Electoral college

  • Thread starter Thread starter JOEBIALEK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In case anybody doesn’t know, this is what would have to happen for the electoral college to be scrapped in favour of a popular vote:
It would take 38 to ratify even if one could get Congress to pass it with two-thirds majorities. Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan just got a taste of what being a swing state means, joining others like Colorado, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, and others. Would southern states surrender their electoral power to the Yankees? Would Midwestern states allow California and Florida to pick their presidents? Not a chance.
Click to expand...
hotair.com/archives/2016/12/19/electoral-college-poll-slight-plurality-favors-action-that-requires-34s-of-states/
 
In case anybody doesn’t know, this is what would have to happen for the electoral college to be scrapped in favour of a popular vote:
Abolishing the Electoral College would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution — which would need a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, and then it would have to be ratified by 38 states.
Click to expand...
npr.org/2016/11/17/502292749/critics-move-to-trash-the-electoral-college-but-its-not-likely-to-work

Even this NPR article says, “the likelihood of the country moving toward pure one person, one vote any time soon is almost nil.”
 
_Abyssinia said:
Even this NPR article says, “the likelihood of the country moving toward pure one person, one vote any time soon is almost nil.”
Click to expand...
I wonder if the activists who are seeking to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote to elect the president (presumably because the EC violates “one person, one vote,” as opined by Sen. Diane Feinstein on Larry King Live) are also willing to abolish the Senate for the same reason. Wyoming, with a population of 586,000, gets the same number of Senators as California with its population of more than 39 million. No “one person, one vote” there… where’s the consistency?
 
Erich said:
I wonder if the activists who are seeking to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of a popular vote to elect the president (presumably because the EC violates “one person, one vote,” as opined by Sen. Diane Feinstein on Larry King Live) are also willing to abolish the Senate for the same reason. Wyoming, with a population of 586,000, gets the same number of Senators as California with its population of more than 39 million. No “one person, one vote” there… where’s the consistency?
Click to expand...
The Senate is a different branch of government. You shouldn’t duplicate the same voter constituency but unfortunately its already written in the Constitution.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So by being one big state they only get 55 electoral votes, which is less than what they could have gotten if they were two states. That’s a two-vote penalty.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Whereas North Dakota and South Dakota get six electoral votes instead of three or four.

In close elections those 2 votes make all the difference in the world. In 2000, for example.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
So by being one big state they only get 55 electoral votes, which is less than what they could have gotten if they were two states. That’s a two-vote penalty.
Click to expand...
It isn’t a penalty at all. They get the proper representation in the electoral college.

Leaf, do you think the way the Senate is set up is undemocratic?
 
ProVobis said:
Exactly. Whereas North Dakota and South Dakota get six electoral votes instead of three or four.

In close elections those 2 votes make all the difference in the world. In 2000, for example.
Click to expand...
Same question. Do you think it unfair that North Dakota gets the same say in passing laws as New York?
 
JonNC said:
It isn’t a penalty at all. They get the proper representation in the electoral college.

Leaf, do you think the way the Senate is set up is undemocratic?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying the electoral college is improper or undemocratic. I’m just confirming that it gives California a penalty. Just because it is a penalty does not mean it is an improper penalty. Maybe it is proper to penalize large states with respect to small ones so that they will not unfairly dominate national policy. I’m not taking a position one way or the other on that.
 
ProVobis said:
The Senate is a different branch of government. You shouldn’t duplicate the same voter constituency but unfortunately its already written in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
It isn’t the same constituency. The Senate represents the states. Equal representation for each state. This is why the 17th amendment is such a travesty.
It is also why the EC is such an excellent design.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I’m not saying the electoral college is improper or undemocratic. I’m just confirming that it gives California a penalty. Just because it is a penalty does not mean it is an improper penalty. Maybe it is proper to penalize large states with respect to small ones so that they will not unfairly dominate national policy. I’m not taking a position one way or the other on that.
Click to expand...
Again, it doesn’t penalize any state. Each state gets the representation commensurate to that which their state has. It cannot logically be said that a state that receives 55 electoral votes is being penalized compared to a state that receives 3 or 4.

But my question was about the Senate
 
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Frustrated after seeing another candidate secure the presidency without winning the national popular vote, mostly Democratic lawmakers in several capitols want their states to join a 10-year-old movement to work around the Electoral College.

In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state’s Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results.

More:
yahoo.com/news/more-states-consider-working-around-electoral-college-183558370.html
 
Erich said:
The Senate *is supposed to *represent the states. As you pointed out, the 17th Amendment broke that.
Click to expand...
The 17th Amendment was a critical step on the path to the federal government accruing more power to itself at the expense of the states and the 10th Amendment.

Before the 17th Amendment, each state could determine for itself how its senators would be selected. The usual practice was for the state legislature to appoint one of their own or one of their associates to the position. The principle was that the state governments had direct representation of their own in Congress, hence they could act as a brake on the power of the federal government when it threatened to encroach on state jurisdictions. Take for example, the practice of unfunded mandates. If the state governments were directly represented in the Senate, such laws would have less chance of being passed in the Senate.

With the passage of the 17th Amendment requiring election of Senators by popular vote, state governments were effectively removed from having a seat at the federal table and reduced to lobbying like other “special interests”. Remember the people already a vote in Congress: for their Representatives.
 
Then the electors aren’t supporting the people in their state. That’s not a democracy. That’s a dictatorship.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top