Is the Electoral College Flawed and if So How do We Change It? (activist, Christmas)
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.
If voters choose a legislature that will support NPV, then voters have made their preference clear: NPV. Several States have already made that choice.
All the states that made that choice are one-party states. Their political leaders clearly want a one-party national government, and see NPV as the best chance they have to achieve that goal.
All the states that made that choice are one-party states. Their political leaders clearly want a one-party national government, and see NPV as the best chance they have to achieve that goal.
They say that when you have to choose between a simple answer and a complex answer to a problem that most of the time the simple answer is correct.
Perhaps, those favoring NPV simply think the President ought to be the candidate selected by the most voters--an absolutely revolutionary idea huh?
They say that when you have to choose between a simple answer and a complex answer to a problem that most of the time the simple answer is correct.
Perhaps, those favoring NPV simply think the President ought to be the candidate selected by the most voters--an absolutely revolutionary idea huh?
The Framers gave this subject a great deal of thought, and they came up with a system that may not be perfect but which is better than any alternative that has been proposed.
But I do have a proposal which I think would be an improvement: that the presidential electors in each state be chosen by lottery of all registered voters. Then the electors from all the states be sequestered until they choose a president and vice-president.
The Framers gave this subject a great deal of thought, and they came up with a system that may not be perfect but which is better than any alternative that has been proposed.
But I do have a proposal which I think would be an improvement: that the presidential electors in each state be chosen by lottery of all registered voters. Then the electors from all the states be sequestered until they choose a president and vice-president.
I like your proposal, it's almost like the way it was from the beginning. Yes. the framers gave this subject a great deal of thought, it took them a little over a month to decide on how the POTUS should be elected. They debated the pros and cons of an out right democratic vote, then decided against it, then they debated the pros and cons of having congress pick the POTUS, and in the end decided against it also. The system we have now gives each state an equal vote and the people have their votes also.
I like your proposal, it's almost like the way it was from the beginning. Yes. the framers gave this subject a great deal of thought, it took them a little over a month to decide on how the POTUS should be elected. They debated the pros and cons of an out right democratic vote, then decided against it, then they debated the pros and cons of having congress pick the POTUS, and in the end decided against it also. The system we have now gives each state an equal vote and the people have their votes also.
Each state only gets an equal vote if the election is thrown into the House. That has happened twice, in 1800 and 1824.
I totally don't get your point. I'm not smart enough.
I think he's suggesting that one party could have a majority in the state's House delegation, even while the presidential candidate of the other party had carried the state and won the electoral votes.
So if there was no majority in the Electoral College and the contest was turned over to the House of Representatives where each state has one vote, that one vote could go to the opponent of the candidate who won the popular vote and that state's electoral votes.
I think he's suggesting that one party could have a majority in the state's House delegation, even while the presidential candidate of the other party had carried the state and won the electoral votes.
So if there was no majority in the Electoral College and the contest was turned over to the House of Representatives where each state has one vote, that one vote could go to the opponent of the candidate who won the popular vote and that state's electoral votes.
Oh OK. I guess we've introduced a new twist into elections that were around 200 years ago. In modern times getting an election into the House would be almost inconceivable. The last one that was a remote possibility was 1968 and even in that one there weren't enough logical Wallace (American Independent Party) states to do the trick. Even Wallace campaigned in the 1972 Democratic primaries until he was shot.
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.
