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 electoral college isn't gone, and there is no chance that it ever will be.
You’ll never get the amount of States to approve it that is neeeded. The question is will the SC find this loophole compact legal or not? In my mind it is
If electoral votes were distributed proportionately (that is, the winner of each congressional district gets the EV from that district, and the overall winner of the state gets the two EVs that represent the state's senators), Tennessee Democrats and New Jersey Republicans would go out and vote because their vote would be meaningful. And we wouldn't be violating the Constitution in the process.
I don’t like that method either because the tendency would still be for the states to break down the same. I would want a straight percentage. So example is Michigan in 2016 would have been 9-7 to Trump instead of 16-0. If used a district breakdown Hillary wins the state 11-5
I don’t like that method either because the tendency would still be for the states to break down the same. I would want a straight percentage. So example is Michigan in 2016 would have been 9-7 to Trump instead of 16-0. If used a district breakdown Hillary wins the state 11-5
You have your figures reversed. Trump won 9 of Michigan's 14 districts, plus the overall statewide vote. Thus, under a proportional allocation, he would have won 11 of the state's 16 electoral votes, with Hillary getting the remaining 5.
In terms of straight percentages, the two candidates were nearly tied, with less than a quarter of a percentage point separating them. Yeah, it was a close race. If we used a straight percentage breakdown, each of them would have gotten 8 electoral votes.
Why would Florida stay home? Florida is the 3rd most populated state. Many in NY and CA would vote im presidential elections - which many don't cause they aren't "swing states"
again. People vote. It doesn't matter where you live. People vote. Not land.
So what you are saying is that rural conservatives need their vote to count more than others for your side to have any chance?
That doesn't speak well of your party and the appeal it has to the electorate.
"The third rather trendy critique of the Electoral College is that it favors poor rural red states over prosperous populous urban blue states, suggesting, perhaps unintentionally, that poor peoples’ votes should be worth less than wealthier peoples’ votes. More importantly, this critique recasts current trends into timeless immutable facts. That most small rural states are Republican today reflects politics today. Democrats might do well to develop a rural agenda."
Think about it. New Jersey hasn't been a swing state since the 1990s presidentially. Tennessee hasn't been a swing state since 2000-when Al Gore failed to win his own home state.
If the EC is gone, the popular vote rules, but TN Democrats and NJ Republicans would actually go out and vote because their vote would be meaningful, won't it?
EC isn't going anywhere though. That would require a constitutional amendment, which just isn't going to happen in the near term. Nor does it need to. Each state gets a number electoral votes. It's then up to the states to decide how they should vote. Most use winner-takes all. That is if candidate A gets 51% of the votes, the entire state goes to Candidate A. That's not a requirement. It's just how most states have decided to do it. Maine, for example, does proportional. The two EC votes for its senators go to the statewide winner. The EC votes from its representatives go by district. That's fine. Just another way of doing it.
The only real movement isn't to do away with the EC. It's just to change how the states assign their votes. Currently 13 states representing 181 EC votes have agreed to change how they assign votes to follow the national popular vote to take effect when a total number of 271 votes have agreed to do so. That's also fine as it is up to the states to determine how to allocate their votes.
EC isn't going anywhere though. That would require a constitutional amendment, which just isn't going to happen in the near term. Nor does it need to. Each state gets a number electoral votes. It's then up to the states to decide how they should vote. Most use winner-takes all. That is if candidate A gets 51% of the votes, the entire state goes to Candidate A. That's not a requirement. It's just how most states have decided to do it. Maine, for example, does proportional. The two EC votes for its senators go to the statewide winner. The EC votes from its representatives go by district. That's fine. Just another way of doing it.
The only real movement isn't to do away with the EC. It's just to change how the states assign their votes. Currently 13 states representing 181 EC votes have agreed to change how they assign votes to follow the national popular vote to take effect when a total number of 271 votes have agreed to do so. That's also fine as it is up to the states to determine how to allocate their votes.
Agree on your first comments.... however.... The supreme court isn't going to allow the electoral voting in state A to be based on who won the election in states B ,C ,D, etc. When at the same time, states X , Y, Z are still doing it the right way with the winner take all rule. Violates the equal protection clause -- see Bush vs Gore, 2000 for more on that one. In short, keep dreaming. Hillary still lost, and the democrats are going to lose again in 2020 if they keep up this kind of rule changing nonsense.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40
Agree on your first comments.... however.... The supreme court isn't going to allow the electoral voting in state A to be based on who won the election in states B ,C ,D, etc. When at the same time, states X , Y, Z are still doing it the right way with the winner take all rule. Violates the equal protection clause -- see Bush vs Gore, 2000 for more on that one. In short, keep dreaming. Hillary still lost, and the democrats are going to lose again in 2020 if they keep up this kind of rule changing nonsense.
Uh...Maine and Nebraska. Case closed
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.
