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.
What would the SC do here? States are free to choose how they divvy up their EC votes.
This is true, but controlling or influencing another state's EC votes while each state controls who may vote, how often they may vote and even whether or not any voting laws are enforced makes this, by definition, a federal matter.
In other word, yes, they may do as they like with their own EC votes, but they can't use their popular vote to effect any other outcome.
This vote banking scheme will result in the states listed being the only ones that matter.
Those states not included in this blue state club will be forced to effectively sit-out elections.
Moreover, the purpose of vote banking is to make the Constitutional prescription for presidential elections null and void without actually amending the Constitution.
Cheating, of course, will be rampant in states like California where a special ballot harvesting law was recently enacted that allows any yahoo to collect and drop off as many absentee ballots as they like - no questions asked.
"He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!" said Trump in a tweet that was later deleted. "More votes equals a loss … revolution!" he said in another.
The Constitution is a prescription for limited government.
If you want federal elections to be decided by the popular vote, amend the Constitution.
Wouldn't amending the Constitution be the small-government way of settling this matter?
Limited Federal government.
These are the states deciding to use popular votes across multiple states to determine their electoral votes. This does not require a Constitutional amendment, as the states are already empowered to choose how they use their electoral votes.
This is true, but controlling or influencing another state's EC votes while each state controls who may vote, how often they may vote and even whether or not any voting laws are enforced makes this, by definition, a federal matter.
In other word, yes, they may do as they like with their own EC votes, but they can't use their popular vote to effect any other outcome.
This vote banking scheme will result in the states listed being the only ones that matter.
Those states not included in this blue state club will be forced to effectively sit-out elections.
Moreover, the purpose of vote banking is to make the Constitutional prescription for presidential elections null and void without actually amending the Constitution.
Cheating, of course, will be rampant in states like California where a special ballot harvesting law was recently enacted that allows any yahoo to collect and drop off as many absentee ballots as they like - no questions asked.
Ohio is not generally considered a blue state. The ballot initiative will be interesting to see where it goes.
The Constitution is a prescription for limited government.
If you want federal elections to be decided by the popular vote, amend the Constitution.
Wouldn't amending the Constitution be the small-government way of settling this matter?
You don't need to amend the Constitution. It already allows States to determine how to cast their Electoral Votes. The popular vote States are doing just that.
The first time a Republican wins the overall national popular vote, but fails to earn enough electoral votes to have gotten 270 under the current system (in other words, the reverse of 2016), and all the blue states who signed up for this compact award that person their electoral votes, all the liberals in those states are going to go ballistic that their states just tossed their votes in the trash. But I guess that thinking out the various "what-ifs" isn't the strong suit of the states that have agreed to this.
Not at all. The person who wins the popular vote should win, period. If it's someone I don't like, that's okay.
Australia has a preferential voting system. That means that wining the 'first preference' popular vote is no guarantee of victory.
Our Prime mister is not elected by the public. He/she is the leader of the party which wins office. He/she can be removed as PM by their party at any time. This has happened I think 5 times in less than ten years.( 3 and 2 by party)
Registration and voting in Oz are mandatory. Voter turnout is constant at 98%. Penalty for now voting is a fine of about $200, if the electoral office bothers.
The system of preferential voting is a notable feature of the Australian political system.
Most similar political systems employ the Simple Majority (First-Past-The-Post) system or some form of proportional representation.
Preferential voting is employed in elections for the House of Representatives and all State lower houses in Australia, apart from the Tasmanian House of Assembly and the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly.
Preferential voting:
is generally used in single-member electorates in lower houses
requires the winning candidate to secure either an absolute majority (50%+1) of the primary vote or an absolute majority after the distribution of preferences
Interesting how Australia's systems work, thanks for sharing.
Here, the 'long story short' version re: election of the POTUS, is that it's all about the 12th Amendment.
Previously, the only time it 'worked as planned' was in the election of our first President. Enter stage right ... the 12th Amendment. Here's a link describing:
Without the 12th Amendment, the results of our last election might've been Hillary Clinton as POTUS with Donald Trump as VP. Or vice versa.
Hilarity ensues.
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.
