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.
Elimination of the EC would bring about what you want to happen. But as long as the EC exists, the NPV plan is orders of magnitude worse (from the perspective of disenfranchised voters).
The "disenfranchisement" smokescreen lingers only because EC defenders have no other argument to fall back on. And the claim itself is of course farcical on its face. Every vote in every state counts under NPV and it counts equally with every other vote in every other state. There is no disenfranchisement at all, but there will still be those constrained to complaining to the contrary.
Nonsense. Practically there are only two ways to amend the EC. Either use the NPV or rewrite the Constitution. My personal view is that in the end we will rewrite the Constitution. But we have not gotten to that level of polarization yet. And I suspect it will be over the Senate not the President.
And again...the EC is a Constitutional quirk. And using the Constitutional quirk to go to a popular vote is quite reasonable.
Actually the Senate is much harder...and may well lead to a rewrite. And we should all hope that the Bill of Rights survive that rewrite.
First of all, where did you get the idea the the EC was a quirk of the Constitution? Have you read up on how the framers of the Constitution came up with this concept? The framers debated for a month and a half on how to elect a president that would represent the will of the Union. It was Thomas Wilson who first proposed the idea of a direct democratic vote (this was the first proposal) and it was struck down due to it being to, to use the words of those present, "majoritarian" and would sway the vote to the most populated states. The second choice was to have Congress appoint the President, that was also turned down, due to the President would be beholden to Congress. The compromise was to use an electoral votes system.
I would benefit you a lot to do some research on this subject.
You need to understand just how the smaller States complained that going by a direct democratic vote would take away their equal representation in electing a President.
Is the EC a fair system? California has 55 electoral votes, now it would take 17 of the smaller states to out vote California in the EC process.
Rewriting the Constitution is a non-starter, the only way to change the Electoral vote system would be through the amendment process.
First of all, where did you get the idea the the EC was a quirk of the Constitution? Have you read up on how the framers of the Constitution came up with this concept? The framers debated for a month and a half on how to elect a president that would represent the will of the Union.
Actually, they were debating the structure of the chambers of the Legislative Branch. The EC amounted to collateral damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
Is the EC a fair system? California has 55 electoral votes, now it would take 17 of the smaller states to out vote California in the EC process.
And those 17 states would have a 32-electoral-vote advantage that they do not properly deserve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
Rewriting the Constitution is a non-starter, the only way to change the Electoral vote system would be through the amendment process.
The Constitution very plainly allows state legislatures to direct the appointment of Electors as they may see fit. There is NOTHING AT ALL to keep them from using the national popular vote as their standard. Or the phases of the moon, for that matter.
Actually, they were debating the structure of the chambers of the Legislative Branch. The EC amounted to collateral damage.
And those 17 states would have a 32-electoral-vote advantage that they do not properly deserve.
The Constitution very plainly allows state legislatures to direct the appointment of Electors as they may see fit. There is NOTHING AT ALL to keep them from using the national popular vote as their standard. Or the phases of the moon, for that matter.
No, the chambers of Congress had already been decided on. They were debating on how to elect the POTUS, not the chambers of Congress, the compromise that they came was the one we use today. There was still concern by the smaller States due to there representation in the House verses the larger States. The framers fully expected that it would most likely fall to Congress to pick a POTUS because they didn't expect any candidate to get a majority. They first came up with the idea of having the Senate choose the POTUS in case of a tie or a non-majority vote, but decided against it due to it didn't represent the will of the people in their respective State. So the process move to the House, which was directly voted by the people. Again the smaller states raised the same concern, unequal representation in the House would sway the vote for the most populated States. The fix for this was to only allow the House, if needed to choose the POTUS, one vote per State.
The "disenfranchisement" smokescreen lingers only because EC defenders have no other argument to fall back on.
Smokescreen? It is at least as legitimate as your constant whine that your vote isn't worth as much as a vote in a small state.
Quote:
And the claim itself is of course farcical on its face. Every vote in every state counts under NPV and it counts equally with every other vote in every other state. There is no disenfranchisement at all, but there will still be those constrained to complaining to the contrary.
As long as the EC exists, there are statewide elections for POTUS, not nationwide. And the NPV would absolutely disenfranchise voters, as I have previously explained. The ONLY way there would be no disenfranchisement, is if the EC were eliminated.
No, you are simply making one up. As the Supremacy Clause makes clear, states gave up much of the sovereignty they once enjoyed in the mere ratification of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment furthered that process, particularly once re-emphasized in Gitlow v New York.
As the 10th amendment makes clear, the federal government enjoys only that power which is specifically delegated to it by the states, via the Constitution.
Constitutional rights cannot be undone at the whim of local majorities.
There is no constitutional right to marriage, or abortion, because the Constitution is silent on these matters. And because it is silent, the decision should be made by the states, or by the people, per the 10th Amendment. The Constitution does not empower the Supreme Court to make up laws as they see fit; that's the job of the Legislative Branch. But they've done it anyway, and no one has stopped them.
The system of checks and balances that the Founders created, as brilliant as it is, wasn't comprehensive. Unfortunately, they did not foresee the judiciary assuming powers for itself that they had no right to claim, nor did they foresee the other branches meekly sitting back and allowing it to happen. Yet that is exactly what has happened. The decisions in favor of abortion and gay marriage were nothing more than lawmaking by the Supreme Court, and it has been allowed to stand because the Congress didn't have enough backbone to tell them to butt out of things they had no business doing.
But, to try and bring this back on topic, "the whim of local majorities" is exactly what the Electoral College was designed to mitigate. The tyranny of the majority is something that the Founders did foresee, and one of the ways they sought to minimize it was through the Electoral College. Sure, it's nowhere near as intuitive as "one man, one vote"; but it accomplishes its purpose.
There is no constitutional right to marriage, or abortion, because the Constitution is silent on these matters. And because it is silent, the decision should be made by the states, or by the people, per the 10th Amendment. The Constitution does not empower the Supreme Court to make up laws as they see fit; that's the job of the Legislative Branch. But they've done it anyway, and no one has stopped them.
The system of checks and balances that the Founders created, as brilliant as it is, wasn't comprehensive. Unfortunately, they did not foresee the judiciary assuming powers for itself that they had no right to claim, nor did they foresee the other branches meekly sitting back and allowing it to happen. Yet that is exactly what has happened. The decisions in favor of abortion and gay marriage were nothing more than lawmaking by the Supreme Court, and it has been allowed to stand because the Congress didn't have enough backbone to tell them to butt out of things they had no business doing.
But, to try and bring this back on topic, "the whim of local majorities" is exactly what the Electoral College was designed to mitigate. The tyranny of the majority is something that the Founders did foresee, and one of the ways they sought to minimize it was through the Electoral College. Sure, it's nowhere near as intuitive as "one man, one vote"; but it accomplishes its purpose.
You seem to think your opinion about what is constitutional should prevail over the legal scholars who sit on our Supreme Court. I think that's ludicrous. In the end, what both of us have is an opinion. My opinion is that these decisions are well within the Constitution. Yours is that they are not. Neither of of our opinions count. The one that counts is that of the Supreme Court.
I have studied no fewer than five college courses as an undergraduate and graduate student on constitutional law. Your views on the Tenth Amendment have simply been rejected by the body that interprets our Constitution--the Supreme Court--consistently over the last seven or eight decades.
You can preach all you want. Doesn't change the fact that the opinion that counts has gone against you.
Further, these are issues which implicate the Bill of Rights. They have no application to the electoral college which is the topic of this thread.
So you are OK with the disenfranchisement that I described? You whine that in the current system, some votes weigh more heavily than others, but making potentially large numbers of votes weigh nothing is OK? That voters in California, New York, and Florida get to determine how Pennsylvania or Michigan's electoral votes will be cast? You are really OK with this absurdity?
It works well for the chattering classes, who believe they know better than everyone else and have a G-d-given right to determine the Presidency and the rest of the government.
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.
