Popular vote only.

YES! Our petition to ABOLISH the Electoral College is going VIRAL! But we still need 5 signatures: go.electdemsnow.org/1029D2

Elect Dems Now PAC
Stop2End

Like it or not, fair or not, it is the Constitutional way a President is elected. Always has been since day one.

An Amendment is needed. There is no political will to get such passed.

theoretically there would be a process to work it out.

but i get it, the constitution says it....

i'm just saying, it needs to go. it's stupid and unfair and just shows that we really don't live in a country where the people directly elect their leader. that is pretty f'd up.

For sake of accuracy, both Article 2 and Amendment 12 mention "electors," but not the "electoral college." But at this time, it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of the college, and that is not possible in the near future.

And it may take a war or two to get that amendment passed.

There never will be the political will to get such passed if we never advocate for it.

There was a time when there was no political will to end slavery. Slavery was Constitutional.

of The Constitution.

The remedy is to repeal via a new Amendment.

and whoever gets the most EC votes wins the election.

The word you used was “ruling,” hence my post.

Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2024, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

I am 100% all in favor of that.

Personally, I also think the Senate should be proportional as well, but that too will take a constitutional amendment.

This is no reason not to go down that path, but something that is literally in the Constitution cannot be ruled unconstitutional. Dumped for being undemocratic, YES!

ETA: Mea culpa. My brain went to articles I have read by constitutional scholars, political scientists, and legislators regarding the undemocratic nature of the Senate. In retrospect, I do believe they were advocating for its abolition, not changing the nature of it.

Article 5 specifically excludes modifying the Senate without consent of the States whose number of Senators wouldnt be equal.

Calls to change the nature and composition of the senate are not just unrealistic, they are impossible and expose the ignorance of those making the claim.

That alone would solve many problems that currently exist because of population growth and many more States than the original 13.

It is time to expand the House. It was capped by legislation, it can be changed legislatively.

What you're saying is rather like "We can't do away with the 2/3 rule! It's right there in the Constitution."

You seem to be saying that some provisions of the Constitution are locked in and cannot be changed.

I'm not sure what supports that proposition.

If you're saying that the overrepresented states would never approve such an amendment, that's probably true. But that's a different matter.

That fixes everything wrong with the original one from 250 ish years ago. But that would be dangerous with the amount of christofascists in this country. Any effort to significantly amend or redo the constitution can be undermined by them

It's been done before!

In fact, every amendment that's been passed has been passed without a Constitutional convention.

I'm afraid that saying "We should kill the EC" or "The composition of the Senate sucks" are not calls for fixing "everything wrong with the original." That is what we call a straw man.

Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2024, 04:44 PM - Edit history (1)

There can be an argument to rewriting it. There is a certain ambiguity

and this constitution won't have to be carefully crafted to guarantee the continuation of slavery*
slavery, y'know, upon which the entire economy of the colonies, North and South, were dependent

*3/5 clause
*Electoral College
*Senate
*the Article referenced above in this thread saying states must approve change in their representation

What is written in Article 5 supports what I am saying.

No state shall be admitted to the Union when that proposed state has less that 50 percent of the then existing state with the largest population, nor will any state exist in the union when that state's population falls below 50% of the then existing state with the largest population.

Let the mergers begin.

States are becoming less important every day. The concept of states might have made sense when one rarely traveled more than 50 miles from where you were born... but today there are very few "life long residents" of any single state. Needing to understand the totality of the legal code in every state to which you might reside or travel to in your life is an undue burden on the citizens of the United States or rather "America".

Georgia
It's illegal to harm yourself by coming into contact with a llama.

Minnesota
It's illegal to hunt feral swine.

Wisconsin
Some laws related to margarine remain on the books, margarine was completely outlawed from 1895 to 1967.

Thanks for pointing this out. I had no idea.

The people who know better understand that there's no such thing as a Constitutional provision that can't be changed by amendment.

Politically impossible, perhaps. But assuredly not as a matter of law.

If you could just point to a provision and say, "That's in the Constitution, dewd! Game over!" then there wouldn't have been any amendments after the first ten. And maybe not some of those.

While article V does say that you cant deprives the states of equal sufferage in the senate, nothing says you can't change article V. You'd need 2 amendments to do this however, the first to change article V, then second to change/eliminate the senate.

That is basically the only way to do it. Still a big lift. 38 states would need to ratify such a change.

Big lifts can be well worth the effort.

as well as the Scotus which it confirms. Both bodies have enormous power in shaping issues of national concern, not just state and local, in a way that the founders could have never envisioned. Consider that Dems have won the popular vote in 7 of the past 8 presidential elections - yet Scotus is 6-3 right wing. I don't see how this situation is tenable.

and it would probably take a constitutional amendment (which AIN'T gong to happen) to effect a popular vote system.

(and, yes - we've all heard about the NPV pact. just more of the same - blah, blah, blah .. )

For all intents, we are 50 separate countries who have agreed to cooperate on some things at the federal level. It’s working exactly as designed.

Your one vote in Vermont is worth as much as another vote in Vermont. Mine is Florida is equal to every other vote in Florida.

Why should the smaller states give up what little leverage they have? I’ve read/heard answers to that question, but none are going to happen, and I can’t say I blame the smaller states.

Please describe for me how the Electoral College gives the small states leverage?

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the small states are as resoundingly ignored by presidential candidates as the big states are. Because of the Electoral College, the only states where there's massive campaigning is the handful of swing states?

Do the small states bargain with the big states to get something out of how they caste their electoral votes?

Do they put the screws to political candidates to extract promises for their three or four or five electoral votes?

Tell me about this leverage.

As for the idea that we're 50 separate countries with a compact as to "certain things," that was the original plan under the Articles of Confederation. Worked about as well as you'd expect, which is why we have the current system.

In the last 32 years, D’s have held the WH for 20 years. R’s have held it for 12 years. Would you rather trade?

It’s the smaller states binding together that prevents the larger states from dictating to them. One of the many problems of empires in history was friction between urban areas and rural areas. Rulers tended to focus on urban over rural because that’s where they lived and it’s easier for people to start uprisings in urban areas. Rulers want Pax Romana, not trouble. Keep the most people who are close to each other happy (urban), and you keep the peace. Rural people can attempt to rise up, but it’s more difficult since they are spread out.

The Senate gives every State equal representation regardless of population. The EC reflects the representatives from each State. It keeps the peace.

Not sure what you think the trade you're offering is. Last I heard, we were discussing the Electoral College.

Without the Electoral College, Dems would likely have held the Presidency for 32 of the last 32 years (the "likely" is because there's no way to prove Gore would have been elected, nor what would have happened in the parallel world from 2008 to present.

But your question makes no sense. Doing away with the EC would in no way create a straight swap for those 32 years.

As to the small states banding together, please do tell. I haven't heard about the great Wyoming/NoDak/SoDak/Nebraska consortium.

And, while we're do-telling, please give me an example of, e.g., California attempting to dictate...well...anything to the above-listed small states.

You are making pretty abstract claims that, far as I no, have no relationship to the real world.

Once again: The small states get no special attention in presidential elections because their votes don't matter. With the EC, the only votes that matter are the swing states. Which, in case you've missed it, are actually not small states.

Finally, as to the protection of the poor little states by overrepresentation in the Senate, we've seen the clearest example you could ever what to see of what happens when the minority tyrranizes. Would I trade the Senate where a small fraction of Americans can dictate to the majority who sits on the Supreme Court for a system where that can't happen? With gusto.

The first two paragraphs in post #7 addressed the EC.

The last paragraph was about smaller states not giving up their small advantage. That relates more to the Senate.

That's interesting. What do you have to say about the substance?

Rulers want peace.

Two Senators per State remains.
The EC remains.

Pax Romana

Not even one example of the power of the little states banding together? You said it, not me.

You said the little states banding together paragraph was about the EC.

Surely you can give me an example of when that happened.

"Pax Romana" is an incantation, not an explanation.

So that a party with a slim majority can not dominate all three branches of government.

That's a feature, not a bug. We have been the slim minority before and will in all likelihood be a slim minority again at some point in the future.

I'm at a loss to see how.

You do know, don't you, that the framers of the Constitution didn't write it with parties in mind? They were forthrightly against parties at all.

So it escapes me how you think they designed a system to prevent one party from dominating all three branches, slim majority or not.

How is it you imagine that the Constitution actually contemplates partisanship in the judiciary at all?

Also, the presidency can, and frequently is, established by a slim majority. There is nothing in the system that says such a president has less power than one elected by a huge majority.

The only thing I can think of that your premise describes is the filibuster, which is not in the Constitution, nor was it part of the original design of the government.

Finally, the discussion here is about the Electoral College. What in the world does the EC have to do with the legislative or judicial branches?

In short, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. My failure, I'm sure.

But along with other institutions like the Senate as well as features no longer in play (like the States selecting senators and EC votes) it does.

And yes, the founding fathers were largely against parties, but there have been competing factions with different political philosophies since before the Constitution was ratified. The system they devised helped ensure that no single faction could take total control with a 51% majority.

How does the extant system ensure that no single faction could take total control with a 51% majority.

51% can take the presidency.

51% can take the House and the Senate (please don't invoke the filibuster).

And those two 51% can control the judiciary. Hell, right now we've got a judiciary that is controlled by people appointed by two presidents who got less than 51% of the vote.

I'm honestly not getting what you're claiming. I can't see how you're parsing this.

Hence it is appealed to as the "cause" of the civil war ( state's rights ) by the slave owning states

why should a vote in one state be worth more than a vote in any other state REGARDLESS of its size? THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME INFORMATION WE DO.

We aren't just one unit. That's why we have the Senate; that's why we have the electoral college. We are not a pure democracy. To get rid of the electoral college would require a complete overhaul of our federal system.

it is RIDICULOUS and has given us TWO NITWIT PRESIDENTS in recent history

IT IS ACTIVELY HARMING AMERICA

Canada, the UK and Germany also have heads of government that are not directly elected by the voters, but they are still considered to be democratic.

Just how does that work?

to the post in this whole thing that claims anything based on "citizens [sic] fee-fees"?

Are you feeling especially silly today?

The SCOTUS not only rules other laws a "unconstitutional" but it often declares "what the constitution SAYS" by reinterpreting the language.

Strict reading of the Constitution does not yield a right to privacy. Not a single amendment spells out this right, but various courts have found the that right exists.

The EC is explicitly defined in Article II Section 1 Clause 2.

But I have grown up a bit since that time.

If you’ll notice, there are two small holes in your logic: Maine and Nebraska.

If they can both allow some EVs to go to the non-winner of their states, so could others.

Perhaps that’s where our energies should be directed. Get it passed in enough Red states to where the EC more closely tracks the popular vote. Easier said than done - but so are the other options.

Also, will you still be complaining when FL swings Blue again?

Many states decided (largely at the behest of the current dominant political party, usually the GOP) that all of the electoral votes for a state should go to the majority winner of that state, rather than the EVs being allocated electorally. This means that rather than having 538 different electors, you have, in effect, 50. The EC as originally designed, was flawed, but worked upon the assumption of proportion representational - however this was never explicitly codified, and instead was left to the states to decide how votes were allocated. Not surprisingly, where now party had a supermajority, that was usually a winner takes all approach.

By switching to a proportional system, the electoral college could become much more representative without requiring a formal amendment, but it would also require that states mutually "disarm". While this isn't likely to happen (the GOP currently holds the advantage here), it might be possible if the GOP lost significantly in elections.

The idea would then be universally found unacceptable here as we would support and defend winner takes all.

And what is the straw person hypothetical?

Every position in government in this country except president is decided by popular vote.

You are claiming that people "here" would object if that inconsistency were cured.

I do understand your joyful contrariness, but sometimes you go so far as to seem a tad addled.

Democrats, at least since about 1970, have generally fought for proportional representation as well as increasing the franchise pretty consistently, regardless of whether it is tactically a good idea at the time. When we vote, we know that there is a chance that a different party will win - that's pretty much the definition of democracy, and while we might not be happy with the results, we respect the process. The GOP, on the other hand, tries to game the system as much as possible, and this has become MUCH worse under Trump, who has actively encouraged every dirty trick in the book. Curiously enough, while they tend to win in the short term, they usually are run out of town in the long term, because they can't govern and they know it.

total runs. How ridiculous.

Are you telling me that the rules by which the game is currently played are those that applied in, say, 1910?

Frankly, if the owners decided that making the game into a home-run derby would be the way to make the most money, they'd change the rules.

And you'd be here saying, "I think baseball games should be decided by which team gets the most runs," as if that were some major-league own.

It can't be ruled unconstitutional, it's the law of the land.

do you realize the word democracy does not appear in the Constitution?

It says in Article 4, Section 4:

Federalist No. 39, James Madison emphasizes popular sovereignty and majoritarian control as among “the distinctive characters of the republican form” :

[W]e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; . . . It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified

Which is what we're really talking about. The democracy vs. republic thing is kinda fun (ever heard the term "democratic republic."

But your quote pretty clearly states that, whatever you want to call the form, Mr. Madison was not in favor of minority rule. Do you take some other meaning from, "It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it"?

The problem with the Electoral College and the Senate are that they both raise the possibility, more frequently realized in the Senate, of minority rule.

As it happens, since the House is now also not a proportional body, we can have minority rule there as well. Thanks to gerrymandering, the majority in the House at present was elected by fewer voters than the minority.

I'm not sure why people are so invested in defending Constitutional provisions that produce that result.

I am pointing out the error in the OP that the President is supposed to be democratically elected. That was never the intent. It was expected the state legislatures would select the electors in most cases as they were the democratically elected representatives of the People.

(note Madison's statement: "derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people" )

Of course the Constitution can be Amended as it has been previously- need 3/4ths of the state's approval or all 50 in the case of reproportioning the Senate. However as I said above, there is no political will to make any effort to make these changes.

The OP doesn't argue that the intent of the framers was to have the president democratically elected.

The OP says that's how is should be in a democracy.

Do you disagree with that?

Do any states now have their electors selected by the state legislature? If that was the framers' intent then we're already stomping on their hallowed graves. Why not go all in?

It's worked well for the past two centuries and a few recent losses shouldn't change it. It has a purpose for existing.

As we've seen ending the Senate filibuster on judicial candidates, things can drastically backfire. Republicans could someday get the popular vote and lose the EC, then do we change it back again?

States do have an avenue for getting closer to a popular vote. Maine and Nebraska allocate EC votes by districts. That's something we could push for instead of amending the US Constitution.

When it's "worked well," it has reflected the popular vote.

Saying that makes the EC superior to using the popular vote is a little solipsistic.

I'm willing to take the political risk that things might not work out in our favor someday. It's politics. There is no system or change we can make where it has no possibility of backfiring.

I have no regrets about changing the filibuster. Why? Because I absolutely believe that if Democrats were stalling their court picks with the filibuster, they'd get rid of it too. They risked that Trump might have lost the election in 2016. By all measures, he was losing. They held that Supreme Court seat open anyway and risked that Hillary Clinton might have won.

We shouldn't be scared of our positions possibly backfiring. Republicans reversing Roe has been backfiring on them since they did it. Are they backing down from it? Not at all, even though it's a political loser.

those "two recent losses" have been DISASTROUS

if we can't change anything -- ie "it's been this way forever & working great". Then why are we worried about Trump deciding he's going to be a dictator? If I follow your logic he can't possibly do that because it's not in the Constitution and has never been done.

That assessment is wrong because a contract can be amended.

A contract is an agreement among parties that they agree to abide by, usually with significant penalties if they don't. The problem the framers of the Constitution faced was that there were no real penalties that could be applied if one or more parties violated the agreement. I have long felt that, for all that is was the morally right decision, Abraham Lincoln should have let the South secede. The US at that point was not otherwise at war, had grown enough that it was self-sustainable, and there really was no formal way of enforcing states from seceding short of armed conflict. It can be argued that if it hadn't been for the bone-headed idiocy of John Brown at Harper's Ferry, it probably WOULD have been the course of history, and North America would have then been three primary English speaking countries rather than two.

There is a provision in the Constitution that allows for a new Constitutional Convention when 34 states request it. We are at 28 now. Once such a convention is held, it would require either that the three primary groups - (for want of a better division call them red, blue, and purple) agree to a new constitution or an agreement is made to dissolve the constitution and initiate a new one (quite possibly more than one).

I'm personally not convinced that it would be a bad thing if that happened, even though it would certainly be highly disruptive. I don't see the blue states conceding to red state conditions and vice versa in the near future, and I think both sides are getting tired of having to deal with the idiots on the other side.

maybe that is what will ultimately happen. I'd rather see it at a bargaining table than random violence, as we're starting to see now with events like trying to burn ballot boxes. That will eventually escalate if folks feel like they're not being heard.

amendment (primarily) or a version of the propose National Vote Interstate Compact.

gone years ago.

Last edited Tue Oct 29, 2024, 05:00 PM - Edit history (1)

When the articles of conferderation were being written, the smaller states were terrified of being overrun and drowned out, maybe even eaten up by the bigger states. As an act of self-preservation, they demanded, as a condition for joining the union, certain guarantees the ensured their survival as legal entities. They said, give us this, or we're not joining your "united" states.

Not wanting to upset the apple cart before they even had enough apples to warrant a cart, the big states relented. Thus the Electoral College and two Senators per State, no matter how big or small. No one envisaged five or ten States like Wyoming or North Dakota back then, with more square miles than all of New England and half the population of Rhode Island. (May be a slight exaggeration, but not much of one). The colonies wanted the Constitution ratified before England decided it might have a chance to act like they were Trump, and it was January 6th. It was a price that seemed worth paying at the time. One has to consider it in context. This was 16 years before Lewis and Clark.

This is such a strange argument to be having in this environment. Hard for me to get the people who are so strong in their defense of the nondemocratic parts of the Constitution.

There is so much wrong in this post, it should probably be deleted

Where, in any portion of the Constitution does it say we are a Democracy? They never wanted one to start with, and their reasons noway seem wrong

Our country in the beginning wasn't very stable internally, and they had to get all the states on board

And the EC can't be ruled Unconstitutional since it's literally part of the..
Constitution

We have done amendments before, we can do them again and will

"Where does it say we are a democracy"?

Where does it say we are a republic?

Or whatever other magic word you'd like to call forth?

The Constitution describes a form of representation that has some looks, quacks, and waddles like a democracy.

A representative democracy, for sure.

But certainly not a minority-rule system.

What is it you think "they" wanted?

It wasn't a monarchy. It wasn't a theocracy. It wasn't an oligarchy (OK. That may be a stretch). But if it wasn't rule by the majority, however weirdly defined from moment to moment, what was it?

Says we are a federal democratic Republic

I mean you asked

But I'm.not against your thoughts here but saying all that needs to be presented in a different way

Even the pledge of allegiance says Republic

They didn't want a democracy when this country started,.and to be honest I'm not even against that.

I think tweaking the "winner takes all" in each state may help you get to where.you want

those words mean what you think they mean.

The use of the word "Republican" really is not defining the federal system there at all.

It says 'Republic' which I was told isn't ever mentioned there

So fucking stupid. Someone in the backwoods of Idaho can get their ass up to move to Florida, no one is forcing him to stay in place, we're all citizens.

That and not banning felons from running for the presidency.

If it weren't for that EC, we would have had Hillary and not a bunch of right wing dolt SC warriors.

it's just BULLSHIT that the EC has given us TWO NITWIT PRESIDENTS in recent history

They were trying to convince 13 independent states to come together to form one country. In order to do that, some level of independence for each state needed to be retained. The small states weren't going to approve of a pure democracy where their interests as an independent entity would be throttled by the large states. Why would they. So they made the Senate and the Electoral College to give the smaller states a bigger voice in a couple areas. No EC, no country. How is that the dumbest idea if it was what made the union possible?

The fact that something made the union possible in the first place really doesn't say anything as to its current appropriateness.

Which, IMHO, is the point of this discussion.

Fine. It was a good idea at the time.

Now, when the notion that states are somehow competing independent entities is pretty much dead, it's a damned dumb idea.

States have things that they exclusively control. Education and voting as two of the bigger. There are plenty more. It's how our federal system works. Getting rid of the Electoral College (and the Senate since it has the exact same problems) means that our federal system goes away and we just have national laws.

How in the world does the EC protect state sovereignty? Or the Senate for that matter.

They give small states disproportionate power, yes. Strictly at the federal level.

But there is no way you can rationally maintain that, without those two institutions, state law is dead.

If nothing else, the right of states to self-govern is right there in the Constitution. Separate from the EC and the Senate.

You could look it up.

Guess what else is in the Constitution? As part of the same protections and compromises of independent states in a federation? I'll give you a couple guesses.

"Getting rid of the Electoral College (and the Senate since it has the exact same problems) means that our federal system goes away and we just have national laws."

If that is not "saying it protects it," I don't know what could possibly say it.

I'm done here. You're just being silly.

Enjoy the last word. I'm sure it will be, some people are saying, big men, with tears in their eyes, the best last word ever.

They used Adam Smith's books for the foundation. Him and the founding fathers didn't know that the rich are mentally ill and no amount of riches will ever be enough.

4 ways to change it (in decreasing order of likelihood) are the following:

1) Interstate National Popular Vote Compact. This is where 270+ EC vote states agree to award their EC votes to the national popular vote winner.
2) Constitutional Amendment - theoretically possible but unlikely and many small D states may not want to ratify
3) Constitutional Convention - This option opens EVERYTHING up for negotiation/change so while theoretically possible, unlikely AND probably unwise
4) Revolution - unlikely (hopefully?) and obviously comes with a TON of problems ..... but would likely eliminate the EC one way of the other .....

(5) All states agree to apportion their electoral votes according the popular vote.

Not saying it's any more possible than any of the others. But it's there.

votes based on the national popular vote, that is all you need. If more do that is fine but immaterial as 270 is the magic number ....

is for them to win the popular vote and lose the EC.

Obviously, right now, the EC is what gives them a fighting chance to win the presidency so they no incentive to scrap... unless they lose the EC while winning the popular vote.

think there are other ways please add to the list. I am all ears .....

Even if we had both sides of Congress and sent it to the states...small states would not ratify it...want tilt at some windmills...so we should learn how to win using it...we need a 50 state solution.

while losing the popular vote--- before the Republicans might see the wisdom of the idea of abolishing the electoral college---

every time it happened it has always given THEM the victory while losing the popular vote, so they aren't anxious to abolish the EC.



but it doesn't seem likely to happen for the forseeable future...
because the majority of our country realizes that Republicans SUCK!

There was a chance in 2004, if Kerry had won Ohio...
while purportedly losing the popular vote nationwide....

I thought there was some sentiment among some Republicans to abolish the electoral college in favor of the nationwide popular vote---- but that was stifled in 2000--- and totally cancelled out in 2016.