NationStates Jolt Archive

The California legislature has passed a law that would give the state's electoral votes not to the presidential candidate who won the state, but to the candidate who won the nationwide popular vote.

The electoral college system heavily favors candidates who do well in the sparsely populated states in the center of the country. They get influence disproportionate to their populations and that's why candidates like Al Gore could win the majority of the popular vote and still lose the election.

I'd like to see more states pass this type of law so that everyone's vote counts equally instead of allowing a minority to decide who will be president.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/aug2006/californiapopularvote.php

If the states give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, do we really need the electoral votes at all? "This person wins the election because he won the most votes overall in the entire country, so we'll just give him all 538 electoral votes, and nobody else gets any."

If the states give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, do we really need the electoral votes at all? "This person wins the election because he won the most votes overall in the entire country, so we'll just give him all 538 electoral votes, and nobody else gets any."

We havn't needed the electoral college since the invention of radio. It is an assbackwards sytem from the 1700s. The poin t was to compensate for the inability of voters to travel to vote or even hear about the election and for the fact that some states held a much larger population than others. At the time, the largest state had 9 electoral votes to the smallest's 3. A grand difference of 6. Now the largest state has 55 to the smallest of 2, and more commonly 3. The entire point has been nullified by overwhelming population growth and technological development.

This is why reading the Constitution as a static document doesn't work and is plain ignorance, but that is another topic.

The California legislature has passed a law that would give the state's electoral votes not to the presidential candidate who won the state, but to the candidate who won the nationwide popular vote.

The electoral college system heavily favors candidates who do well in the sparsely populated states in the center of the country. They get influence disproportionate to their populations and that's why candidates like Al Gore could win the majority of the popular vote and still lose the election.

I'd like to see more states pass this type of law so that everyone's vote counts equally instead of allowing a minority to decide who will be president.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/aug2006/californiapopularvote.php

Questionable as to its Constitutionality...and BTW..its your opinion that its broken ..;) I do not feel the same way .

The California legislature has passed a law that would give the state's electoral votes not to the presidential candidate who won the state, but to the candidate who won the nationwide popular vote.

The electoral college system heavily favors candidates who do well in the sparsely populated states in the center of the country. They get influence disproportionate to their populations and that's why candidates like Al Gore could win the majority of the popular vote and still lose the election.

I'd like to see more states pass this type of law so that everyone's vote counts equally instead of allowing a minority to decide who will be president.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/aug2006/californiapopularvote.php

How much would you like to bet that this will be considered unconstitutional?

Questionable as to its Constitutionality...and BTW..its your opinion that its broken ..;) I do not feel the same way .

Why should the votes of a few people in Wyoming and similar states count more than the votes of a greater number of people in New York or Massachusetts? Does it seem fair to you that a minority of people should be able to choose who runs the executive branch of our government?

Questionable as to its Constitutionality...and BTW..its your opinion that its broken ..;) I do not feel the same way .

The states can decide to partition their electoral votes however they damn well please. A couple states already split them.

How much would you like to bet that this will be considered unconstitutional?
Alot less than I would be willing to bet alot of people here don't know jack shit about the Constitution.

This is why reading the Constitution as a static document doesn't work and is plain ignorance, but that is another topic.

I agree -- the Constitution, which was written hundreds of years ago, does not need to be obeyed so strictly, to the letter, in the modern day and age. If it is at all possible, we should elect the president the greatest amount of people vote for, an eventuality the framers didn't consider. Same thing with warrant-less wiretaps -- obviously, the framers had no idea what new technology might be invented in the future, so the Constitution needs to be adapted in the light of new discoveries.

Why should the votes of a few people in Wyoming and similar states count more than the votes of a greater number of people in New York or Massachusetts? Does it seem fair to you that a minority of people should be able to choose who runs the executive branch of our government?


Why should the state of california with its huge population dictate to ten other states national policy..in fact if New York and California and maybe a few ..as in one or two states... wanted to they could rule the other states .

Thats WHY the electorial college exist..the United STATES is just that , a collection of SOVERIEGN states that formed a UNION , the electorial college was put into place so that individual states interest could be protected .and EACH STATE WAS EQUAL in the election of the unions leader. Much like each voter is equal.
The popular vote is more than considered in cogress..that why we have THREE branches of government .

The states can decide to partition their electoral votes however they damn well please. A couple states already split them.

yes they split them but the person who wins the state gets the most out of the electoral votes. No state gives them all to the winner of the Popular vote.

Alot less than I would be willing to bet alot of people here don't know jack shit about the Constitution.

Yep. Probably. But that will not keep people from actually filing a lawsuit to stop this.

Would make things simpler to get rid of the Electoral College and determine our president by solely the popular vote. The College has to be one of the greatest inventions to hurt actual democracy here. Never mind the fact of course that origionally the president wasn't popularly elected at all.

Begoner21;11624698']I agree -- the Constitution, which was written hundreds of years ago, does not need to be obeyed so strictly, to the letter, in the modern day and age. If it is at all possible, we should elect the president the greatest amount of people vote for, an eventuality the framers didn't consider. Same thing with warrant-less wiretaps -- obviously, the framers had no idea what new technology might be invented in the future, so the Constitution needs to be adapted in the light of new discoveries.

Maybe they did consider such technologies and that is why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

Maybe they did consider such technologies and that is why they wrote the Constitution the way they did.

If you don't have an electoral college, then essentially, people in rural areas are fucked permanently.

It's a means of allocating votes according to the distribution of people on a land area.

The states can decide to partition their electoral votes however they damn well please. A couple states already split them.


Alot less than I would be willing to bet alot of people here don't know jack shit about the Constitution.


Righto genius...

Text of Amendment XII
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
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;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.



How does a law that conflicts with the Constitution become constitutional without an ammendment , O' pantless wonder ? the first time an elector IS FORCED to vote for someone he/ she doesn't support or doesn't reflect the votes of the people that elector represents..this law is toast..not to mention it takes the votes of all those who voted for the other person and throws them out..disenfranchising those voters..how the fuck is that legal ? by state decree ? Fuck that .

Why should the state of california with its huge population dictate to ten other states national policy..in fact if New York and California and maybe a few ..as in one or two states... wanted to they could rule the other states . Because they have the majority of the US population. The government is supposed to be of the people by the people and for the people, right? So why are the wishes of the majority of people going to be ignored?

Thats WHY the electorial college exist..the United STATES is just that , a collection of SOVERIEGN states that formed a UNION , the electorial college was put into place so that individual states interest could be protected .and EACH STATE WAS EQUAL in the election of the unions leader. Much like each voter is equal.
The popular vote is more than considered in cogress..that why we have THREE branches of government . The senate already ensures that less populated states will be represented. The electoral college doesn't ensure that less populated states will have an equal say in electing the president, it gives them an advantage. Those rural states have more influence because they control more electoral votes and to be honest I don't like how they've used them. In fact, most Americans didn't like how they used their electoral votes in 2000.

If you don't have an electoral college, then essentially, people in rural areas are fucked permanently.

It's a means of allocating votes according to the distribution of people on a land area.

Well the existence of the electoral college is fucking the urban areas out of their say in presidential elections. Why not let majority rule?

Would make things simpler to get rid of the Electoral College and determine our president by solely the popular vote. The College has to be one of the greatest inventions to hurt actual democracy here. Never mind the fact of course that origionally the president wasn't popularly elected at all.


You are ignoring the fact that the US is a collection of states each with their own interest . The US is NOT one big state ..then it would make sense to chose the leader of the STATE by popular vote..here we are having the STATES chose the leader..thats the fundemental difference .

Each individual state votes on who will lead them . Each STATE being considered the equal of the others .

Well the existence of the electoral college is fucking the urban areas out of their say in presidential elections. Why not let majority rule?

Tyranny by the majority ? Why do that ?

The California legislature has passed a law that would give the state's electoral votes not to the presidential candidate who won the state, but to the candidate who won the nationwide popular vote.

The electoral college system heavily favors candidates who do well in the sparsely populated states in the center of the country. They get influence disproportionate to their populations and that's why candidates like Al Gore could win the majority of the popular vote and still lose the election.

I'd like to see more states pass this type of law so that everyone's vote counts equally instead of allowing a minority to decide who will be president.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/aug2006/californiapopularvote.php

All this means is that Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Chicago, and Detroit will be determining the way that California votes in the electoral college. It's a bad choice for them. Fortunately, the Terminator is out there to veto it.

California attempts to break America's excellent electoral system, in violation of the constitution.

Fixed for correctness

Well the existence of the electoral college is fucking the urban areas out of their say in presidential elections. Why not let majority rule?

Sorry, my political party didn't base its strategy on warehousing millions of poor people in urban welfare centers to become lifetime voters (as paid employees of the state for that purpose).

You are ignoring the fact that the US is a collection of states each with their own interest . The US is NOT one big state ..then it would make sense to chose the leader of the STATE by popular vote..here we are having the STATES chose the leader..thats the fundemental difference .

Each individual state votes on who will lead them . Each STATE being considered the equal of the others .

Sure. Each state will have a popular vote and determine who will be president. Having a few representatives give the REAL vote is not how it should be in a democracy.

Very interesting. I wonder if it will pass. I don't think it will just be Republicans against it thou.

Tyranny by the majority ? Why do that ?

Better than tyranny by a minority.

I say allow the states to become simi-independent. I'm all for the federation, but states rights are almost non-existent now.

Better than tyranny by a minority.

Agreed.

Sure. Each state will have a popular vote and determine who will be president. Having a few representatives give the REAL vote is not how it should be in a democracy.
\
The US is a democratic REPUBLIC . And its system was set up so as to protect states rights .

\
The US is a democratic REPUBLIC . And its system was set up so as to protect states rights .

What states rights?

Sorry, my political party didn't base its strategy on warehousing millions of poor people in urban welfare centers to become lifetime voters (as paid employees of the state for that purpose).

No, it relies on terrifying rural rubes into thinking that the opposing party will turn their kids into gay atheists who will surrender America to the terrorists.

\
The US is a democratic REPUBLIC . And its system was set up so as to protect states rights .

The way I learned it was that the Founding Fathers simply didn't trust the citizenry to make smart decisions so put in a safety measure in the College to "protect" us from ourselves. Besides the popular vote gives every state the ability to elect the president to rule them all. States rights doesn't include an attack on the popular vote.

Better than tyranny by a minority.


There is no tyranny by a minority . The Majority of states elected a president . Because the MAJORITY of the people in each state that cast electorial votes chose that President .

The US is not one huge state you are ignoring that very HUGE and significant distinction.

The popular vote is reflected in the congress , thats where the " people" as a whole get their say..the executive branch is the leader of the collection of states that form the UNION .

Congress has more power thann the president ..read the constitution .

There is no tyranny by a minority . The Majority of states elected a president . Because the MAJORITY of the people in each state that cast electorial votes chose that President .

The US is not one huge state you are ignoring that very HUGE and significant distinction.

The popular vote is reflected in the congress , thats where the " people" as a whole get their say..the executive branch is the leader of the collection of states that form the UNION .

Congress has more power thann the president ..read the constitution .

And congress has a senate that ensures equal representation for each state. The most powerful branch of government, the one that can declare war, ammend the constitution and create the laws we live by already has a system by which each state's interests are represented equally. So why do we need a system like the electoral college that ensures that populous states get less of a say in who will be president?

The way I see it the Electoral College is a mix of the popular and state representation found in the Congress. Larger states get more representation than smaller states, but not to such a degree that they can completely overpower them. It's really the best way to make that sort of comprimise. Of course, I could easily see a state making a law stating that the electors must vote in a way that reflects the popular vote within that state. In fact, don't some states have such laws?

The California legislature has passed a law that would give the state's electoral votes not to the presidential candidate who won the state, but to the candidate who won the nationwide popular vote.

This law probably will not hold up as it disenfranchises every voter in the state of California. The people of California will have absolutely no say so in the election. If I lived in California why should I vote if I know no matter whom I vote for the electoral votes will go to the person who wins the popular vote nationwide.

Hooray for sanity and fairness on the side of the Californians. The leaders in progressive policies.

This law probably will not hold up as it disenfranchises every voter in the state of California. The people of California will have absolutely no say so in the election. If I lived in California why should I vote if I know no matter whom I vote for the electoral votes will go to the person who wins the popular vote nationwide.


you're right, it should probably be whomever wins the popular vote in California.

you're right, it should probably be whomever wins the popular vote in California.

Agreed.

Agreed.


But I have to say that I think the electoral system itself disenfranchises people in the same way. Even though you vote one way your vote doesnt count if all the electoral votes for your state go to the other guy. I think just have a popular vote remedies that.

But I have to say that I think the electoral system itself disenfranchises people in the same way. Even though you vote one way your vote doesnt count if all the electoral votes for your state go to the other guy. I think just have a popular vote remedies that.

Once again, it leads to less than half a dozen states deciding for the rest.

Break down the electoral system like a few have. Instead of the entire state, each electoral district votes by the majority of its own district w/ the additional two going to the majority in that state.

Once again, it leads to less than half a dozen states deciding for the rest.

Break down the electoral system like a few have. Instead of the entire state, each electoral district votes by the majority of its own district w/ the additional two going to the majority in that state.

No, with the popular vote the state doesnt decide... the individual does. You seem to think that living in a state decides ones politics. Is that why you vote for who you do... because the people around you vote a certain way?

No, with the popular vote the state doesnt decide... the individual does. You seem to think that living in a state decides ones politics. Is that why you vote for who you do... because the people around you vote a certain way?

It would only be the major cities that get all the attention if we went to a popular vote.

It would only be the major cities that get all the attention if we went to a popular vote.

I don't believe it, I think that if you have a tv or internet connection you can see all the ads and decide who you want to vote for (national television ads don't discriminate). One person still gets one vote.

No, with the popular vote the state doesnt decide... the individual does. You seem to think that living in a state decides ones politics. Is that why you vote for who you do... because the people around you vote a certain way?

So you don't think that different areas of the country hold different views, have different cultures?

I don't believe it, I think that if you have a tv or internet connection you can see all the ads and decide who you want to vote for (national television ads don't discriminate). One person still gets one vote.


"Ads don't discriminate"? No, but they distort the truth and are banned 60 days before the election.

So you don't think that different areas of the country hold different views, have different cultures?

Sure they do have cultures but individuals still vote as individuals and not as a group and if the majority of individuals feels that a person should be president because he/she best represents them personally then I think that is the way it should be.

In all those different cultures there is a hugely diverse mix of thoughts and opinions and party members.

"Ads don't discriminate"? No, but they distort the truth and are banned 60 days before the election.

Ads can discriminate and distort the truth but I meant that national television ads dont discriminate who they are shown to. Everyone can see them if they choose to. The candidates get their message out to everyone. It's not like the candidates dont already focus on high population centers anyway.

Ads can discriminate and distort the truth but I meant that national television ads dont discriminate who they are shown to. Everyone can see them if they choose to. The candidates get their message out to everyone. It's not like the candidates dont already focus on high population centers anyway.

GWB got in by focusing on the less populated, rural states. The whole purpose of it was to prevent high population centers from dictating to the less populated areas, hence tyranny by the majority.

Along those lines, I guess you support the anti-gay marriage proposals that were passed in various states. They were supported by the majority. Same thing.

GWB got in by focusing on the less populated, rural states. The whole purpose of it was to prevent high population centers from dictating to the less populated areas, hence tyranny by the majority.

Along those lines, I guess you support the anti-gay marriage proposals that were passed in various states. They were supported by the majority. Same thing.


SO then the low population centers decided who would be president instead? seems that if the majority didnt want GWB as President then the low population centers dictated to the higest populated areas, hence tyranny by the minority.

Also I support a states right to decide for itself even though I think the anti-gay marriage law is bigoted and backwards.

I'd rather see America change its electoral system to that of a preferential vote, where the all the candidates are ranked by voters; and the one w/the highest overall ranking wins.

If the states give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, do we really need the electoral votes at all? "This person wins the election because he won the most votes overall in the entire country, so we'll just give him all 538 electoral votes, and nobody else gets any."

no. the point is that this is an end run around needing a constitutional amendment (which would never pass) to create a situation that has been favored and demanded by a supermajority of the population for at least several decades already.

This law probably will not hold up as it disenfranchises every voter in the state of California. The people of California will have absolutely no say so in the election. If I lived in California why should I vote if I know no matter whom I vote for the electoral votes will go to the person who wins the popular vote nationwide.

and why exactly should they vote now?

you're right, it should probably be whomever wins the popular vote in California.

gets to be president, or gets california's ec votes?

gets to be president, or gets california's ec votes?

Well I think we should do away with electoral votes altogether, but I was thinking that they should give the electoral votes to whomever won the popular vote in the state rather than nationwide.

Well I think we should do away with electoral votes altogether, but I was thinking that they should give the electoral votes to whomever won the popular vote in the state rather than nationwide.

so keep things exactly as they are right now?

so keep things exactly as they are right now?


yes - lol

I've been long in favor of a 'district-by-district' method for the electoral college, with the two senate seat votes going to the statewide winner.

And congress has a senate that ensures equal representation for each state. The most powerful branch of government, the one that can declare war, ammend the constitution and create the laws we live by already has a system by which each state's interests are represented equally. So why do we need a system like the electoral college that ensures that populous states get less of a say in who will be president?

The electoral college ensures that more populous states do get a bigger say in who becomes president. It also ensures that States with small populations are not completely without a say in who is elected prez and vice prez. It is a cpmpromise between how the house is elected and how the senate is elected. It is a comprimise between State power and individual power and it's a good one.

it seems to me that this series of laws being made in a few states completely annihilates every argument that can be made about how the ec is necessary for small states or protects rural interests or whatever. the fact of the matter is that it is only going to take 11 states or so to effectively abolish it. 11 states. and there ain't nothing any of the small states could do about it. i believe the line that comes next would be "bwahahahaha!"

The electoral college ensures that more populous states do get a bigger say in who becomes president. It also ensures that States with small populations are not completely without a say in who is elected prez and vice prez. It is a cpmpromise between how the house is elected and how the senate is elected. It is a comprimise between State power and individual power and it's a good one.

I don't think it's a good one. I don't think disenfranchising the majority is a positive. The people should pick their president, not the states.

A voter in a smaller state should not have his or her vote mean more than mine. It's unnaceptable.

However, California is just going to make things worse. The reform that needs to happen is an ammendmant replacing the outmoded and unfair BS that is the electoral college with a proper popular vote.

That way the small states don't have tyranical power over the large states. It's just not even or fair. Let the people decide, not some state's rights nonsense. The states should never have even existed, if they are now to be used as tyrants.

However, California is just going to make things worse. The reform that needs to happen is an ammendmant replacing the outmoded and unfair BS that is the electoral college with a proper popular vote.

in your view how exactly is it going to make things worse? by implementing a sytem that acts exactly like a nationwide popular vote but actually has a decent chance of really happening?

Wonder if Arnie will sign it? I don't see much downside in it, politically.

Originally Posted by Kinda Sensible people View Post
However, California is just going to make things worse. The reform that needs to happen is an ammendmant replacing the outmoded and unfair BS that is the electoral college with a proper popular vote.

NO FUCKING WAY. I don't want to be dictated to by Cali and NY over who gets to be President.

I'm registered in Washington. We may not be the least populous state, but we aren't exactly the most populous either.

People in the little states want to be taken seriously by the administration too. If we had a straight plebiscite for the Presidency, none of our needs or wants would even be considered. Our votes would disappear into the masses from the big population states; our voice would not be heard.

The electoral college protects us from the bigger states. We are a sovereign state in the union. We matter as much as Cali, or NY, or Illinois. Our choice is, and should be, equal to theirs.

The electoral college protects us from the bigger states.

no, it doesn't

Wonder if Arnie will sign it? I don't see much downside in it, politically.

I thought that I had read an article that stated he would veto it, but the LA Times states that he has no position, yet.

Considering that another 11 states need to pass similar legislation, the odds of it ever being activated seem slim.

I'd prefer a straight-away vote on an amendment, personally.

Wonder if Arnie will sign it? I don't see much downside in it, politically.

i'd say the fact that it's a decent idea (within the current framework, anyway) probably counts as something of a downside

NO FUCKING WAY. I don't want to be dictated to by Cali and NY over who gets to be President.

I'm registered in Washington. We may not be the least populous state, but we aren't exactly the most populous either.

People in the little states want to be taken seriously by the administration too. If we had a straight plebiscite for the Presidency, none of our needs or wants would even be considered. Our votes would disappear into the masses from the big population states; our voice would not be heard.

The electoral college protects us from the bigger states. We are a sovereign state in the union. We matter as much as Cali, or NY, or Illinois. Our choice is, and should be, equal to theirs.

Hate to break it to you, but no national candidate takes you seriously right now anyway, because your state is reliably blue in electoral politics. Neither Kerry nor Bush spent any time in Washington state in 2004, and chances are neither major candidate will do so in 2008 either, not unless there's a sea change in the state. At least under a plan like this, you might get some attention, because you have major population centers, and it would be worth it for a Republican candidate to try to get a few more votes out of it.

in your view how exactly is it going to make things worse? by implementing a sytem that acts exactly like a nationwide popular vote but actually has a decent chance of really happening?

Because as more blue states (the only states who would do that), adopt this, the balance shifts to be totally uneven, because of the states that don't do it. It needs to be done on the national level.

no, it doesn't

I entirely disagree. It prevents larger states from using their population to bully us into acepting a President of their choice. That's protection.

NO FUCKING WAY. I don't want to be dictated to by Cali and NY over who gets to be President.

I'm registered in Washington. We may not be the least populous state, but we aren't exactly the most populous either.

People in the little states want to be taken seriously by the administration too. If we had a straight plebiscite for the Presidency, none of our needs or wants would even be considered. Our votes would disappear into the masses from the big population states; our voice would not be heard.

The electoral college protects us from the bigger states. We are a sovereign state in the union. We matter as much as Cali, or NY, or Illinois. Our choice is, and should be, equal to theirs.
So it's better that more populous states don't get taken seriously by the administration? Let's face it, the Republican party has figured out that it can get electoral votes in the many sparsely populated states by shitting on the Northeastern states and California, using stereotypes of elitist Hollywood and Massachusetts liberals to rile up the heartland. The majority in this country are being discriminated against and the electoral college makes it possible.

Hate to break it to you, but no national candidate takes you seriously right now anyway, because your state is reliably blue in electoral politics. Neither Kerry nor Bush spent any time in Washington state in 2004, and chances are neither major candidate will do so in 2008 either, not unless there's a sea change in the state. At least under a plan like this, you might get some attention, because you have major population centers, and it would be worth it for a Republican candidate to try to get a few more votes out of it.

Right now, you are largely correct. But voting habits and demographics change over time; twenty years from now, Washington could be seen as a "swing state". Then watch the candidates vie for air time on our TV channels!

I'd prefer a straight-away vote on an amendment, personally.

a constitutional ammendment is essentially impossible on this issue. all that needing 2/3 of both the house and senate and then needing 38 states to approve it makes things rather complicated. luckily for the big states, the ec gives them a huge amount of power, so they can just change it any way they like - hell, they could form a block that just always elected bill clinton, no matter who was actually running in the election or how many votes they got.

Because as more blue states (the only states who would do that), adopt this, the balance shifts to be totally uneven, because of the states that don't do it. It needs to be done on the national level.
The whole point of this system is that state by state wouldn't matter anymore. The states in the compact would look at the winner of the overall popular vote and cast their electoral votes for that person, no matter what happens in their individual state. And since it wouldn't go into effect until there were enough states to guarantee a victor, it wouldn't matter if not every state went along with it.

The end effect is that nationally, there wouldn't be any more of this red state/blue state crap. It would be whoever got the most popular votes.

NO FUCKING WAY. I don't want to be dictated to by Cali and NY over who gets to be President.

I'm registered in Washington. We may not be the least populous state, but we aren't exactly the most populous either.

People in the little states want to be taken seriously by the administration too. If we had a straight plebiscite for the Presidency, none of our needs or wants would even be considered. Our votes would disappear into the masses from the big population states; our voice would not be heard.

The electoral college protects us from the bigger states. We are a sovereign state in the union. We matter as much as Cali, or NY, or Illinois. Our choice is, and should be, equal to theirs.

No, it shouldn't. We are a smaller state than Cali or NY, or Illinois. There are less people here. We should not have more power than them per unit person. My vote should not be more important than a voter in New York's is. That is wrong.

We, as citizens, should matter as much as citizens from Cali or NY. As a state, we should not because there are less people here. States should not matter more than people.

Frankly, I'd be just as happy to see the power of states curtailed significantly, so that they could do what they ought to be doing, which is being administrative zones, not seperate countries.

Right now, you are largely correct. But voting habits and demographics change over time; twenty years from now, Washington could be seen as a "swing state". Then watch the candidates vie for air time on our TV channels!

My point is that you could have candidates interested in you now as opposed to some hypothetical future that may never come.

The whole point of this system is that state by state wouldn't matter anymore. The states in the compact would look at the winner of the overall popular vote and cast their electoral votes for that person, no matter what happens in their individual state. And since it wouldn't go into effect until there were enough states to guarantee a victor, it wouldn't matter if not every state went along with it.

The end effect is that nationally, there wouldn't be any more of this red state/blue state crap. It would be whoever got the most popular votes.

You assume that all the states would follow suit. You should know this is not the case. What will happen is that big, and blue, states will go along with this, but small, red, states will oppose it because it lessens their power.

So it's better that more populous states don't get taken seriously by the administration? Let's face it, the Republican party has figured out that it can get electoral votes in the many sparsely populated states by shitting on the Northeastern states and California, using stereotypes of elitist Hollywood and Massachusetts liberals to rile up the heartland. The majority in this country are being discriminated against and the electoral college makes it possible.

They may be the majority in sheer numbers, but they hold only the minority of states. Both ways of considering the majority, in our system, are equally valid.

And hell, if you've got "the majority", why cant you get a good grip on the House of Representatives?

You assume that all the states would follow suit. You should know this is not the case. What will happen is that big, and blue, states will go along with this, but small, red, states will oppose it because it lessens their power.What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter who goes along and who doesn't. Winning a state would become completely irrelevant, because enough states would have pledged their electoral votes--no matter who wins in their individual states--to the popular vote winner. Period, end of story.

Let's say that the compact had been in effect in 2004, and that blue states were the only ones in it. That would have turned Bush's meager electoral win into a landslide because California and all the rest would have cast their electoral votes for Bush, even though he lost their states. There would have been no chance for Kerry to have won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, as would have happened if he'd won Ohio.

I entirely disagree. It prevents larger states from using their population to bully us into acepting a President of their choice. That's protection.

So who protected the majority of good American citizens from being bullied into accepting Bush in 2000? The red states, though they contain a minority of the nation's population, got to overrule the majority and I predict that as America becomes more polarized we'll see this more and more until the electoral college is gone.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter who goes along and who doesn't. Winning a state would become completely irrelevant, because enough states would have pledged their electoral votes--no matter who wins in their individual states--to the popular vote winner. Period, end of story.

Let's say that the compact had been in effect in 2004, and that blue states were the only ones in it. That would have turned Bush's meager electoral win into a landslide because California and all the rest would have cast their electoral votes for Bush, even though he lost their states. There would have been no chance for Kerry to have won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, as would have happened if he'd won Ohio.

But in 2000, when that really did happen, it wouldn't have made a difference.

So who protected the majority of good American citizens from being bullied into accepting Bush in 2000? The red states, though they contain a minority of the nation's population, got to overrule the majority and I predict that as America becomes more polarized we'll see this more and more until the electoral college is gone.

Hell, if it weren't for Ken Blackwell, we might have a lot of red staters supporting this, because we'd have had twice in a row where a popular vote winner lost to an electoral college winner.

No, it shouldn't. We are a smaller state than Cali or NY, or Illinois. There are less people here. We should not have more power than them per unit person. My vote should not be more important than a voter in New York's is. That is wrong.

We, as citizens, should matter as much as citizens from Cali or NY. As a state, we should not because there are less people here. States should not matter more than people.

Frankly, I'd be just as happy to see the power of states curtailed significantly, so that they could do what they ought to be doing, which is being administrative zones, not seperate countries.

The only time a vote is equal is when it is for the House of Reps, as best we can make it, anyway. Your vote for a Senator is not equal to the vote of a Californian. Your vote for any state appointment is of infinitely more value, for they don't get a say, despite the fact that it could have some effect on them, even if indirectly.

People have gotten hung up on one vote, one value, but ultimately I don't think that's really workable.

The California legislature has passed a law that would give the state's electoral votes not to the presidential candidate who won the state, but to the candidate who won the nationwide popular vote.

The electoral college system heavily favors candidates who do well in the sparsely populated states in the center of the country. They get influence disproportionate to their populations and that's why candidates like Al Gore could win the majority of the popular vote and still lose the election.

I'd like to see more states pass this type of law so that everyone's vote counts equally instead of allowing a minority to decide who will be president.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/aug2006/californiapopularvote.php

The electoral college works just fine, thanks. The whole idea is precisely to give all those "sparsely populated states in the center of the country" a say in elections. The U.S. system is a federal system, in which the basic unit is the state. Without the electoral college, presidential candidates will focus almost entirely on a few urban areas, whose populations are grossly unrepresentative of the nation as a whole.

Of course, Donk-o-crats typically favor abolishing the electoral college and going on a straight popular vote for this very reason :p

Fortunately for the country, these ill-conceived attempts to end-run the Constitution will not pass judicial scrutiny. So Al Gore, Hill-o'-Beans Goddamn Clinton and the rest of the left-wing rogues' gallery that is the contemporary Donk-o-crat party will just have to keep trying to fool those "sparsely populated states in the center of the country" into believing that they really aren't hard-left libtards. They'll fail miserably, of course. So sorry. :D

But in 2000, when that really did happen, it wouldn't have made a difference.

In 2000, Gore would have been elected president because he would have won the popular vote. Yes. And if there had been red states in the compact, they would have voted for Gore regardless of what happened in their states. The end result is the same--the popular vote winner would have been President. Doesn't matter how they get there--if they have the most votes, they get to be the guy.

They may be the majority in sheer numbers, but they hold only the minority of states. Both ways of considering the majority, in our system, are equally valid.

And hell, if you've got "the majority", why cant you get a good grip on the House of Representatives?

From the Carter years through the first two years of Clinton's term we did have a democratic congress, didn't we? Come this next mid term election there's a pretty good chance we'll have one again.

I entirely disagree. It prevents larger states from using their population to bully us into acepting a President of their choice. That's protection.

no. it doesn't.

the reason this end run around a constitutional amendment can work is because you don't even need to have all of the big states on the same side to force their choice on everybody. just 11 states can dictate anything they want if all the biggest join up. and it just takes a couple more if one of the biggest doesn't. every state with less than 14 ec votes could all vote together (all 39 of them) and they would all lose. that's more states than you'd need for a constitutional amendment declaring the country to be a monarchy.

From the Carter years through the first two years of Clinton's term we did have a democratic congress, didn't we? Come this next mid term election there's a pretty good chance we'll have one again.

Hell, there was a Democratic Congress for nearly 40 years. The Gingrich revolution was a massive overthrow of entrenched power, but it happened 12 years ago, and I suspect a lot of US posters on here don't remember a Congress not run by Republicans.

So it's better that more populous states don't get taken seriously by the administration? Let's face it, the Republican party has figured out that it can get electoral votes in the many sparsely populated states by shitting on the Northeastern states and California, using stereotypes of elitist Hollywood and Massachusetts liberals to rile up the heartland. The majority in this country are being discriminated against and the electoral college makes it possible.

Oh, cry me a river, Drunkie. :rolleyes:

Every time that fat drunk from Hyannis opens his mouth--which should only be permitted after he takes a breathalyzer test :p --he confirms the "elitist Massachusetts liberal" stereotype. Barbara Boxer doesn't just confirm the corresponding California stereotype, she creates whole new stereotypes. And Nancy Pelosi simply defies satire.

And FYI: the "majority in this country" are not liberals. Just thought you should know :D

no. it doesn't.

the reason this end run around a constitutional amendment can work is because you don't even need to have all of the big states on the same side to force their choice on everybody. just 11 states can dictate anything they want if all the biggest join up. and it just takes a couple more if one of the biggest doesn't. every state with less than 14 ec votes could all vote together (all 39 of them) and they would all lose. that's more states than you'd need for a constitutional amendment declaring the country to be a monarchy.

True enough, I guess. I'd much rather see each state have a set number in the College.

The electoral college works just fine, thanks. The whole idea is precisely to give all those "sparsely populated states in the center of the country" a say in elections. The U.S. system is a federal system, in which the basic unit is the state. Without the electoral college, presidential candidates will focus almost entirely on a few urban areas, whose populations are grossly unrepresentative of the nation as a whole.

Of course, Donk-o-crats typically favor abolishing the electoral college and going on a straight popular vote for this very reason :p

Fortunately for the country, these ill-conceived attempts to end-run the Constitution will not pass judicial scrutiny. So Al Gore, Hill-o'-Beans Goddamn Clinton and the rest of the left-wing rogues' gallery that is the contemporary Donk-o-crat party will just have to keep trying to fool those "sparsely populated states in the center of the country" into believing that they really aren't hard-left libtards. They'll fail miserably, of course. So sorry. :D
Keep talking shit about the democrats and the blue states but while you're gloating over being able to choose our president in spite of majority opinion you would do well to keep in mind that the blue states are the ones with better school systems, fewer teen pregnancies, fewer marriages ending in divorce and they contribute to the federal budget, while red states tend to get more money back than they pay in. We run our families and our schools better than you do and we pay your way, but you still insist your states know better when electing a leader. You're really just holding the nation back from realizing it's full potential.

The whole idea is precisely to give all those "sparsely populated states in the center of the country" a say in elections.

that is both historically and factually wrong. that wasn't the idea, and it doesn't accomplish that anyway.

Fortunately for the country, these ill-conceived attempts to end-run the Constitution will not pass judicial scrutiny. So Al Gore, Hill-o'-Beans Goddamn Clinton and the rest of the left-wing rogues' gallery that is the contemporary Donk-o-crat party will just have to keep trying to fool those "sparsely populated states in the center of the country" into believing that they really aren't hard-left libtards. They'll fail miserably, of course. So sorry. :D
Believe it or not, I'm going to ignore the stupid insults and only address one point--this is perfectly constitutional. The constitution only says that the states shall choose the manner in which they select their electors. They can select them however they wish--even by flipping a coin if that's what the state wants--and the federal government can't do dick about it. So this compact would be completely constitutional--it would take an amendment to make it otherwise.

Believe it or not, I'm going to ignore the stupid insults and only address one point--this is perfectly constitutional. The constitution only says that the states shall choose the manner in which they select their electors. They can select them however they wish--even by flipping a coin if that's what the state wants--and the federal government can't do dick about it. So this compact would be completely constitutional--it would take an amendment to make it otherwise.

What would be funny would be if a Republican won the popular vote nationally, and the people of California voted otherwise, thus screwing themselves.

It could just as well happen the other way around. And not an unlikely scenario, either.

Oh, cry me a river, Drunkie. :rolleyes:

Every time that fat drunk from Hyannis opens his mouth--which should only be permitted after he takes a breathalyzer test :p --he confirms the "elitist Massachusetts liberal" stereotype. Barbara Boxer doesn't just confirm the corresponding California stereotype, she creates whole new stereotypes. And Nancy Pelosi simply defies satire.

And FYI: the "majority in this country" are not liberals. Just thought you should know :D

Put down Massachusetts all you want, but it's got an economy that's strong enough to pay more into the federal budget than it takes out, despite it's large population. It's also got fine universities and a lower teen pregnancy rate and divorce rate than the average red state. They call Northeasterners elitist for a reason. We strive to be among the elite, we don't let anti-intellectualism and fear become virtues.

In 2000, Gore would have been elected president because he would have won the popular vote. Yes. And if there had been red states in the compact, they would have voted for Gore regardless of what happened in their states. The end result is the same--the popular vote winner would have been President. Doesn't matter how they get there--if they have the most votes, they get to be the guy.

I'm saying the small states will never go along with this. They have too much to lose and nothing to gain from it.

In 2000, Gore would have been elected president because he would have won the popular vote. Yes. And if there had been red states in the compact, they would have voted for Gore regardless of what happened in their states. The end result is the same--the popular vote winner would have been President. Doesn't matter how they get there--if they have the most votes, they get to be the guy.

This is the heart of the matter: left-wing Donk-o-crat sore losers are still bitching about the 2000 election. They are SO ANGRY about losing power that their ENTIRE LIVES are now devoted to getting it back, regardless of the cost to this country.

And have you noticed that it's almost always the left-wing candidates who bitch about election results, try to blame "butterfly ballots" or "electronic voting machines" or anything other than their own loser policies, and try to have them thrown out when they don't go their way? Algore did it in 2000, Kerry whined about Ohio in 2004, and it's even spread to Mexico, where leftie Lopez-PERDIDOR won't accept the election results and is threatening to seize power anyway. Contrast the 1960 election, when graveyards all over Illinois and Mafia voting drives helped put JFK into the White House. What did Richard Nixon do? He accepted the results for the sake of the country, that's what.

Grow up, losers.

Keep talking shit about the democrats and the blue states but while you're gloating over being able to choose our president in spite of majority opinion you would do well to keep in mind that the blue states are the ones with better school systems, fewer teen pregnancies, fewer marriages ending in divorce and they contribute to the federal budget, while red states tend to get more money back than they pay in. We run our families and our schools better than you do and we pay your way, but you still insist your states know better when electing a leader. You're really just holding the nation back from realizing it's full potential.


lol - ouch

that has gotta sting.

What would be funny would be if a Republican won the popular vote nationally, and the people of California voted otherwise, thus screwing themselves.

It could just as well happen the other way around. And not an unlikely scenario, either.
It would show the system worked, and I'd be happy about it--the system, not the outcome. But being unhappy about the outcome is par for the course when it comes to politics for me.

This is the heart of the matter: left-wing Donk-o-crat sore losers are still bitching about the 2000 election. They are SO ANGRY about losing power that their ENTIRE LIVES are now devoted to getting it back, regardless of the cost to this country.

And have you noticed that it's almost always the left-wing candidates who bitch about election results, try to blame "butterfly ballots" or "electronic voting machines" or anything other than their own loser policies, and try to have them thrown out when they don't go their way? Algore did it in 2000, Kerry whined about Ohio in 2004, and it's even spread to Mexico, where leftie Lopez-PERDIDOR won't accept the election results and is threatening to seize power anyway. Contrast the 1960 election, when graveyards all over Illinois and Mafia voting drives helped put JFK into the White House. What did Richard Nixon do? He accepted the results for the sake of the country, that's what.

Grow up, losers.


calm down buckaroo

I'm saying the small states will never go along with this. They have too much to lose and nothing to gain from it.

I think a couple might, and that's all it'll take. In fact, it might not take any of them, but I believe a few might. They could gain, too, because right now it doesn't matter if you're small or large--if you're not in play, you get ignored in the presidential race. This might cause a candidate to pay attention to a state that hasn't been in play in recent years, in an attempt to get a few more popular votes.

Put down Massachusetts all you want, but it's got an economy that's strong enough to pay more into the federal budget than it takes out, despite it's large population. It's also got fine universities and a lower teen pregnancy rate and divorce rate than the average red state. They call Northeasterners elitist for a reason. We strive to be among the elite, we don't let anti-intellectualism and fear become virtues.

Virginia seems to do pretty well, despite being a red state. Overall, its government rates 2nd in the nation in terms of benefit for the tax dollar, and efficiency of state goverment.

And our economy is pretty strong. We even elect a Democrat governor from time to time.

I would rather live in Virginia, thank you. We have a better job market, more high tech companies now than Silicon Valley, and we don't seem to have a shortage of universities.

Put down Massachusetts all you want, but it's got an economy that's strong enough to pay more into the federal budget than it takes out, despite it's large population. It's also got fine universities and a lower teen pregnancy rate and divorce rate than the average red state. They call Northeasterners elitist for a reason. We strive to be among the elite, we don't let anti-intellectualism and fear become virtues.

Spare me the lectures about "elitist Northeasterners." I graduated from MIT, so I know all about you "elitists." And I was there in the winter of '78 when Boston was shut down for two weeks due to snow and the incompetence of the local and state governments. Oh, and they call you "Taxachusetts" for a reason, too.

Massachusetts hasn't had a good idea since the days of Sam Adams. As the French would say (and I hesitate to cite the French for anything), you're like the potato--the best part of you is underground.

This is the heart of the matter: left-wing Donk-o-crat sore losers are still bitching about the 2000 election. They are SO ANGRY about losing power that their ENTIRE LIVES are now devoted to getting it back, regardless of the cost to this country.

And have you noticed that it's almost always the left-wing candidates who bitch about election results, try to blame "butterfly ballots" or "electronic voting machines" or anything other than their own loser policies, and try to have them thrown out when they don't go their way? Algore did it in 2000, Kerry whined about Ohio in 2004, and it's even spread to Mexico, where leftie Lopez-PERDIDOR won't accept the election results and is threatening to seize power anyway. Contrast the 1960 election, when graveyards all over Illinois and Mafia voting drives helped put JFK into the White House. What did Richard Nixon do? He accepted the results for the sake of the country, that's what.

Grow up, losers.
Careful you don't piss your Dubya underoos there, buddy. The fear is palpable.

Virginia seems to do pretty well, despite being a red state. Overall, its government rates 2nd in the nation in terms of benefit for the tax dollar, and efficiency of state goverment.

And our economy is pretty strong. We even elect a Democrat governor from time to time.

I would rather live in Virginia, thank you. We have a better job market, more high tech companies now than Silicon Valley, and we don't seem to have a shortage of universities.

Virginia does pretty well, but it's an exception among the red states.

Careful you don't piss your Dubya underoos there, buddy. The fear is palpable.

Coming from the expert on "stupid insults," that's saying something :p

Virginia does pretty well, but it's an exception among the red states.

If core Republican policies were in error, it wouldn't be able to perform well.

I see they work just fine here.

I'll give the author of the bill props for creativity, but this isn't a good idea. I would like to see the electoral college go by the wayside, but it isn't going to happen this way. Some states still have disproportionate effects on the system, some will still be ignored completely, and people will still bitch about how one group of states is favored over another. All this does is move the power away from the rural states to the more populated states. I'm a little worried this might lead to tinkering with the Electoral College rather than an honest effort to get rid of it.

Spare me the lectures about "elitist Northeasterners." I graduated from MIT, so I know all about you "elitists." And I was there in the winter of '78 when Boston was shut down for two weeks due to snow and the incompetence of the local and state governments. Oh, and they call you "Taxachusetts" for a reason, too.

Massachusetts hasn't had a good idea since the days of Sam Adams. As the French would say (and I hesitate to cite the French for anything), you're like the potato--the best part of you is underground.

Actually I'm from New Jersey, so they don't call me taxachusetts. Here are some fun facts about the state you're putting down.

http://www.philocrites.com/archives/001357.html

I'm saying the small states will never go along with this. They have too much to lose and nothing to gain from it.

firstly, they aren't needed. that's sort of the point. secondly, some of the smaller states are at least looking into joining already - vermont has some people lined up to sponsor the bill next session, as does arizona. and there are more. because thirdly, the general idea has about 70%+ support among the population of essentially every state and has since people started polling the question 50 years ago.

If core Republican policies were in error, it wouldn't be able to perform well.

I see they work just fine here.

I think Myrmidonisia's line was "even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while." I believe Virginia is the exception rather than the rule.

Virginia does pretty well, but it's an exception among the red states.

So how do you explain Georgia and its successful economy? Another exception? Is every successful red state an exception?

If core Republican policies were in error, it wouldn't be able to perform well.

I see they work just fine here.

So what's wrong with the Republican policies in so many of the other red states?

I'll give the author of the bill props for creativity, but this isn't a good idea. I would like to see the electoral college go by the wayside, but it isn't going to happen this way. Some states still have disproportionate effects on the system, some will still be ignored completely, and people will still bitch about how one group of states is favored over another. All this does is move the power away from the rural states to the more populated states. I'm a little worried this might lead to tinkering with the Electoral College rather than an honest effort to get rid of it.

Problem is you can't really tinker with the Electoral college. It's a constitutionally mandated system, so you either have to amend the constitution or end run it, which is what this system would do.

So how do you explain Georgia and its successful economy? Another exception? Is every successful red state an exception?

President George W. Bush carried 26 of the bottom 28 states in per capita income--all of them but Maine and Oregon. (Florida ranked at the top of that group.) John Kerry took home 18 of the top 23, the exceptions being Colorado, Virginia (which appears to have an extraordinarily split demographic profile), Alaska, Wyoming, and Nevadahttp://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/2004/11/two-americas.html

How many successful red states are there? Maybe a handfull? Yep. That small minority qualifies as an exception to the rule.

So how do you explain Georgia and its successful economy? Another exception? Is every successful red state an exception?

No. I was just being a smartass, but it's obvious that Republican and Democratic policies can both succeed and fail, depending on other issues in those states. Ohio's a red state right now and its economy is in the shitter, as is Mississippi's and Alabama's. Michigan is a blue state and it's doing crappy as well, while other blue states are kicking ass. The world isn't so black and white.

http://historyunfolding.blogspot.com/2004/11/two-americas.html

How many successful red states are there? Maybe a handfull? Yep. That small minority qualifies as an exception to the rule.


And once again dispelling the red/blue state BS.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

And once again dispelling the red/blue state BS.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/


What exactly is that supposed to proove in this case?

The California legislature has passed a law that would give the state's electoral votes not to the presidential candidate who won the state, but to the candidate who won the nationwide popular vote.

The electoral college system heavily favors candidates who do well in the sparsely populated states in the center of the country. They get influence disproportionate to their populations and that's why candidates like Al Gore could win the majority of the popular vote and still lose the election.

I'd like to see more states pass this type of law so that everyone's vote counts equally instead of allowing a minority to decide who will be president.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/aug2006/californiapopularvote.php

yay popular vote!

What exactly is that supposed to proove in this case?

Well, it kinda disputes the whole "this state voted for X" and is culturally enlightened and the others are ignorant arguements that DCD's link supported and is very common here.

Well, it kinda disputes the whole "this state voted for X" and is culturally enlightened and the others are ignorant arguements that DCD's link supported and is very common here.

Well, to accurately use that map, we'd also have to have maps that show divorce rates, economy values, etc.
But we don't.
So state to state will have to do here.

I wish California would fix the electrical infrastructure it broke by meddling with it before we begin meddling with the electoral system.

I'll give the author of the bill props for creativity, but this isn't a good idea. I would like to see the electoral college go by the wayside, but it isn't going to happen this way. Some states still have disproportionate effects on the system, some will still be ignored completely, and people will still bitch about how one group of states is favored over another. All this does is move the power away from the rural states to the more populated states. I'm a little worried this might lead to tinkering with the Electoral College rather than an honest effort to get rid of it.
All that shit already happens. Nothing will change with the retirement of the electoral college that doesn't already happen except no chance that a person gets elected who didn't actually win the election.

Surely this idea is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic?

Surely this idea is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic?

No, because it won't go into effect until enough states pass similar bills to make whoever wins the popular vote win the electoral college.

Surely this idea is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic?

yeah, but the life boats are already gone and nobody seems to much care about that iceberg anyway.

Nothing will change with the retirement of the electoral college that doesn't already happen except no chance that a person gets elected who didn't actually win the election.

at least nominally

How much would you like to bet that this will be considered unconstitutional?

If I understand correctly, the United States Constitution only requires that a certain number of "electors" in each state (who, in total, constitute the "Electoral College") be selected, and that they vote for the next president of the United States. There is no actual requirement that the electors themselves be selected by popular vote. It is perfectly constitutional for a state legislature to select the electors, without any reference to or consideration of popular opinion in that state. The United States was originally constructed as a Republican alliance of independent sovereign states not as a single unified Democracy; I'm not making a statement as too "good" or "bad," just one of simple fact. The Presidential election in the United States is by popular vote by practice NOT by Constitutional requirement (I so strongly emphasize the word "not" only because the completely mistaken notion that the presidential elections constitute a triumph of democracy, and the associated rule by law, is very common).

Thus, California state law need only require that the California state legislature select the state's slate of electors coresponding to that candidate which won the most popular votes nationwide. (edit: Even then, there is no actual requirement that said electors must vote for that candidate, anyway. Forcing an individual's vote would indeed be unconstitutional.)

All of this is perfectly constitutional.

If I understand correctly, the United States Constitution only requires that a certain number of "electors" in each state (who, in total, constitute the "Electoral College") be selected, and that they vote for the next president of the United States. There is no actual requirement that the electors themselves be selected by popular vote. It is perfectly constitutional for a state legislature to select the electors, without any reference to or consideration of popular opinion in that state.

indeed. the only constitutionally tricky part that i can see on a first brush and without knowing any relevant case law or whatever is in the idea of it being an interstate compact, which might mean that congress could squash the whole thing if they so desired.

(edit: Even then, there is no actual requirement that said electors must vote for that candidate, anyway. Forcing an individual's vote would indeed be unconstitutional.)

i'm pretty sure most states have laws against electors voting other than they pledged and even threaten to fine them. i'm not sure if it's ever actually been tried though.

i'm pretty sure most states have laws against electors voting other than they pledged and even threaten to fine them. i'm not sure if it's ever actually been tried though.

Indeed.... *learns something new*


There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of state's right to legally require electors to vote as pledged, as well as remove electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a function of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors.

Since a state's electoral slate is chosen by the political party, and electors are usually those with high loyalty to the party and its candidate, a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than governmental action.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College )

(Edit: but then, as described in the second paragraph quoted from Wikipedia above, it is simply a matter of the legislature finding enough people who are willing to be electors and are willing to vote for whomever.)

indeed. the only constitutionally tricky part that i can see on a first brush and without knowing any relevant case law or whatever is in the idea of it being an interstate compact, which might mean that congress could squash the whole thing if they so desired.


I think that the state's right to choose electors in a manner of its choosing trumps any attempt by the Congress to federalize the election.

I think that the state's right to choose electors in a manner of its choosing trumps any attempt by the Congress to federalize the election.

probably. but i'm thinking of article 1 section 10:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress...enter into any agreement or compact with another state...

but the language in article 2 section 1 is rather unambiguous

The electoral college works just fine, thanks. The whole idea is precisely to give all those "sparsely populated states in the center of the country" a say in elections.

Why should states have a say at all? States don't have to put up with the President, people do.

The California legislature has passed a law that would give the state's electoral votes not to the presidential candidate who won the state, but to the candidate who won the nationwide popular vote.

The electoral college system heavily favors candidates who do well in the sparsely populated states in the center of the country. They get influence disproportionate to their populations and that's why candidates like Al Gore could win the majority of the popular vote and still lose the election.

I'd like to see more states pass this type of law so that everyone's vote counts equally instead of allowing a minority to decide who will be president.

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/aug2006/californiapopularvote.php

Why not just amend the Constitution? The article states that the law only goes into effect if enough other states pass similar laws, so it's really pointless because it's doubtful that will happen.

Why not just amend the Constitution?

11 states vs. 2/3 vote in both houses of congress + approval of 38 states

that's why

Why should states have a say at all? States don't have to put up with the President, people do.

Don't they?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101554.html