Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The time to care about and take action to make the popular vote more of an issue than the electoral vote - is before not after an 18-month campaign followed by an election based on the electoral college. Crying now that "one doesn't like the rules and only the popular vote should have counted" is capricious and irrational. (no response necessary)
The campaign for a National Popular Vote has been going on for some years now. It comes to a head again merely because the 2016 loser out-polled the 2016 winner by millions of votes. No one is calling for the outcome of this recent election to be changed. People are all about never letting such a damned fool thing happen again.
There is a voter ID plan that would be acceptable to most Democrats. The one proposed in NV. Basically you set up a DMV camera at each polling place and take a picture to make a photo ID for all who vote. Within a couple of elections all who lack a photo ID receive one and the photo ID is in the DMV system and can be called up by election workers when needed if the voter does not have it. One could of course vote once illegally but there would be a record of it and a picture. Suitable proof to prosecute if done.
The systems proposed by the Republicans almost always involve some level of difficulty for the poor and disabled. And it may take considerable work and effort for some. Maybe even obtaining a court order in some cases. The NV system is simple and fair but gets no support from the Republicans as it will not disenfranchise anyone.
So you in it to prevent voter fraud or to restrict Democratic voters?
In fact the only real defense of the EC is that it selectively assists Republicans as it did in the Trump case.
Besides New York and California, there are other blue states with important Republican populations that are always in the minority. Those include Illinois, Washington, Colorado and even Massachusetts. Counterbalancing those are Georgia and Texas, red states with significant Democratic minorities. That is why I advocate not a popular vote but an allocation of an electoral vote to each congressional district with two at-large for each state.
That way smaller states aren't entirely overlooked, but don't have oiutsized roles either.
That would only work if you could eliminate Gerrymandering.
Irrelevant. The rationale of the founders is long since gone. Their electors where supposed to be a set of wise men from the states who would not be pledged to any candidate but would pick someone as President.
Present EC has no such mechanism or intent. Simply a weighed vote by state populations that favor Republicans.
This is true and as intended. Just as the individual states appointing their representatives, United States Senators was intended. The passage and ratification of the 17th Amendment causing the U.S. Senators to be directly elected screwed with the intent of the constitution. Not to mention interfered with the carefully crafted system of checks and balances that went into our system of government.
Yes, amendments are allowed under the constitution, but the 17th was sold to end corruption, big and dark money influence and deadlock in the process. A lie in the vein of, "You can keep your doctor, if you want to."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911
While the Electoral College is not mentioned in the Constitution, the role of "electors" is, and that would be a bit hard to ignore. It is impermissible after all to interpret the Constitution so as to give its words no meaning. The manner of choosing these "electors" however, is simply left in the hands of state legislatures. On that basis, Maine and Nebraska have chosen a different system from that in other states. There is no reason at all why other states could not similarly abandon the winner-take-all model and choose to go in a different direction.
We need to change it to a national election. That is what the POTUS election is. I don't need my vote watered down because of an antiquated EC system that only makes sense to the winning party for FOUR years.
If you can't make sense of it then you have figured out why you are upset. Go back to school.
The campaign for a National Popular Vote has been going on for some years now. It comes to a head again merely because the 2016 loser out-polled the 2016 winner by millions of votes. No one is calling for the outcome of this recent election to be changed. People are all about never letting such a damned fool thing happen again.
I agree with your point, but it's also important to recognize that if/when the election criteria ever changes from electoral votes to the popular vote, the entire nature of campaigning will change with it, as will the outcome.
Given the electoral vote election criteria in place for many years, Trump won the election fair and square and Hillary didn't win anything (regardless of how many California and Oregon votes she garnered). Perhaps this popular vote drumbeat is only seeking a degree of solace or consolation, but it comes across as sour grapes.
Pretending "the dog would have caught the rabbit ... if only (fill in the blank)" presumes that if the 'dog' had taken a shortcut or done something different, the 'rabbit' would not have changed anything. There are a lot of good reasons we have an electoral college system instead of a popular vote system.
Even though the same issue comes-up with every Presidential election, it never goes anywhere because people realize it is fraught with far more state representation problems than the electoral system.
I agree with your point, but it's also important to recognize that if/when the election criteria ever changes from electoral votes to the popular vote, the entire nature of campaigning will change with it, as will the outcome.
Rubbish! Pray tell what venerable aspect of "campaigning" will be put at risk? It's all about TV these days anyway. Where anyone actually is in the physical sense is completely meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
Perhaps this popular vote drumbeat is only seeking a degree of solace or consolation, but it comes across as sour grapes.
Sout grapes? It is common sense. On other continents outcomes like this are what define "failed states".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
Even though the same issue comes-up with every Presidential election, it never goes anywhere because people realize it is fraught with far more state representation problems than the electoral system.
State electors are simply pledged to the national vote winner instead of the state vote winner. How complicated is that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
