Electoral college

[commenter]

It seems like the constitutionality could be challenged if such a law went into effect. It seems that it would interfere with the intent of the US electoral system. It would mean people would still be “pledged” to support a particular candidate but expected to support the popular vote winner of the country. What about their pledge? Do you think Bill Clinton, a Democratic elector for NY State, would have voted for Trump if Trump had won the US popular vote? The Electors are usually hard core party people. No state law can successfully prosecute an elector for following his pledge.

Even if the states ratifying the interstate measure reach the 270 vote point, that system could collapse anytime any of the states choose to opt out of the interstate compact, if the (still) participating states now represent less than 270. So it could collapse even in an election year.

If this measure has been in progress for 10 years, suppose they reach the 270 vote point by 2020. That means some states would not have voted on it for 14 years. Would they **all **have to re-ratify the measure in 2020? Normally there is a sunset provision, a time limit for ratification, on these delayed-go-into-effect measures. What if they did not get 270-vote states until 2030 or 2040? The whole legislature has turned over from the earliest ratifiers.

Probably the biggest hurdle would be the various state constitutions. I think all the states so far have only passed legislation, don’t think any states have amended their constitutions. Given the variety of constitutions, I would be shocked if none of the 15 or whatever ratifying states would have state constitutional issues, that could take years of litigation. Up to now no one has challenged it to my knowledge, because nothing is in effect.

 

[oldgraymare2]

Then the electors aren’t supporting the people in their state. That’s not a democracy. That’s a dictatorship.

That’s right. I agree with you.

 

[DeniseNY]

If at first you don’t succeed, whine, whine again.

 

[Digitonomy]

It seems like the constitutionality could be challenged if such a law went into effect. It seems that it would interfere with the intent of the US electoral system. It would mean people would still be “pledged” to support a particular candidate but expected to support the popular vote winner of the country. What about their pledge? Do you think Bill Clinton, a Democratic elector for NY State, would have voted for Trump if Trump had won the US popular vote? The Electors are usually hard core party people.

In that case the state would choose the hard core Republican slate of electors instead of the hard core Democratic slate of electors, and Bill Clinton would watch from his La-Z-Boy at home.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’m a bit confused… for this to come into effect they need to get to 270 electoral votes? But what chance has that got? They need multiple red states to go along with this, don’t they?

 

[Tomdstone]

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.

What happens if an elector votes on the basis of statewide results?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Nate Silver wrote this about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in 2014:

All the states to have joined so far are very blue. Until some purple states and red states sign on, the compact has little in the way of territory to conquer.

all the solidly red states together have 191 electoral votes. To advance further, the compact will need to collect some signatories from this group.

fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-a-plan-to-circumvent-the-electoral-college-is-probably-doomed/

 

[Digitonomy]

Then the electors aren’t supporting the people in their state. That’s not a democracy. That’s a dictatorship.

A couple points…1) We’re discussing what individual states may choose to do. So you’re going to label it the dictatorship of Pennsylvania, and so on? 2) Popular participation in the election of the president and vice president is an innovation from after the birth of the republic. In the early decades, the upper house of the state legislature would typically choose the state’s electors with no obligation to who the voters of the state might have chosen. By your definition there was rampant dictatorship from the start of the country.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m a bit confused… for this to come into effect they need to get to 270 electoral votes? But what chance has that got? They need multiple red states to go along with this, don’t they?

If you consider FL, MI, and WI red states. But given only the four states it wouldn’t have swung this past election.

 

[Theo520]

I honestly can’t imagine them ever switching their electoral votes over to the GOP. In that case they would suddenly get ‘electoral college’ religion I expect.

 

[ProVobis]

What happens if an elector votes on the basis of statewide results?

We haven’t gotten to this part yet. My understanding is determining which electors are chosen.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

In Dertroit there were several hundred more votes cast than there were registered voters. On top of that, half of all registered voters usually do not turn out to vote. So, that sounds like it’s probably more like several thousand fraudulent votes. Urban areas like Detroit vote almost exclusively Democrat. If it happened in Detroit it also happened elsewhere.

The electoral college is not arbitrary or antiquated. It’s there to balance power from heavily populated areas. It’s also appears to be somewhat of a check against voter fraud.

With popular vote count margins being so slim, voter fraud would become even more rampant and would probably be the deciding factor in every presidential election if the electoral college was eliminated.

 

[Faxero]

The electoral college is not arbitrary or antiquated. It’s there to balance power from heavily populated areas. It’s also appears to be somewhat of a check against voter fraud.

The current system has been around for quite some time, and only recently have people begun to complain about it. They loathe Trump.

 

[_Abyssinia]

If you consider FL, MI, and WI red states. But given only the four states it wouldn’t have swung this past election.

Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin going along with this still wouldn’t make this Compact effective.

 

[_Abyssinia]

If you consider FL, MI, and WI red states. But given only the four states it wouldn’t have swung this past election.

Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin going with this still wouldn’t make this Compact effective

 

[ChurchSoldier]

The electoral college is not arbitrary or antiquated. It’s there to balance power from heavily populated areas. It’s also appears to be somewhat of a check against voter fraud.

^^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^

As such, we are not technically a Democracy, but a Representative Republic sometimes referred to as a Representative Democracy. (Remember the Pledge of Allegiance “and to the Republic for which it stands”.

As has been stated, it is here to keep populated states of one party from over riding the will of the other states.

 

[7_Sorrows]

If at first you don’t succeed, whine, whine again.

:sad_yes: changing the rules is the last resort! they have tried everything else!

 

[7_Sorrows]

The current system has been around for quite some time, and only recently have people begun to complain about it. They loathe Trump.

they wouldn’t be complaining if they hadn’t lost in the electoral college.
they weren’t complaining in 2008 or 2012.

 

[Trader]

Then the electors aren’t supporting the people in their state. That’s not a democracy. That’s a dictatorship.

As bad as this is, it can get even worse. Fox News had a guest today who wants the Supreme Court to rule the Electoral College unconstitutional! He actually wants the court to declare the constitution unconstitutional! He cited the same sex marriage decision as a precedent that the court can do just about anything. The late Justice Scalia was absolutely right about that decision (Obergefell v. Hodges) being a danger to our ability to rule ourselves. And yet, these people think Trump is scary.

 

[ucfengr]

I don’t see how, in practice, the electors of a state who voted for one candidate are going to tell the citizens of their state to, in essence, pound sand, we’re voting for the other candidate. Those people live in the state. I’m not seeing how they disrespect the voters and still think they’re going to be able to live in that state.