Register to Comment
Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 143
Like Tree52Likes
  1. #1
    gracethepirate gracethepirate is offline
    gracethepirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,471

    The Electoral College can be changed without changing the Constitution

    The ideal option for American democracy is to abolish the Electoral College completely. However, this may be difficult as it is included in the Constitution and some State governments would oppose changing it.

    The Electoral College has twice, in recent times, allowed two candidates to become POTUS who did not win the popular vote: Al Gore lost to Bush despite having c500,000 votes more, and HRC lost to Don "Capone" Trump despite a popular vote close to 3 million more. She lost by 77,000 EC votes.

    Under the EC, one vote in a POTUS election in Wyoming is worth 3.6 votes in California; one vote in Vermont is worth 3.5 votes in Texas. This is clearly wrong. It is undemocratic.

    However, in the interesting article cited below, I have discovered that outside of the Constitution some elements of the Electoral College system can be changed, particularly the "winner takes all EC votes" which many States practice in POTUS elections. Thus, HRC got all of Minnesota EC votes despite beating Trump by only 45,000 votes, and Trump did likewise in Michigan, beating HRC by 10,000 votes out of 4.6 million cast. The winner takes all rule is determined by State governments, and this practice can be declared invalid by the SCOTUS.

    The author, Laurence Lessig, points out that
    [t]he Supreme Court has made it clear that the principle of “one person, one vote” applies in the “Presidential selection process”—first in a set of cases in the 1960s, and most recently, in 2000, in a case called Bush v. Gore. But the Court has not yet considered whether “winner take all” rules are themselves consistent with “one person, one vote.”

    Lessig mentions that Thomas Jefferson did not like the "winner takes all" practice:
    States initially adopted “winner take all” because it amplified the power of that state’s votes. This troubled even Jefferson, who recognized the incentive to try to expand a state’s influence. As he wrote, “[a]n election by districts would be best if it could be general, but while ten States choose either by legislatures or by [winner take all] it is folly and worse than folly for the other States not to do it.”
    In his view (and mine) Lessig (and others) believe that there is a change needed, and the SCOTUS can do it. I hope it does, hopefully before the next POTUS election in 2020.

    The Time Has Come: Reform the Electoral College Now
    The founders created the Electoral College, but the states made it winner-take-all. And that's the Achilles Heel where a new group has aimed its arrow.

    What do you think?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #2
    razorblade razorblade is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    4,520

    If Hillary had won would you even be starting this thread i doubt it somehow they were the rules that are in place they were accepted at the time but because the favoured candidate didnt win and instead it was the black sheep Trump all of a sudden its a problem and needs to be changed, can you just a you Hillary fans let your bitterness go its not good for your mental health.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #3
    gracethepirate gracethepirate is offline
    gracethepirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14,471

    Quote Originally Posted by razorblade View Post
    If Hillary had won would you even be starting this thread i doubt it somehow they were the rules that are in place they were accepted at the time but because the favoured candidate didnt win and instead it was the black sheep Trump all of a sudden its a problem and needs to be changed, can you just a you Hillary fans let your bitterness go its not good for your mental health.
    This is a question of a need for political reform not sour grapes, but you clearly do not have the nous to realise that. Instead you keep cutting yourself razorblade.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4
    razorblade razorblade is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    4,520

    Quote Originally Posted by gracethepirate View Post
    This is a question of a need for political reform not sour grapes, but you clearly do not have the nous to realise that. Instead you keep cutting yourself razorblade.
    Yes and had it been Hillary who had been elected and not the big bad wolf Trump this wouldnt even be an issue but because the media darling Hillary was defeated it suddenly needs to be changed, so it looks like its actually sour grapes from Clinton fans who cant accept she got beaten fair and square in a presidential election.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5
    silverharp silverharp is offline
    silverharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    12,056

    then the leftists will have even more incentive to flood the country with illegals and get them voting on the Dem plantation. Cant see it changing anyway, far too divisive. Im sure plenty of countries have a system where votes don't get translated into seats, its just a different way of doing it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #6
    razorblade razorblade is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    4,520

    Hillary herself had no issue with the college system at the time, if she had been elected she would never in a million years entertain the idea of reform but now that she lost its seen as unjust despite being in favour of it prior to the election.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7
    silverharp silverharp is offline
    silverharp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    12,056

    next election will be a landslide to Trump, the issue will quietly go away
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8
    gleeful gleeful is offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    4,950

    The simplest solution would be for states to allocate EC votes proportionately rather than on a 'Winner-takes-all' approach. States themselves already have this power, and until around 100 years ago, thats how it was done.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #9
    NYCKY NYCKY is offline
    NYCKY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    12,848

    For the umpteenth time, it's a Union of States and it's from the states that the Union gets its power.


    The small states will never give this up.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10
    NYCKY NYCKY is offline
    NYCKY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    12,848

    Quote Originally Posted by gleeful View Post
    The simplest solution would be for states to allocate EC votes proportionately rather than on a 'Winner-takes-all' approach. States themselves already have this power, and until around 100 years ago, thats how it was done.
    Had this been done in 2012, Romney would have been elected POTUS.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment