End the Electoral College?

[Seattle Husker]

None other than Barbara Boxer will introduce a bill to eliminate it. I can't imagine any congressman from middle America ever supporting legislation like that. We can probably all agree that this will never get passed. In fact, it would require a consititutional amendment to kill the EC makine it impossible to ever do.

There is a move that was started years ago called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's state legislation that throws all their electoral votes behind the popular vote winner. Nobody knows about it yet because the legislation has a unique feature that says it isn't enacted until enough states adopt it to be => 270 electoral votes. So far they sit at 11 states with 165 electoral votes. They are all liberal states. If they can get 105 more electoral votes look out.

Here are the states that have adopted the legislation so far:

• District of Columbia – 3 electoral votes
• Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
• Illinois – 20 electoral votes
• Maryland – 10 electoral votes
• Massachusetts – 11 electoral votes
• New Jersey – 14 electoral votes
• Washington – 12 electoral votes
• Vermont – 3 electoral votes
• California – 55 electoral votes
• Rhode Island – 4 electoral votes
• New York – 29 electoral votes

I listened to an interview with the leader of the effort that says their sites are set on Florida and Arizona next. He was confident it will get a vote this next legislative session. Here is a page that includes the audio of the interview.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I wonder what would have happened if a bunch of 2016 over-opinionated undereducated pseudo-intellectual fauxhemian social media doucheoisie sore losers wrote the Constitution 229 years ago?

My guess is probably not as well as the first time.

It's state legislation that throws all their electoral votes behind the popular vote winner....They are all liberal states. If they can get 105 more electoral votes look out.

Why in the world would swing states vote to potentially disenfranchise their people? This whole trap is a ploy to disenfranchise Wisconsin/Michigan voters to appease California voters. That makes ZERO sense, and it doesn't surprise me. Obviously, states and their controlling parties that value their sovereignty, which is a guiding principle of the Electoral College and of the relationship between the States and the Federal Government, would never consider this.

The only way to change the EC is via an Amendment which requires 75% of the states to ratify...haha good luck with that Liberals.

If Democrats want to be a better party for the people, try flipping states by broadening your appeal beyond the coasts. Give Texans something better than Wendy Davis.

 

[mchammer]

The other thing it would do is to force states to move their governor's race to match the presidential election. The reason Texas was closer than normal this year is because there was no senator or governor's race.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The other thing it would do is to force states to move their governor's race to match the presidential election. The reason Texas was closer than normal this year is because there was no senator or governor's race.

I've already drunk a beer today, so maybe I'm missing something obvious. However, why would dumping the electoral college force states to move their governor's races?

 

[mchammer]

To drive turnout among Republicans. If there was a key senate race in 2016,Trump would have gotten a million more votes. Check out the vote totals of Florida, where the presidential race was hotly contested vs Texas or California. It's obvious that a lot of Republicans stayed at home.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

• District of Columbia – 3 electoral votes

• Hawaii – 4 electoral votes

• Illinois – 20 electoral votes

• Maryland – 10 electoral votes

• Massachusetts – 11 electoral votes

• New Jersey – 14 electoral votes

• Washington – 12 electoral votes

• Vermont – 3 electoral votes

• California – 55 electoral votes

• Rhode Island – 4 electoral votes

• New York – 29 electoral votes

Not surprised at any of those, and definitely not surprised at the knee-jerk reactions to losing a popular vote. I'm pretty confident that if Bush-Gore hadn't happened, those laws would not be in place.

There's absolutely no way a red state passes this - or even a purple state or a blue state with a predominance of red counties. Which means they're about out of real estate.

 

[NJlonghorn]

or a blue state with a predominance of red counties

I very much agree that this is a stupid idea whose time will never come. No red or purple state will ever vote for this, nor should they.

However, to pick a nit, there is no reason that a solidly blue state with a predominance of red counties would not pass the legislation. In fact, three such states -- New York, Maryland, and Illinois -- already have.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I'm sure this also would be challenged at the SCOTUS...another reason why it would never happen.

But on the merits, wouldn't a confederation of states manipulating the electoral college to benefit the will of California, New York, and Illinois be unconstitutional? States like Missouri and Mississippi would barbecue this act in the courts.

 

[Htown77]

You have to give less populated states slightly more representation. If you try to rule a big country from the population centers, you get Santa Anna fighting a war with numerous breakaway states (11 total). I'll note that in Mexico's case, two low populated states (Texas and the Yucatan) actually defeated the Centralists and gained independence. The electoral college is another example of the genius of the founding fathers. Instead of just being able to campaign in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Houston, our presidential candidates have to garner the support of wide a group of states/regions to win. This is a great measure to prevent the Santa Anna/Centralist problem.

Hillary failed to campaign in wisconsin, did not campaign nearly enough in the midwest and lost. The electoral college worked as intended. Trump actually built up a broader coalition of support from various regions than Hillary. I think you could make a strong popular vote argument for the 2000 election but not for 2016. 2000 was basically a tie. Both candidates had broad support so in that case, I think the popular vote people have a good argument. In 2016, Hillary screwed the pooch and did not shore up support in the midwest. 2016 is on Hillary.

Americans do not think in the long term like our founding fathers did. The electoral college helps quell dissent in low populated regions hopefully preventing anymore Bundys attacking federal lands or least keeping it isolated. The 4th amendment protects our rights, yet conservatives were fine to see the PATRIOT Act pass not thinking about how much they would hate it if Obama got it. Liberals were okay with Obama's violations of the 4th amendment until they realized Trump would have the same tools. Liberals were also okay with the Supreme Court ignoring the Constitution and making policy until they realized what that would mean once Trump judges were in place.

Americans left and right look at the short term and need to think about the long term and why the founding fathers put these safeguards in place.

 

[Mr. Deez]

To drive turnout among Republicans. If there was a key senate race in 2016,Trump would have gotten a million more votes. Check out the vote totals of Florida, where the presidential race was hotly contested vs Texas or California. It's obvious that a lot of Republicans stayed at home.

I think other factors are at play. The top of the ticket is what usually drives turnout.

The reason why turnout was higher in Florida than in Texas or California was because it's a swing state, which means that a real presidential campaign actually took place there. People felt like their votes actually mattered. That wasn't true in California or Texas. That wouldn't have changed if there was a Senate or Gubernatorial race in a Texas unless it was competitive, and that hasn't happened since 2002.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I'm sure this also would be challenged at the SCOTUS...another reason why it would never happen.

But on the merits, wouldn't a confederation of states manipulating the electoral college to benefit the will of California, New York, and Illinois be unconstitutional? States like Missouri and Mississippi would barbecue this act in the courts.

That would be an interesting SCOTUS argument. The text of the constitution says that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...." Read literally, this would seem to allow a state to defer to the national vote. But something doesn't sit right with me about that, and I suspect the Supreme Court would agree.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That would be an interesting SCOTUS argument. The text of the constitution says that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...." Read literally, this would seem to allow a state to defer to the national vote. But something doesn't sit right with me about that, and I suspect the Supreme Court would agree.

On what basis would any state have to complain?

 

[texas_ex2000]

On what basis would any state have to complain?

I'm not a lawyer obviously, but I think the question is, this confederation is being set up specifically to prevent something the Constitution and the Electoral College permitted. If the country wanted popular vote, fine, amend the Constitution.

The Electoral College wasn't an accident and maybe there's an argument that such a confederation materially changes the nature of the EC - in that the electors of a state, while they do have leeway, would go completely against how their state actually voted.

There must be some academia legal latin term for meta circular logic, e.g. but if the people permitted and voted to be disenfranchised - it isn't disenfranchising...Stupidux ex Sore Losertas.

 

[NJlonghorn]

On what basis would any state have to complain?

It is clear that the State's Legislature can establish any method it wants by which the State chooses its electors. This can be based on popular vote (like most states), vote by Congressional District (like ME and NE, in part), vote by county, vote by the State's Legislature, etc. But it is less clear that a State's Legislature could turn over the State's right to choose electors to a non-State entity, such as the entire US population. That might not violate the explicit language of the Constitution, but it sure seems to fly in the face of the Constitution's spirit. Perhaps the right would adopt the "penumbra" analysis that gave us Griswold v. Connecticutt and Roe v. Wade.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You have to give less populated states slightly more representation. If you try to rule a big country from the population centers, you get Santa Anna fighting a war with numerous breakaway states (11 total). I'll note that in Mexico's case, two low populated states (Texas and the Yucatan) actually defeated the Centralists and gained independence. The electoral college is another example of the genius of the founding fathers. Instead of just being able to campaign in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Houston, our presidential candidates have to garner the support of wide a group of states/regions to win. This is a great measure to prevent the Santa Anna/Centralist problem.

Hillary failed to campaign in wisconsin, did not campaign nearly enough in the midwest and lost. The electoral college worked as intended. Trump actually built up a broader coalition of support from various regions than Hillary. I think you could make a strong popular vote argument for the 2000 election but not for 2016. 2000 was basically a tie. Both candidates had broad support so in that case, I think the popular vote people have a good argument. In 2016, Hillary screwed the pooch and did not shore up support in the midwest. 2016 is on Hillary.

Americans do not think in the long term like our founding fathers did. The electoral college helps quell dissent in low populated regions hopefully preventing anymore Bundys attacking federal lands or least keeping it isolated. The 4th amendment protects our rights, yet conservatives were fine to see the PATRIOT Act pass not thinking about how much they would hate it if Obama got it. Liberals were okay with Obama's violations of the 4th amendment until they realized Trump would have the same tools. Liberals were also okay with the Supreme Court ignoring the Constitution and making policy until they realized what that would mean once Trump judges were in place.

Americans left and right look at the short term and need to think about the long term and why the founding fathers put these safeguards in place.

I certainly see and agree with the value of the electoral college. Playing devils advocate, big blue and red states are being disenfranchised in favor of the swing states. ~15 swing states decide our POTUS elections. If you are not one of them you really don't matter. Yes, that includes Texas and California.

 

[Crockett]

There were some reasons for the electoral college vote that made a lot more sense when communications and vote counting were a much more cumbersome process. Still, changing it would have a lot of unintended consequences, including providing more clout to places where voter participation is high. I do think it problematic for Texas that candidates come here only to raise money and our national influence is hugely dependent on campaign contributions.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I certainly see and agree with the value of the electoral college. Playing devils advocate, big blue and red states are being disenfranchised in favor of the swing states. ~15 swing states decide our POTUS elections. If you are not one of them you really don't matter. Yes, that includes Texas and California.

Texas and California have 38 and 55 electors respectively. That's a pretty big say, huge actually and much more than New Hampshire and Montana.

And California and Texas didn't always vote Democrat and Republican respectively. Democrats having been chomping at the bit at changing Texas Blue - not really through the virtue of their ideas but from people coming from blue states and immigration, but I digress.

I personally wouldn't care if we switched to a popular vote. Republicans would still win and Democrats would still lose. And if there ever were an amendment, to change it, I wouldn't protest in the street because that is the law. But that's not the point and the discussion isn't about direct democracy. The reason why I believe wholeheartedly in the Electoral College, is because I believe that states consent to the government. The concept of state sovereignty, which is derived from their citizens is a real thing. And if you want to be president and run the Federal Government, you need to have support of a broad coalition across the country representing broad geography, demographics, and economics. IMO, the Electoral College captures that better then a direct vote.

 

[Brad Austin]

Here's another thought. In the recent past (especially last 8 years) we've seen many presidential actions taken and spun with political optics being heavily weighed.

Libs refusing to call out Radical Islam by name as not to defend Muslim voters, Bengazi lies during re-election phase, etc, etc.

With a popular vote, wouldn't prez behavior (especially by career politicians) be greatly influenced by how it best serves those in big population centers?

I can see many negative consequences of a popular vote for mainstream Americans. The founding fathers seemed to have good foresight when setting up the Electoral College.

All these sour grapes will pass soon enough. Libs are wreaking havoc and rattling sabers now while they still can. They still have their leader in power and a split SC.

Once Obama surrenders power to Trump and he grasps the full weight of gov support in all branches, reality will set in.

Of course a few bold examples must be made to show how this is gonna go. Sanctuary city protectors who vow to defy federal law should be the first casualties.

 

[Crockett]

Brad: I think calling out Radical Islam by name is a monumentally stupid idea. ISIS wants a Christianity vs. Islam conflict and the same mouths that want to call out Radical Islam are also the ones that want "carpet bombing of ISIS." Carpet bombing is another monumentally stupid idea that will set us in many minds as the "evil" in a good vs. evil conflict. Of course, there are those that profit from endless conflict...

 

[Seattle Husker]

Of course a few bold examples must be made to show how this is gonna go. Sanctuary city protectors who vow to defy federal law should be the first casualties.

Something has been gnawing at me...how can some who profess the power of State rights over Federal take this stance on sanctuary cities?

 

[Seattle Husker]

In the recent past (especially last 8 years) we've seen many presidential actions taken and spun with political optics being heavily weighed.

Just the last 8 years? I'd argue optics have been considered by politicians since the founding of our country.

 

[I35]

I wonder what would have happened if a bunch of 2016 over-opinionated undereducated pseudo-intellectual fauxhemian social media doucheoisie sore losers wrote the Constitution 229 years ago?

We'd be Greece.

That wouldn't have changed if there was a Senate or Gubernatorial race in a Texas unless it was competitive, and that hasn't happened since 2002.

I think a person like Wendy Davis would have had Texas Republicans coming out in droves. They wouldn't take a chance on not voting and allowing her in office of our great state. So yes I agree with mchammer that changing the election to the same year the Presidents race would be huge for Texas.

Democrats having been chomping at the bit at changing Texas Blue

By trying to bring in refugees and open borders for voting. Not to mention all the northerners abandoning ship to come to this great state. For some reason though those libs can't equated our policies that make our state great in the first place.

ISIS wants a Christianity vs. Islam conflict and the same mouths that want to call out Radical Islam are also the ones that want "carpet bombing of ISIS." Carpet bombing is another monumentally stupid idea that will set us in many minds as the "evil" in a good vs. evil conflict.

Do you really think those things matter to ISIS? That they need that to be motivated to cut our heads off? Or for recruiting? The majority accept their culture and don't even know better. That's all they know.

 

[ShAArk92]

There were some reasons for the electoral college vote that made a lot more sense when communications and vote counting were a much more cumbersome process. Still, changing it would have a lot of unintended consequences, including providing more clout to places where voter participation is high. I do think it problematic for Texas that candidates come here only to raise money and our national influence is hugely dependent on campaign contributions.

Crockett ... I'm no scholar, but I've read quite a bit about our Founding ... Federalist Papers, et al ...

The reason the ECC exists is because we do not have a democracy per se ... we have a Representative Republic. We've already altered the construction of our Fed with popular election of Senators (Amdt 17) ... the Senate used to be comprised of appointed 6 year terms by each State's respective legislatures.

Besides ... when popular vote turnout is <50% ... does that indicate a population who is engaged and can form a coherent opinion?

(in full disclosure, my guy didn't win, so I don't support the ECC because Trump won)

 

[ShAArk92]

Something has been gnawing at me...how can some who profess the power of State rights over Federal take this stance on sanctuary cities?

Because it's a Federal issue ... immigration.

The States consented to that in the Constitution. Texas can't have it's own immigration policy while Caly has a different one.

You're jambing issues together like gears in a '62 Chevrolet Bus.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Texas and California have 38 and 55 electors respectively. That's a pretty big say, huge actually and much more than New Hampshire and Montana.

How much love and POTUS candidate attention did New Hampshire get compared to Texas or California? More importantly, how many campaign promises did they garner for issues that impacted their local vs. the big states?

California and Texas were simply fundraising destinations. Nobody ever believed either was in play thus the candidates didn't have to dance for those large audiences. I also could fall on either side of this debate but recognize that election is 100% in the hands of the swing states. They are handed an inordinate amount of power to decide our elections. Yes, these swing states slowly evolve over time.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think a person like Wendy Davis would have had Texas Republicans coming out in droves. They wouldn't take a chance on not voting and allowing her in office of our great state. So yes I agree with mchammer that changing the election to the same year the Presidents race would be huge for Texas.

You do remember who the Democratic nominee for President was, right? You think Wendy Davis would be more motivating to Texas Republicans than Hillary Clinton? Surely you know better than that.

Holding the gubernatorial and state office elections in midterm years helps Republicans, because though Republican voter turnout drops in midterm elections, Democratic voter turnout significantly more. Switching those elections to presidential years would be about the biggest favor the Texas Legislature could do for Texas Democrats. They'd still lose, but it would be less of a blowout.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Besides ... when popular vote turnout is <50% ... does that indicate a population who is engaged and can form a coherent opinion?

How much effect does the electoral college have on voter participation for POTUS elections? 1-2% depression? More?

Though I vehemently disagree, we all hear the common refrain "my vote doesn't really count".

With that said, our founders didn't necessarily feel everyone's vote should be equal, right? Heck, some on this board have openly stated as much. Is that an antiquated idea?

 

[Hollandtx]

It's kind of ironic that HRC made the same "I won the popular vote" claim in 2008 when she ran against Obama. Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, so, if you included a state where you couldn't vote for him, she eked out a numerical win.

Maybe she should, I don't know, accept results or something? I know it's a strange concept, but, does she ever own anything, or is there always a "but" with this family.

 

[Crockett]

Do you really think those things matter to ISIS? That they need that to be motivated to cut our heads off? Or for recruiting? The majority accept their culture and don't even know better. That's all they know.

From what I have read from people who actually interviewed captured jihadists, motivation is is key, and frankly not as religious as you might imagine. ISIS provides money, women, adventure ... the kind of stuff that excites gang recruits in the US. Why was ISIS able to kick butt on soldiers with better numbers, more training and better weaponry? Motivation. Making the war against ISIS a religious/nationalist thing plays right into the hands of the violence lovers.

 

[Seattle Husker]

or is there always a "but" with this family.

1 "t" or 2 "t's"?