Electoral College Reforms (health care, leader, parties, Maryland)
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.
5. There should be a State-based electoral college. The winner of the most counties, wins the state. No more large urban cities controlling an entire state.
Take a look at California, which has 58 counties. Los Angeles county has over 10M people. Alpine county has less than 1200 people. Do you really want to give them equal votes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
If you can look at the 2020 election and think that we don't need reform then you aren't paying attention.
So would you like Kamal Harris to unilaterally overturn an election, or have blue state legislatures deciding elections with false electors.
Two of the last three justices should have been from democratic presidents, we are not going to increase the number.
The reform you're discussing would have to both on the federal and state level. According to the Constitution:
Quote:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...
So in other words, states are free to select electors however they want.
Issues such as mail-in and absentee ballots also are the jurisdiction of the states.
The only item you mentioned that falls under the federal government is the VP's responsibility is listed in the 12th Amendment. It states:
Quote:
the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted..
Take a look at California, which has 58 counties. Los Angeles county has over 10M people. Alpine county has less than 1200 people. Do you really want to give them equal votes?
Yes...the same "argument" is used at the State Level. If you lived in smaller States like Delaware or Montana without the Electoral College system your vote would be made worthless by States like California or New York.
Now, because California is Deep Blue, it likely wouldn't change the outcome of who "won" the State, but it would make it a lot more even.
But in states like Oregon where about 40% of the States population lives in 3 of the 36 Counties, it would give those other 33 counties more of a voice.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It originally read like this
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Also think about why the country was founded on a Republic system not a pure Democratic system. Think about the name, UNITED STATES of America, states, STATES, STATES!
State
a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
It originally read like this
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The Electoral college leaves the process of selecting electors to the individual states.
Why does something so properly decentralized to the State level need to be force fed at the federal level? Nebraska and Maine already work more towards popular vote than the other 48 states by going away from WTA and doing their electors proportional to the popular vote, at least for the House votes (senator EC votes are still WTA).
Any state in the republic can switch to popular vote selection of their electors tomorrow if they want to. That is entirely up to each state individually.
Take a look at California, which has 58 counties. Los Angeles county has over 10M people. Alpine county has less than 1200 people. Do you really want to give them equal votes?
The reform you're discussing would have to both on the federal and state level. According to the Constitution:
So in other words, states are free to select electors however they want.
Issues such as mail-in and absentee ballots also are the jurisdiction of the states.
The only item you mentioned that falls under the federal government is the VP's responsibility is listed in the 12th Amendment. It states:
It says nothing about overturning an election.
Who's vote do you think a candidate will work listen to? 1 in 1200 or 1 in 10million? If Alpine County and 30 others had a similar issue they wanted addressed, they would be banded together to vote against the wants of LA County. That is how the minority fights the majority.
democracy is 2 wolves and one sheep voting for what's for dinner
btw...we are NOT a democracy...we are a republic
The United States is both a democracy and a republic. We the people hold ultimate power. It's a representative democracy. Very few nations are pure democracies. This is a pointless semantic debate.
A republic is where people delegate their responsibility to elected officials.
It's as useful as people who pipe up to say that the US has no official language, sure, factually true, but a pointless factoid that serves no purpose in any debate.
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.
