Senate Democrats introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
Actually, if you look at how the electoral college is set up, there is already a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that population matters. 81% of the electoral count is based on the count in the House, which in turn is determined by the most recent census. So 81% of it is already allocated based on population and only 19% of it is based on the count in the Senate (which is two per state). But this is not the biggest problem with the electoral college.
Click to expand...
I don’t see this as a problem at all. This is a good thing. Well designed, recognizing that states are not uniform in size.
LeafByNiggle said:
We could vastly improve the fairness of the electoral college by making a very small change in it.
Click to expand...
This assumes a fact not in evidence, that the EC is unfair. That is simple untrue.
LeafByNiggle said:
Outlaw “winner-take all” in individual states.
Click to expand...
Why undermine the power that each state holds to determine its choice for president? On the one hand, you are calling for pure democracy, while here you want to outlaw it within the states.
This is another instance of increasing power to the general government.
 
Proposed is 2 lions and a gazelle voting on what is for dinner.

I prefer the electoral college protection.

Otherwise liberal majorities on both coasts would vote us into trouble.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Also I would like to know what you think of eliminating winner-take-all in the electors for each state
Click to expand...
Individual States get to decide how they allocate their electoral votes. States with “winner-take-all” are that way because the State decided to have a “winner-take-all” system. There is no reason for the Federal Govt to eliminate this option for the States if that is what they decided.
 
vz71 said:
Proposed is 2 lions and a gazelle voting on what is for dinner.

I prefer the electoral college protection.

Otherwise liberal majorities on both coasts would vote us into trouble.
Click to expand...
I would oppose a national plebiscite even if conservatives would dominate. That’s my point: a progressive state like Delaware or Vermont should have their say, as should more conservative states. A national plebiscite eliminates that power and influence. That’s why I say that a national plebiscite is voter suppression.
 
Maybe i missed it but has anyone said how a national popular vote would handle situations such as 1992 when nobody received a majority of the national popular vote?
 
Maybe have a runoff for the two top vote getters and get rid of the two parties? 🙂
 
Last edited:
Xystus said:
Maybe i missed it but has anyone said how a national popular vote would handle situations such as 1992 when nobody received a majority of the national popular vote?
Click to expand...
How about 2000? The fiasco in Florida would be nationwide
 
Wikipedia tells me that in 4 of the last 7 presidential elections, no candidate got more than 50% of the national popular vote. This is obviously not a fringe occurrence and that i have not heard an answer from any of the people squawking on about replacing the electoral college with a national popular vote about what to do in these situations is pretty surprising. It is a basic question that should have an answer. This whole idea is just more “it sounds good” politicking with no actual thought behind it.
 
That was what, a matter of a thousand votes or so, when Gore got more an half million more votes nationwide?
 
Democrats are still sore that HRC got her butt kicked badly.

The EC isn’t going anywhere . . .
 
Yes but that’s because we need to know winners right away. Whereas Clinton’s votes were still being counted a month after the election. We are debating what’s fair though.
 
Xystus said:
Wikipedia tells me that in 4 of the last 7 presidential elections, no candidate got more than 50% of the national popular vote.
Click to expand...
There is no “popular vote”. It doesn’t exist. If there were such a thing, candidates would campaign differently. Voters would turn out differently. The popular vote is a myth.

It’s about as silly as saying that the Yankees won the world series because they took more swings at the ball. It’s ridiculous talk.
 
Three wolves and two sheep voting what’s for dinner.

Got it… That some in this thread see nothing wrong with that scares me…

Okay, I know, feelwings, eh?

But that is exactly what abolishing the Electoral College means. It means them that want that want very much to replicate the uselessness of the voter in eastern Colorado vis a vis Denver on a nationwide scale. That is considered a very highly desirable outcome and they see nothing wrong with a country that is driven entirely by urban voters. Which is what we’re going to get. Three urban wolves and two rural sheep. I’m not quite a sheep, but I live near them and work among them. It’s bad enough when they live in blue states, now all the red states are to be subjected to the blue metropolitan regions. Nice …
 
Last edited:
Nowhere did i say it counted for anything, but States do keep a tally.
 
Agreed but that’s not a popular vote. It’s a vote for the electors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top