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.
No, that's a bit simplistic. If you say do away with the EC and go popular vote, then you have to also do away with all senators and just go with the house of reps.
Anybody willing to get rid of senators AND the EC?
If so, amend the constitution. Let's vote on it.
Excellent point.
Our forefathers knew what they were doing, and it is quite amazing that they could foresee the future.
Due to the current situation, what are people expecting of their Presidential elections going forward?
Do you want to keep the electoral college or not?
If so, great. If not, what process do you think we already have in place to change it?
Once you've correctly answered that, then answer this, if change, then to what, the Popular Vote?
So if it is just popular vote then all we need do is hold elections in CA, NY, Il, FL & TX.
Those states will have 2 senators and representatives based on populations of each state.
Say maybe 100 total. Then those 5 states can tell the rest of the country to go pound sand.
We could name the party the JUNTA POLITBURO. No more Democrats or Republicans.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 12-14-2016 at 06:40 PM..
Reason: Fixed formatting
No, that's a bit simplistic. If you say do away with the EC and go popular vote, then you have to also do away with all senators and just go with the house of reps.
Anybody willing to get rid of senators AND the EC?
If so, amend the constitution. Let's vote on it.
Yeah, sure, let's get rid of the EC and the Senate. Let's vote on it.
Here's what you're up against: 21 states gain overrepresentation from the Electoral College and the Senate working exactly like it does today. Those states have 42 Senators representing them. So to start the process of Amending the Constitution, you need 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate to vote "Yes." So presuming the remaining 58 Senators are unanimous (they absolutely won't be), then all you have to do is get nine of those 42 to vote against the best interests of the state that elected them. Yeah, that's not happening anytime soon.
There is a workaround of course. A Constitutional Convention can be called by 2/3 of the states who can then start the Amendment process on their own. After that, 3/4 of the states would need to approve of the proposed Amendment. If all 21 of the low population states don't want it, you won't even get your 2/3. But if you did get it, there's no way you'd get 3/4 of the states. This would require all 29 of the larger population states vote unanimously in favor, plus 9 of the low population states. Effectively, you're asking these small states to vote in favor of being ignored and marginalized. Let's face it, they're already routinely ignored. How much does the US government honestly care about what's going on in Wyoming and Vermont these days? The existence of the EC and Senate force them to care, at least a little bit. They're not going to vote to erase what little voice they presently have, so obviously they're not going to go for it.
Consider for a moment: Any candidate who wins California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and New Jersey -- the 11 most populous states -- wins 270 electors and the presidency. So 11 states decide the presidency right now if nothing changed and 39 states just have to deal with it. Why? Because they've got more population.
The system works exactly as intended and doesn't need to be changed.
Yeah, sure, let's get rid of the EC and the Senate. Let's vote on it.
Here's what you're up against: 21 states gain overrepresentation from the Electoral College and the Senate working exactly like it does today. Those states have 42 Senators representing them. So to start the process of Amending the Constitution, you need 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate to vote "Yes." So presuming the remaining 58 Senators are unanimous (they absolutely won't be), then all you have to do is get nine of those 42 to vote against the best interests of the state that elected them. Yeah, that's not happening anytime soon.
There is a workaround of course. A Constitutional Convention can be called by 2/3 of the states who can then start the Amendment process on their own. After that, 3/4 of the states would need to approve of the proposed Amendment. If all 21 of the low population states don't want it, you won't even get your 2/3. But if you did get it, there's no way you'd get 3/4 of the states. This would require all 29 of the larger population states vote unanimously in favor, plus 9 of the low population states. Effectively, you're asking these small states to vote in favor of being ignored and marginalized. Let's face it, they're already routinely ignored. How much does the US government honestly care about what's going on in Wyoming and Vermont these days? The existence of the EC and Senate force them to care, at least a little bit. They're not going to vote to erase what little voice they presently have, so obviously they're not going to go for it.
Consider for a moment: Any candidate who wins California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and New Jersey -- the 11 most populous states -- wins 270 electors and the presidency. So 11 states decide the presidency right now if nothing changed and 39 states just have to deal with it. Why? Because they've got more population.
The system works exactly as intended and doesn't need to be changed.
The other 39 could secede - wait, we have been there and done that at the cost of about 6 million lives.
Oh well, back to the drawing boards.
Recount confirms Trump's victory in Wisconsin
Why is it hard for me to dig up stories that confirm Trump's win in Wisconsin, yet, when Trump's win was being contested by Stein, the media was teeming with the story, minute after minute?
Just look on CNN.com and every article is bashing Trump. CNN is the main reason for fake and false news reporting and CNN still has no clue how the public really feels about them as CNN believes the rabbit and crayon people are in the majority.
CNN and the left wing cronies still believe Hillary will be the next president.
welcome to the real world. Jan 20 we will have President Trump!
Just the post from earlier this year where posters were saying that Trumpeters and whatever they called them were going to see their candidate loose in a landslide..
Recount confirms Trump's victory in Wisconsin
Why is it hard for me to dig up stories that confirm Trump's win in Wisconsin, yet, when Trump's win was being contested by Stein, the media was teeming with the story, minute after minute?
Well... probably because the issue is settled, right? So everyone's moved on to more current news. The Cubs winning the World Series was a pretty big deal, and I remember seeing a lot of news about that at the time, but I don't recall seeing many stories over the last couple of weeks saying "CUBS ARE STILL WORLD CHAMPIONS!!!"
Reminds me of that old Saturday Night Live skit, with Chevy Chase as the newscaster - every week, he'd announce, "And in breaking news, we have just been informed that Generalissimo Franco is still dead!"
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.
Recount Result Silence
