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.
Nobody said you have to toss states' rights out the window if you let ALL the people in ALL the states elect a president (one branch of government out of 3 that are supposed to check each other) that represents ALL the people.
As it stands now, we elect a president to represent each state, not each person.
That's flawed.
It's not flawed. It's intended to force compromise so the president doesn't favor just the populous states. No one can be entirely elected from the most populous states. So residents of the rest of the states have to be given consideration. The needs of millions of Californians are different than thousands of Vermonters or Alaskans, but the government must serve them all. I don't think it's mere coincidence that as this country becomes dominated by the fringes politically on both sides, and compromise is out of style, that there's a push to eliminate the EC. It's a symptom of the country's deep division but going forward with it will ensure this country further drifts apart, and perhaps irreversibly so.
But it is clever exploitation of a loophole that I doubt the founders envisioned. The founders wrote the EC into the Constitution explicitly. The NPVIC plan would render it null and void. In other words it would effectively modify the Constitution. The founders intended the Amendment process as the means to modify the Constitution, and made it a very high hurdle on purpose.
The original intent was for the ECs to cast two votes. The candidate who gets most, will be president, and the other guy the VP. From there it evolved, and in 1820s the "winner takes all" become popular (except for some States), but the Constitution gives the States the flexibility to do it their own way.
The original intent was for the ECs to cast two votes. The candidate who gets most, will be president, and the other guy the VP. From there it evolved, and in 1820s the "winner takes all" become popular (except for some States), but the Constitution gives the States the flexibility to do it their own way.
That was changed by the 12th Amendment, in 1804, because the original process was found to be unworkable.
On Thursday, New Mexico became the 14th state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, joining California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia. The states, which represent a whopping 189 electoral votes, have agreed to shift their voting allocations once the group amasses 270 votes, the threshold needed to decide a presidential election.
Ohio is trying to be #15 and push it to 207 electoral votes.
Just shaking my head... but if that's what they want, oh well. No one seems to be making a large effort to stop it.
The whole idea of making every vote count through a popular election - actually makes your vote less relevant for the less populous states.
For a popular vote - the math says your vote count for 1 out of 130 million people (or however many vote).
Rhode Island had 450,000 vote in the 2016 election with 4 out of 538 actual electoral votes for president.
(1 vote divided by 450,000) x (4 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their vote effectiveness now is 1 out of 60.5 million votes. They just cut their influence in half by going to a popular vote. Congrats.
---------------------------
For California, about 14 million voted with 55 electoral votes.
(1 vote divided by 14 million) x (55 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 136,986,301 votes. With a popular vote - their influence will improve slightly.
---------------------------
For New York... 7.5 million voted with 29 electoral votes
(1 vote divided by 7.5 million) x (29 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 139,082,058. With a popular vote - their influence will improve slightly.
---------------------------
For Wyoming... 255,000 voted with 3 electoral votes.
(1 vote divided by 255,000) x (3 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 45.7 million. With a popular vote - their influence decrease greatly with a popular vote.
---------------------------
So just by my math... populous states win out with this. They have the majority of influence in the House, since it is based on population. Now you are giving them the presidency as well.
You will be sorry, for more reasons than math...
Mathguy - tell me if what I did with the math makes sense. I'm just asking... if anyone is going to complain about my math - have some substance. Don't just whine about it. We will see how it goes.
Good thing the other 43 of the 57 states have not done this yet!
That was changed by the 12th Amendment, in 1804 because the original process was found to be unworkable.
Yes, they rejected the original intent, and enhanced it. Now what we have what we have and it allows for some flexibility such as the proposal being discussed here.
What you see as "taking away" power is just merely creating equality. A vote in this proposal would have equal power no matter where it is cast. I personally think that is a beautiful thing.
And now regardless of where I live, I feel like my vote matters. Because today, it really doesn't matter in most states (blue votes in red states, and red votes in blue states).
Of course you do, and if your party stood to gain by keeping the original system set up by our Founding Fathers, you'd want to keep it.
Whether our system helps or hurts my political party (that aligns with my ideology), I say if it ain't broke don't try to fix it.
Our system has served us well for our entire countries existence, and no one can say our constitutional republic is as strong as ever.
Giving a say, all be it a small proportional one to smaller states (or big ones with small cities/populations) makes all the sense in the world.
Each vote in every individual state counts equally, and if enough people are of the same indet in enough states, a president is elected.
But to give only the most populace cities in a handful of states control over the entire country, makes no sense and is a recipe for disaster.
The values or lack thereof in large urban hellholes is hardly representative of most cities/towns/ counties across this vast country.
The Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom knew this, and they were also terrified of majority rule, even though they gave proper deference to a greater influence of it. Just not total control, less the minority not be protected.
Funny how liberals/leftists claim to champion minorities, but only the ones that can be exploited by division via race, gender, lifestyle, but not of thought.
They continue to try to divide and conquer for unmitigated power, hence the reason some are suggesting abolishing the EC, Senate, parts of the Constitution like the 2nd Amendment (which insures the power of the individual citizens), packing the SCOTUS, etc.
It is clear they are not only malcontents for what this country has provided to them and the freedoms they enjoy, but they want to tear down most if not all our institutions.
Only in such a free country could the liberals/leftists be experiencing the insanity of wanting to give up freedoms.
A local talk host here named Jason Rantz had a unique take on this yesterday. He points out that presidential elections have a big economic impact in states, as it stands. Candidates open offices, pay rent etc. Volunteers go to restaurants, shop, stay in hotels, rent cars, etc.
The NPVIC would greatly alter which states matter and which don't. Candidates would now want to focus on the high-population states like CA, NY, and TX. The low population states would be even more ignored than they are now. They would not only be left out of the campaign process, they would lose economic activity.
A local talk host here named Jason Rantz had a unique take on this yesterday. He points out that presidential elections have a big economic impact in states, as it stands. Candidates open offices, pay rent etc. Volunteers go to restaurants, shop, stay in hotels, rent cars, etc.
The NPVIC would greatly alter which states matter and which don't. Candidates would now want to focus on the high-population states like CA, NY, and TX. The low population states would be even more ignored than they are now. They would not only be left out of the campaign process, they would lose economic activity.
There would literally be no reason to ever campaign outside of 5 states & even then, they'd only need to campaign in a couple cities per state. This way the lords wouldn't have to worry about associating with us commonors.
Again you're mixing up the EC and the 3/5s rule. These were two entirely different matters. The EC was demanded and obtained by smaller states in order for them to agree to ratify the constitution in June 1787.
One of the biggest debates at the Philadelphia convention was over how enslaved people would count for the purposes of apportioning the House of Representatives.
It's worth noting this was at a time when 40% of the South’s population was enslaved.
The three-fifths compromise determined that each enslaved person would be counted as three-fifths of a person when it came to dividing the nation into equal congressional districts. The Electoral College, in turn, provided each state with an allotment of electors equivalent to its Congressional delegation (two senators plus its number of representatives).
The electoral college & the three-fifths compromise were created concurrently, the one would not exist in form without the other.
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.
