No, he doesn’t. The voter in orthodox Dakota gets one vote, which is equal to the one vote of every other voter in the country. He/she has one vote toward the electors from his/ state, just like every other voter.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I don’t remember that.There we go with the labeling again.
I seem to recall after the last election how the Romney supporters wanted to divvy up the EV in certain states in spite of losing the popular vote by 4%.
It is no secret the big donors Hillary had and how much was spent to lose the election.
I don’t remember that eitherI don’t remember that.
It is no secret the big donors Hillary had and how much was spent to lose the election.
Typing on my iPhone. How North became orthodox I have no idea. :whacky:No, he doesn’t. The voter in orthodox Dakota gets one vote, which is equal to the one vote of every other voter in the country. He/she has one vote toward the electors from his/ state, just like every other voter.
P
ProVobis
Guest
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.htmlNo, he doesn’t. The voter in orthodox Dakota gets one vote, which is equal to the one vote of every other voter in the country. He/she has one vote toward the electors from his/ state, just like every other voter.
P
ProVobis
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=749401I don’t remember that either
Same tired argument , as far as I can tell . States receive, constitutionally, representation based on their members of the house and their 2 senators. It isn’t based on an apportionment of an imaginary national plebiscite .
If one comes from a faulty premise, as Slate does , one gets a faulty conclusion
Thanks. I disagree with Walker on the same grounds
E
exnihilo
Guest
Actually the War Between the States settled the matter that we are a unitary government. It was decided the states can’t leave. From this it follows they aren’t actually sovereign. And after the war the federal government did in fact dissolve states. It then set terms by which people in those states could form a new state. One term was insisting that an amendment to the constitution, the 14th, be voted in favor of.No. We are still a federation, we are NOT a unitary state. Yes, the federal govt has been trying to take powers away (because since the New Deal, the Democrats are very pro unitary state, pro big federal govt and they have inherited all of the “federalist” sentiments from the late 18th century.
We are still 100% a federation because everything not discussed in the constitution is the domain of the states. Some of the powers the federal govt has been given, the states can take a way if they decide to.
Also, the states can call a for a constitutional admendment without Congress and only the states can call for a Constitutional Convention.
So the true power does reside with the states. The federal govt can only “force” it’s social and domestic agenda by blackmail by witholding federal grants.
Point is, we are still a federation because the states the the LEGAL right and power to reign in the Federal govt even if the states choose not to do so.
But in a unitary state, the local govts have zero rights or legal power and the central govt can close those local govts if it wishes.
The states still have the last word: an article 5 convention. The central government would have no say, no power, no recourse to anything decided.Actually the War Between the States settled the matter that we are a unitary government. It was decided the states can’t leave. From this it follows they aren’t actually sovereign. And after the war the federal government did in fact dissolve states. It then set terms by which people in those states could form a new state. One term was insisting that an amendment to the constitution, the 14th, be voted in favor of.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s what I thought too until 2000.The states still have the last word: an article 5 convention. The central government would have no say, no power, no recourse to anything decided.
Effectively if pressed the US Supreme Court has the last word.
U
ucfengr
Guest
Walker wasn’t opposed to the electoral college, he was opposed to an effort to award electors by Congressional district rather than the current “winner takes all” model. In other words, rather than the winner of the statewide popular vote getting all the electors, the winner would only get the electors from the Senate (2), and the others would be awarded based on how the congressional district voted. In states like Illinois and New York, this would result in Republicans getting a number of electors, and Democrats winning a few in Texas.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Faulty premise? The present system is not a mystery. Neither is it immutable. The question being asked is: with disparities of ~5:1, has it become unfair to a degree that suggests that it should it be changed.Same tired argument , as far as I can tell . States receive, constitutionally, representation based on their members of the house and their 2 senators. It isn’t based on an apportionment of an imaginary national plebiscite .
If one comes from a faulty premise, as Slate does , one gets a faulty conclusion
It may be time to reconsider apportionment of electoral votes on the basis of population. If states still opt for a winner take all system, such apportionment would not be a national plebiscite. States may also like to reconsider winner take all - as some already have.
No. it doesn’t when it comes to an article 5 convention. If the states call one, there is nothing the Court, Congress, or executive can do about it, short of coup de tat .That’s what I thought too until 2000.
Effectively if pressed the US Supreme Court has the last word.
AFAIK, the SCOTUS did not act unconstitutionally in 2000.
P
ProVobis
Guest
It might be different if EVs were assigned by actual voters including the 7 million absentee voters but this would be in variance with their representation in Congress. But that winner-take-all thing has got to go.Faulty premise? The present system is not a mystery. Neither is it immutable. The question being asked is: with disparities of ~5:1, has it become unfair to a degree that suggests that it should it be changed.
It may be time to reconsider apportionment of electoral votes on the basis of population. If states still opt for a winner take all system, such apportionment would not be a national plebiscite. States may also like to reconsider winner take all - as some already have.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Neat idea. Might help turn out, and might promote greater attention across all states.It might be different if EVs were assigned by actual voters including the 7 million absentee voters but this would be in variance with their representation in Congress.
I am less ocncerned with that than the gross disparity of voter impactBut that winner-take-all thing has got to go
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree but my point was that their loss drove them to suggest reforms.Walker wasn’t opposed to the electoral college, he was opposed to an effort to award electors by Congressional district rather than the current “winner takes all” model. In other words, rather than the winner of the statewide popular vote getting all the electors, the winner would only get the electors from the Senate (2), and the others would be awarded based on how the congressional district voted. In states like Illinois and New York, this would result in Republicans getting a number of electors, and Democrats winning a few in Texas.
The winners almost always prefer the same system that got them elected so the laws will probably not change.
It isn’t unfair at all. The faulty premise is the the electoral college should or must reflect the national popular vote.Faulty premise? The present system is not a mystery. Neither is it immutable. The question being asked is: with disparities of ~5:1, has it become unfair to a degree that suggests that it should it be changed.
It may be time to reconsider apportionment of electoral votes on the basis of population. If states still opt for a winner take all system, such apportionment would not be a national plebiscite. States may also like to reconsider winner take all - as some already have.
If one believes that apportionment should not be reflective of a state’s congressional apportionment, then one must then be willing to reevaluate both the House and Senate.
Why does North Dakota get the same number of senators as North Carolina? Isn’t it unfair if the national number of votes for House members favors Democrats, but more seats are won by Republicans?
When a state considers winner take all, they say they are allowing the votes in other states to overrule the votes in their own state. Can one imagine if Trump had won the national plebiscite, and California electors were required to vote for him, even with Clinton’s significant popular vote margin in the state?
D
dvdjs
Guest
You are entitled to an opinion on fairness even if you don’t offer more than your opinion of how to judge fairness.It isn’t unfair at all. The faulty premise is the the electoral college should or must reflect the national popular vote.
There is a lot of wiggle room in “reflect”. I think that most folk would agree that there is some limit - a candidate wining the EC while losing the popular vote by some X% - at which the process would need restructuring, or the nation would need restructuring. There would be a range of opinions on the value of X, and the likelihood that X might plausibly be reached in an election, I think that most would agree that there is some point at which the system would widely be thought to necessitate reform.
On the other hand, if, by reflect, you mean a national vote only, it would be your assumption that is faulty. What is being discussed are reforms that afford greater parity among voters in the various states. The gross disparity that currently exists is an artifact of history; there is little justification to retain it.
What I’m saying is the national vote doesn’t matter…at all. It isn’t and shouldn’t be how a president is elected. He/she is elected by the states. It could be argued that it was a more serious concern that JFK won with fewer states than Nixon.You are entitled to an opinion on fairness even if you don’t offer more than your opinion of how to judge fairness.
There is a lot of wiggle room in “reflect”. I think that most folk would agree that there is some limit - a candidate wining the EC while losing the popular vote by some X% - at which the process would need restructuring, or the nation would need restructuring. There would be a range of opinions on the value of X, and the likelihood that X might plausibly be reached in an election, I think that most would agree that there is some point at which the system would widely be thought to necessitate reform.
On the other hand, if, by reflect, you mean a national vote only, it would be your assumption that is faulty. What is being discussed are reforms that afford greater parity among voters in the various states. The gross disparity that currently exists is an artifact of history; there is little justification to retain it.
Again, no one seems to be complaining that the small states through the senate have the same power as large states. That isn’t even the case with the EC. Large states, by sheer numbers, have a far greater say than small states. The impact that California voters have over the EC is overwhelming compared to Wyoming. I’m not complaining about that. Just stating the fact.
So, the fact is there is no gross disparity.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.