problems above. Adopt a system like the French have. You have a presidential election, where if the winner gets 50%+1, he wins, but if no one clears 50%, there would be a runoff. This will allow fuller participation, allow third parties greater exposure, and at the end, we will have a president with a clear mandate for change.
Do you understand that when you advocate the dissolution of the EC, you are also necessarily advocating the dissolution of our constitutional republic, the United States of America?
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
22,838
Reaction score
6,022
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
What you are failing to consider is that changing the rules will change the number of votes cast. A lot of people in Patriotic states like West Virginia and Mississippi don't bother going to the polls nowadays because they know how their state is going. Expect turnout to triple or better in many locations.

But the same could be said about Civilized states like Illinois and New York because they know how their state is going.

heck, when I voted, we knew Biden was going to take Illinois, Durbin was running against a non-entity for Senate and his fifth term, and the GOP didn't even bother to run an opponent for my Congressman, a guy whose name I couldn't pronounce on a bet.

Yeah, you know how your State is going, bankrupt.
You think Texas is doing great?

Sure a lot better than California and a lot of other Democrat-led states.
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
22,838
Reaction score
6,022
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
All the states are going bankrupt thanks to TRUMP PLAGUE and TRUMP RECESSION.

Why%20u%20lyin-M.jpg
 

Markle

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
22,838
Reaction score
6,022
Points
290
Location
Tallahassee, FL
AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

Do you really think the citizens of any state would just sit on their hands and let their legislators decide who to vote for in a Presidential race? Good luck.
 

Jim H - VA USA

Plutonium Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
2,961
Reaction score
3,227
Points
1,938
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.
This is true, and Americans everywhere should be alarmed. It can be done without any Constitutional changes. They already have 196 of 270 to make it happen...

 

Muhammed

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
24,599
Reaction score
10,800
Points
950
Location
North Coast, USA
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.
This is true, and Americans everywhere should be alarmed. It can be done without any Constitutional changes. They already have 196 of 270 to make it happen...

:rolleyes:
That's a non-starter. SCOTUS already shot it down because it's unconstitutional.
 

Polishprince

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
32,112
Reaction score
18,143
Points
1,915
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.
This is true, and Americans everywhere should be alarmed. It can be done without any Constitutional changes. They already have 196 of 270 to make it happen...



Riddle me this, Jim.

Suppose in 2024, the Republicans win a majority. But the candidate is Literally Hitler.

Would highly ultra-liberal states like California and New York really keep up their end of the "compact" and command their electors to vote for him? Or would they say the hell with that and have them vote for Sleepy Joe or whomever?

I guess a compact could be "signed",but it couldn't be enforced.
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
17,388
Reaction score
9,229
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Suppose in 2024, the Republicans win a majority. But the candidate is Literally Hitler.

Not going to happen.

Hitler died a long time ago; and even if was still alive, he would be Constutionally ineligible, on the basis of not being a naturally-born citizen of this country.
 

Jim H - VA USA

Plutonium Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
2,961
Reaction score
3,227
Points
1,938
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.
This is true, and Americans everywhere should be alarmed. It can be done without any Constitutional changes. They already have 196 of 270 to make it happen...

:rolleyes:
That's a non-starter. SCOTUS already shot it down because it's unconstitutional.
Where? States decide how to award their electoral college votes; that's clear, as there are many different methods.

In case it is not abundantly clear, I am a huge fan of the brilliance of the COTUS, including the electoral college.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,519
Reaction score
22,602
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

Do you really think the citizens of any state would just sit on their hands and let their legislators decide who to vote for in a Presidential race? Good luck.

That's exactly what the Constitution requires them to do and has since this country began.

Article 2.

Of the Constitution? Maybe you've heard of it?

What it boils down to is, how you or I or anyone else thinks a given state "would" react is irrelevant. Every state that has signed onto, or will in the future sign onto, the NPV Compact knows full well that it could require them to vote against their own electorate's collective wishes. That's all taken into consideration before they sign on.

Besides which, as I explained to Marty, those states are ALREADY throwing out millions of their own voters' collective wishes, and have been since the WTA jazz started festering two centuries ago. Even if a majority of that state's voters voted against their EC choice (see post 198). Fer fuxsake that happens every four years, and you want to sit here and pretend it's something novel??
 
Last edited:

Jim H - VA USA

Plutonium Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
2,961
Reaction score
3,227
Points
1,938
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.
This is true, and Americans everywhere should be alarmed. It can be done without any Constitutional changes. They already have 196 of 270 to make it happen...



Riddle me this, Jim.

Suppose in 2024, the Republicans win a majority. But the candidate is Literally Hitler.

Would highly ultra-liberal states like California and New York really keep up their end of the "compact" and command their electors to vote for him? Or would they say the hell with that and have them vote for Sleepy Joe or whomever?

I guess a compact could be "signed",but it couldn't be enforced.
Article 2, Clause 2...

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.


It is abundantly clear in plain words, just like "shall not be infringed."

But you are probably correct about it not being enforced; it seems like most election laws are easily violated these days without repercussion.
 
OP
JoeB131

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
137,375
Reaction score
17,281
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
It is Democrapic Governors and Mayors who are doing this, sabotaging their own economies under the guise of the #CoronaHoax2020. And Democrap Joe Biden who has threatened to do this on a national scale.

Right, the guy who thinks he's wearing Magic Underwear thinks Corona isn't a real thing.
 
OP
JoeB131

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
137,375
Reaction score
17,281
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Commies in Anmerica need to go. We are a REPUBLIC where EVERYONE has rights, not just the big city ghettos

If a majority of our country is "big city ghettos" (as opposed to rural ghettos) then we've kind of failed as a country, haven't we?
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
55,000
Reaction score
13,124
Points
2,220
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
Yeah, you know how your State is going, bankrupt.

All the states are going bankrupt thanks to TRUMP PLAGUE and TRUMP RECESSION.


That's not really true, but of course you know that. But keep spreading the propaganda like a good little commie.

.
 

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
31,256
Reaction score
15,110
Points
1,590
Absolutely not. Red states do not want to be ruled by blue states. Few large cities ruling over country which lives completely differently than them is insane.

Although, if we separate you can have any system you desire to choose your communist leaders.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top