Trump has spent all day today essentially trying to dictate programming decisions at FOX News, spending an inordinate amount of time tweeting out who should be on the air and who should be removed from certain time slots.
This is what the leader of the free world spends his time on, on a daily basis. He watches cable news, and throws fits based on what he sees. And for someone who was elected as supposedly being a tough guy who doesn't care about "feelings", he is EASILY the biggest whiny-ass crybaby I have ever seen in my life. We'd be a hell of alot better off if this guy had been taken to a psychiatrist about 50 years ago. I've never seen such bottomless narcissism in my life. This is the kind of behavior that is usually handled with a pacifier and a nap, but the kicker is that Trump is 72 years old.
He needs to be retired and golfing at maralago full time and complaining about fox news. A least he wouldn't be hurting anybody important.
Im surprised he doesn't have about 20 holes-in-one. It's probably because he's too cheap to buy everybody a round at the clubhouse...
Wasn't there a story last week that he was declared the winner of a golf tournament at one of his properties that he didn't even play in?? I didn't care about it enough at the time to actually read the story......
Every state represents the people of that state. Those states have a vote, and the winner of the vote in that state is supposed to be who that state supports.
Where are you getting that from?? Is there some way that votes in every state are "supposed" to be counted?
The answer is "no."
Yes, there is a way votes are supposed to be counted. The one with the most votes in the state election gets the electoral votes of the state. That is the entire idea that the system is built around. The idea that every vote in that state election can go to a candidate that gets *zero electoral votes in that state* is a meaningless election. You didn't get to exercise the same sort of voting power that everyone else has to alter the presidential outcome. Your vote is drastically diminished in importance compared to everyone else. Your vote has been rendered meaningless. This is actually one of the things the founders specifically wanted to avoid with the establishment of the electoral college.
The state's legislation would only take effect if enough other states sign on to secure the cumulative 270 electors needed to elect a president, and Colorado's votes raise the current total to 181 electors.
Even if we stick with the Electoral College, I'd really like to end the winner-take-all allocation of electors. It should make a difference whether you win 51% or 90% of California.
Oh wow, that is even worse than I thought. They are trying to change the whole system for everyone, arbitrarily.
That is about as low and as scummy as it gets. The electoral college is in the constitution for a reason, and constitutional changes, let alone changes to the entire presidential election system, weren't ever intended to be done by the stroke of a few governor's pens.
Instead of holding a national debate, making their case to the public, and changing the constitution the way it should be done, with the awareness and consensus of us all, they want to get together and decide it's in their best interest to usurp the system and make every small state and low population center a community with no real representation and no incentive by anyone to cater to their needs. Forgotten towns. Forgotten states.
Can we just get the secession over with already? I think i'm about done attempting a political union with folks who want to ensure people like me don't ever have a say in our own governments because the needs of New York and California outweigh the needs of us all.
The state's legislation would only take effect if enough other states sign on to secure the cumulative 270 electors needed to elect a president, and Colorado's votes raise the current total to 181 electors.
Even if we stick with the Electoral College, I'd really like to end the winner-take-all allocation of electors. It should make a difference whether you win 51% or 90% of California.
Oh wow, that is even worse than I thought. They are trying to change the whole system for everyone, arbitrarily.
That is about as low and as scummy as it gets. The electoral college is in the constitution for a reason, and constitutional changes, let alone changes to the entire presidential election system, weren't ever intended to be done by the stroke of a few governor's pens.
Instead of holding a national debate, making their case to the public, and changing the constitution the way it should be done, with the awareness and consensus of us all, they want to get together and decide it's in their best interest to usurp the system and make every small state and low population center a community with no real representation and no incentive by anyone to cater to their needs. Forgotten towns. Forgotten states.
Can we just get the secession over with already? I think i'm about done attempting a political union with folks who want to ensure people like me don't ever have a say in our own governments because the needs of New York and California outweigh the needs of us all.
That's not going to happen but if it did those forgotten empty states need the blue states way more than the other way around. California is the fifth biggest economy in the world, so yes they deserve to have the biggest say along with other states that have the most Americans. This tyranny of the minority needs to change.
Trump's been crying and begging Fox to put crazy Jenine Pirro back on TV all day. Hardly Presidental action, it's actually pathetic that he's so needy for his propaganda.
The state's legislation would only take effect if enough other states sign on to secure the cumulative 270 electors needed to elect a president, and Colorado's votes raise the current total to 181 electors.
Even if we stick with the Electoral College, I'd really like to end the winner-take-all allocation of electors. It should make a difference whether you win 51% or 90% of California.
Oh wow, that is even worse than I thought. They are trying to change the whole system for everyone, arbitrarily.
That is about as low and as scummy as it gets. The electoral college is in the constitution for a reason, and constitutional changes, let alone changes to the entire presidential election system, weren't ever intended to be done by the stroke of a few governor's pens.
Instead of holding a national debate, making their case to the public, and changing the constitution the way it should be done, with the awareness and consensus of us all, they want to get together and decide it's in their best interest to usurp the system and make every small state and low population center a community with no real representation and no incentive by anyone to cater to their needs. Forgotten towns. Forgotten states.
Can we just get the secession over with already? I think i'm about done attempting a political union with folks who want to ensure people like me don't ever have a say in our own governments because the needs of New York and California outweigh the needs of us all.
@WarChiefZeke the constitution specifically says that the way in which Electors are chosen should be a matter for each State.
The state's legislation would only take effect if enough other states sign on to secure the cumulative 270 electors needed to elect a president, and Colorado's votes raise the current total to 181 electors.
Even if we stick with the Electoral College, I'd really like to end the winner-take-all allocation of electors. It should make a difference whether you win 51% or 90% of California.
Oh wow, that is even worse than I thought. They are trying to change the whole system for everyone, arbitrarily.
That is about as low and as scummy as it gets. The electoral college is in the constitution for a reason, and constitutional changes, let alone changes to the entire presidential election system, weren't ever intended to be done by the stroke of a few governor's pens.
Instead of holding a national debate, making their case to the public, and changing the constitution the way it should be done, with the awareness and consensus of us all, they want to get together and decide it's in their best interest to usurp the system and make every small state and low population center a community with no real representation and no incentive by anyone to cater to their needs. Forgotten towns. Forgotten states.
Can we just get the secession over with already? I think i'm about done attempting a political union with folks who want to ensure people like me don't ever have a say in our own governments because the needs of New York and California outweigh the needs of us all.
@WarChiefZeke the constitution specifically says that the way in which Electors are chosen should be a matter for each State.
Electors being chosen to be electors isn't the same as electors choosing who to vote for. They are supposed to vote for who the state supports. There are examples of "faithless" electors and it is technically allowed in some states, but examples of such are incredibly rare and have never produced any significant results.
The state's legislation would only take effect if enough other states sign on to secure the cumulative 270 electors needed to elect a president, and Colorado's votes raise the current total to 181 electors.
Even if we stick with the Electoral College, I'd really like to end the winner-take-all allocation of electors. It should make a difference whether you win 51% or 90% of California.
Oh wow, that is even worse than I thought. They are trying to change the whole system for everyone, arbitrarily.
That is about as low and as scummy as it gets. The electoral college is in the constitution for a reason, and constitutional changes, let alone changes to the entire presidential election system, weren't ever intended to be done by the stroke of a few governor's pens.
Instead of holding a national debate, making their case to the public, and changing the constitution the way it should be done, with the awareness and consensus of us all, they want to get together and decide it's in their best interest to usurp the system and make every small state and low population center a community with no real representation and no incentive by anyone to cater to their needs. Forgotten towns. Forgotten states.
Can we just get the secession over with already? I think i'm about done attempting a political union with folks who want to ensure people like me don't ever have a say in our own governments because the needs of New York and California outweigh the needs of us all.
@WarChiefZeke the constitution specifically says that the way in which Electors are chosen should be a matter for each State.
Electors being chosen to be electors isn't the same as electors choosing who to vote for. They are supposed to vote for who the state supports. There are examples of "faithless" electors and it is technically allowed in some states, but examples of such are incredibly rare and have never produced any significant results.
Faithless Electors are those who don't vote for the person pledged, as opposed to not voting according to the popular vote in their State. Some States, though not all, have laws to require Electors to vote in a particular way, though as you say it's rare for Electors not to vote as pledged whether a law is in place to require them to do so or not. Whether States have a law requiring Electors to vote in a particular way is a matter left by the constitution to the State and the proposed change to the method of selecting Electors does not change that. Here is the text of the Colorado law referred to by CNN, which is consistent with the requirements of the constitution.
You didn't get to exercise the same sort of voting power that everyone else has to alter the presidential outcome. Your vote is drastically diminished in importance compared to everyone else. Your vote has been rendered meaningless.
If you care so much about equal voting power then why aren't you incensed about voting power inequalities that exist right now, which several prople have already described in great detail?
Because this is what i'm talking about right now. Not sure why I am expected to state an opinion on everything else before I state one on this subject. It seems like anytime I bring any subject up there is an attempt to deflect to other points.
make every small state and low population center a community with no real representation and no incentive by anyone to cater to their needs. Forgotten towns. Forgotten states.
I literally don't understand what you're talking about. How would this result from some states changing how their electors interact with one election?
Yes, there is a way votes are supposed to be counted. The one with the most votes in the state election gets the electoral votes of the state. That is the entire idea that the system is built around.
Electors ... are supposed to vote for who the state supports.
This seems to be the premise of your whole point, and it is wrong. You are mistaken. This just isn't true. Do you think Maine and Nebraska have been undermining the Constitution for decades and nobody noticed? In fact everyone noticed and everyone is perfectly fine with it, because it's fine.
Not sure why on earth you think Maine and Nebraska don't follow the popular vote of their state. They do. They use a different method but they are still basing their decisions on the popular votes of the state. The split electoral system is probably a more accurate way to gauge state popular opinion, if anything.
So yeah, that's basically how it works everywhere and how it is supposed to work.
This seems to be the premise of your whole point, and it is wrong. You are mistaken. This just isn't true. Do you think Maine and Nebraska have been undermining the Constitution for decades and nobody noticed? In fact everyone noticed and everyone is perfectly fine with it, because it's fine.
Well, to be fair even in Maine and Nebraska the Electors are chosen directly in accordance with the votes cast in the State, even if the methodology is different from all other States. That is significantly different from the proposal adopted by a number of States now for Electors to be chosen by votes cast across the whole country rather than just in their own State.
I agree the proposed method does not infringe the constitution, but it's not unreasonable to question whether it fits in with the original intentions of the people who drafted the constitution. I think almost certainly in fact it does not do that - and there's a good reason for that. At the time the constitution was written the speed of information was slow (it was still about another 50 years until even the electric telegraph was introduced) and all the agreed electoral processes reflected that. The idea that the results of one State could be influenced by votes elsewhere would probably have been dismissed on the grounds of practicality even if it had been considered attractive.
The fact that some of the premises behind the constitution are outdated (and that the courts are inconsistent in the way they take that into account), is a very strong reason for updating the constitution. If that is not done though it seems inevitable to me that there will be increasing moves to find ways to get around the constitution in order to better reflect current political and social situations.
If the population of a state voted a 100% for a candidate that lost the popular vote, there votes wouldn’t matter in the slightest because the other candidate garnered 50% of the vote in larger states. It’s swinging the disparity too far the other way.
Let’s even assume that those 100% votes were for a 3rd party Candidate that has happened to form in the next 20-30 years (If the GOP keeps skewing right, expect this to happen) and the votes are 40, 30, 30 across the nation. Should those X votes actually go to tha candidate that gets less than 50% of the vote?
If anything, these states should adopt a policy that reads as follows: If the majority of the state votes for the person who wins the national majority vote, all electoral votes will go to that candidate. If the majority of the state votes for the
person who does not get the majority, ECV will be split according to the state’s percentage.
That policy would be happy compromise IMO until all states split their electoral votes.
I agree the proposed method does not infringe the constitution, but it's not unreasonable to question whether it fits in with the original intentions of the people who drafted the constitution.
It certainly does not fit their intentions, we can go right to the Federalist papers for that. As for whether it is Constitutional, that's an open question. I would lean towards no, because of the fact that the Supreme Court takes into serious consideration what the original intent was when it comes to constitutional issues. But we won't know unless it is challenged, which it probably will be at some point.
I agree the proposed method does not infringe the constitution, but it's not unreasonable to question whether it fits in with the original intentions of the people who drafted the constitution.
It certainly does not fit their intentions, we can go right to the Federalist papers for that. As for whether it is Constitutional, that's an open question. I would lean towards no, because of the fact that the Supreme Court takes into serious consideration what the original intent was when it comes to constitutional issues. But we won't know unless it is challenged, which it probably will be at some point.
I'll look forward to seeing it. I can't really see though any possible basis for a successful challenge. The constitution specifically says that it's up to individual States to select their Electors. In the case of grey areas I agree the courts will refer back to original intentions, but this issue looks pretty black and white to me . In order to rule this was unconstitutional you wouldn't just be interpreting the language of the constitution, but either adding to or altering the existing text - I think it's hard to see the Supreme Court going that far.
I would have thought that a change to the law was much more likely as a means to prohibit this proposal. I think such a change could be done without amending the constitution itself - and while I can't see the Supreme Court introducing that type of change themselves, I could certainly see them ruling a change passed by Congress as constitutional ...
If the population of a state voted a 100% for a candidate that lost the popular vote, there votes wouldn’t matter in the slightest because the other candidate garnered 50% of the vote in larger states. It’s swinging the disparity too far the other way.
I don't think this adds up. Of course they matter, unless your definition is that winning is the only thing that matters. Their states votes contribute to a pool, which if it's large enough - wins.
If 100% of a states population votes for a candidate, and he doesn't win - that's democracy. It means a larger population voted for him elsewhere - and their votes count equivalently as much.
Under the current system, winning 20% vs 25% in a state is a meaningless distinction. Similarly - winning 80% vs 85% is also meaningless.
In a population national vote, those 5% differences are incredibly meaningful.
Additionally, we have an issue where something like 200 EV are essentially "locked in" on each side. The most important views of someone Rhode Island or Idaho are never considered. If you go to a populat national vote - suddenly it would be a viable strategy to court votes from all parts of the country (FWIW - this could be awful. At least it would be equitable)
The absurdity of this argument is that we already recognize that popular voting is a valid form of determining representation. Statewide offices don't use a state base electoral college(to my knowledge) It's a popular vote. I don't hear people complain about how that system is "so unfair" to the farmers in county X or the suburban families in county Y.
Quickly skimmed the bill... but am confused a bit.
This is pretty much a collation of states signing the same bill. When they reference the popular vote, do they mean the popular vote of only the states that have signed the bill or the entire nation?
If it is only states that signed the bill, I personally see no problem with it. They are just creating a "super state," if its the latter, I do have a problem with it as votes outside of the super state is influencing everyone else's.
The #1 argument on the right is that certain states and areas will be "ignored" if there is a national popular vote. Guess what?? They already are. This is a map of post-convention events candidates held in 2016. You'll notice most of the country has a big fat ZERO in them. Almost ALL of them occur in 4 states: Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Swing states. It has been this way for the last 5 election cycles:
You'll notice big, bad California and New York got a total of ONE campaign event from both candidates. Are they being ignored and forgotten?? The entire swath of country from Idaho to the Dakotas didn't see hide nor hair of Trump or Hillary after the conventions. Neither did almost the ENTIRE south aside from North Carolina and Florida. Only New Hampshire out of the New England states got any attention at all. Again, historical swing state. Since 3/5ths of the map is basically locked in before voting even starts based on polling and historical trends, you get this. You can read the whole thread for a more detailed breakdown, but whatever the electoral college is doing, it sure as hell isn't "making candidates pay attention to forgotten towns". It causes almost all campaign events to take place in the major media markets of about a dozen states.
You could EASILY argue Ohio and Florida have been choosing the President since the dawn of the millennium. Let's take the "left-coast" as an example. At least 40-45% of the voters in those states are conservatives. Under the electoral college, their vote basically vanishes into the ether, because electoral votes are winner take all (except for a few small exceptions in Nebraska and Maine). My vote in ND for Hillary was equally meaningless, as she would have been lucky to break 35% here. At least under a national popular vote, my single vote would have the same meaning as everyone else's does. It's such a basic fundamental principle that it's a wonder we even discuss this. But leave it to America to make the argument this is better. And yeah, the original intent of our founding demigods (pardon me, founders) was for this system to be in place. Their intent was also to own slaves and make it so only male, white landowners could vote, which is basically the same aristocracy they were rebelling against with some farmers and plantation owners thrown into the mix.
This seems to be the premise of your whole point, and it is wrong. You are mistaken. This just isn't true. Do you think Maine and Nebraska have been undermining the Constitution for decades and nobody noticed? In fact everyone noticed and everyone is perfectly fine with it, because it's fine.
Well, to be fair even in Maine and Nebraska the Electors are chosen directly in accordance with the votes cast in the State, even if the methodology is different from all other States .
I'm just responding to what was said: "The one with the most votes in the state election gets the electoral votes of the state."
Nebraska and Maine don't comport with that "rule" (which, again, is not actually a rule).
If the population of a state voted a 100% for a candidate that lost the popular vote, there votes wouldn’t matter in the slightest because the other candidate garnered 50% of the vote in larger states. It’s swinging the disparity too far the other way.
But... their votes would matter in affecting the outvome of the popular vote. And they would mater got that purpose precisely as much as the votes of every other voter in the country. To say "their votes wouldn't matter" is 100% incorrect.
If theLet’s even assume that those 100% votes were for a 3rd party Candidate ... and the votes are 40, 30, 30 across the nation. Should those X votes actually go to tha candidate that gets less than 50% of the vote?
If anything, these states should adopt a policy that reads as follows: If the majority of the state votes for the person who wins the national majority vote, all electoral votes will go to that candidate. If the majority of the state votes for the
person who does not get the majority, ECV will be split according to the state’s percentage.
That policy would be happy compromise IMO until all states split their electoral votes.
I guess I agree, and that's why, if andcwhen my state proposes legislation like this, that's what I would support. But it would be legislation - it would have to be enacted by democratic means. Other people might disagree with me. Don't you agree that the result of that process is what should control, rather than your or my opinion about what would be ideal
Snippiness will get you nowhere. Either your math is bad, or you haven't expressed your concern clearly.
You seem to be worried about the effect on small red states... but don't you think a result of this is that the states passing these laws might themselves be screwed? What if blue states have enough votes in the electoral college, but a Republican wins the popular vote? Then New York will go red.
I personally think this is a dumb idea, but I really fon't see how it could be a conspiracy among Democrats to assume permanent control of the government. For various reasons, the most important of which is probably that it just wouldn't work...
It's a short-sighted plan by emotional people who dislike the result of an election that happened two years ago. Tinkering with the system while emotions are running high is going to result in bad unintended consequences IMHO.
I guess I agree, and that's why, if andcwhen my state proposes legislation like this, that's what I would support. But it would be legislation - it would have to be enacted by democratic means. Other people might disagree with me. Don't you agree that the result of that process is what should control, rather than your or my opinion about what would be ideal
Sure, but since this wasn't an election issue, you have no idea if anyone actually supports it but the people proposing the bill.
IMO, anything that deals with how an election is run should be made a referendum in the next election, and if passed enacted for the next election. A governing party shouldn't be able to change the rules on the fly even if you support it or not.
It's a short-sighted plan by emotional people who dislike the result of an election that happened two years ago. Tinkering with the system while emotions are running high is going to result in bad unintended consequences IMHO.
It has happened 5 times in the last 200+ years. To say it another way, 5 of our 45 presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote.
200 years isn't short sighted. And no one that I can see is referencing the most recent election. I'd be *fine* if Romney won in 2012 by winning the popular vote, and I'd still want it changed if Romney lost in 2012 despite winning the popular vote because of the electoral college.
Would you fly on a plane if 5 out of the last 45 times it flew, it malfunctioned? Would it be shortsighted of you to want it fixed?
He is talking about civil war, kind of like we heard earlier in this thread. He is inciting violence. This civil war stuff is apparently floating around in the alt-right echo chamber.
It's clear the right doesn't support American values.
Republican treason is intensifying just look at their covering up of the release of the Mueller report. Trump bragged he told House Republicans to play along with voting to support releasing the Mueller report then he had Lindsey Graham kill it under false pretenses. Their support for the fake national emergency (didn't matter for two years and nothing changed) is another subversion of America and an unconstitutional power grab.
Southern states started to cry that they couldn't set policy for the rest of the nation unilaterally and tried to secede before. Real American Patriots from today's blue states had to defend the Constitution and will do so again.
Not sure why I am expected to state an opinion on everything else before I state one on this subject.
You don't have to. No one is required to comment on any specific issue, even if it seems somehow related in one way or another. We don't want to get into a situation where one person can say "I oppose Scandal X in Wisconsin" and someone else will say "Oh, really? Then why aren't you complaining about Scandal 4FW in New Mexico?" as if the first person's credibility depended on them condemning Scandal 4FW.
I've commented on one issue while failing to comment on related issues for multiple reasons: (1) because someone else had already expressed the same views as mine; (2) because it hadn't yet come up in the discussion; (3) because I wasn't aware of the other issues, or they just didn't come to mind at the time; (4) because addressing both would be redundant; and (5) because doing so would distract from an existing tangent.
It's a short-sighted plan by emotional people who dislike the result of an election that happened two years ago. Tinkering with the system while emotions are running high is going to result in bad unintended consequences IMHO.
It has happened 5 times in the last 200+ years. To say it another way, 5 of our 45 presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote.
200 years isn't short sighted. And no one that I can see is referencing the most recent election. I'd be *fine* if Romney won in 2012 by winning the popular vote, and I'd still want it changed if Romney lost in 2012 despite winning the popular vote because of the electoral college.
Would you fly on a plane if 5 out of the last 45 times it flew, it malfunctioned? Would it be shortsighted of you to want it fixed?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever mention that winning the popular vote is a requirement for becoming president. I think that is exactly what was intended. I don't agree with you that 5 out of 45 times it malfunctioned.
It's weird to me the constitution in the US is like the holy document of Vatican law these days. Look, sometimes it's wrong and should be updated. Get over it you guys.
I guess I agree, and that's why, if andcwhen my state proposes legislation like this, that's what I would support. But it would be legislation - it would have to be enacted by democratic means. Other people might disagree with me. Don't you agree that the result of that process is what should control, rather than your or my opinion about what would be ideal
Sure, but since this wasn't an election issue, you have no idea if anyone actually supports it but the people proposing the bill.
I mean, that's the nature of representative legislators enacting policies. On the other hand...
IMO, anything that deals with how an election is run should be made a referendum in the next election, and if passed enacted for the next election. A governing party shouldn't be able to change the rules on the fly even if you support it or not.
This would be a very good principle, I agree with this.
(Though, where do you draw the line? What about executive policies relating to the administration of elections? Should Brian Kemp have been able to purge voter rolls and do other such things ahead of (his own) election? Or should that stuff be reserved for referendums as well?)
All purges should happen immediately after an election and be compared to the voter list. If someone actually did vote that election, obviously they shouldn't be purged. If someone didn't vote, contact should be attempted to determine if the individual still wants to be on the list. Work with the postal service to make sure these letters do not get forwarded to another address and you have an ideal way to keep registration up to date. This also gives a person ample time to get themselves back on the list should they change their mind or forgot to make contact with the elections office.
Doing it 6 months before election is just trolling.
It's a short-sighted plan by emotional people who dislike the result of an election that happened two years ago. Tinkering with the system while emotions are running high is going to result in bad unintended consequences IMHO.
It has happened 5 times in the last 200+ years. To say it another way, 5 of our 45 presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote.
200 years isn't short sighted. And no one that I can see is referencing the most recent election. I'd be *fine* if Romney won in 2012 by winning the popular vote, and I'd still want it changed if Romney lost in 2012 despite winning the popular vote because of the electoral college.
Would you fly on a plane if 5 out of the last 45 times it flew, it malfunctioned? Would it be shortsighted of you to want it fixed?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever mention that winning the popular vote is a requirement for becoming president. I think that is exactly what was intended. I don't agree with you that 5 out of 45 times it malfunctioned.
Did you know the constitution it states "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." Obviously that was abandoned and replaced. Don't see why the current method can't be abandoned and replaced.
It's a short-sighted plan by emotional people who dislike the result of an election that happened two years ago. Tinkering with the system while emotions are running high is going to result in bad unintended consequences IMHO.
It has happened 5 times in the last 200+ years. To say it another way, 5 of our 45 presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote.
200 years isn't short sighted. And no one that I can see is referencing the most recent election. I'd be *fine* if Romney won in 2012 by winning the popular vote, and I'd still want it changed if Romney lost in 2012 despite winning the popular vote because of the electoral college.
Would you fly on a plane if 5 out of the last 45 times it flew, it malfunctioned? Would it be shortsighted of you to want it fixed?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever mention that winning the popular vote is a requirement for becoming president. I think that is exactly what was intended. I don't agree with you that 5 out of 45 times it malfunctioned.
Did you know the constitution it states "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." Obviously that was abandoned and replaced. Don't see why the current method can't be abandoned and replaced.
How is that obvious? Each representative represents about 690,000 people now. That's far more than 30,000. We'd need over 10,000 representatives to even come close to breaking that rule...
It's a short-sighted plan by emotional people who dislike the result of an election that happened two years ago. Tinkering with the system while emotions are running high is going to result in bad unintended consequences IMHO.
It has happened 5 times in the last 200+ years. To say it another way, 5 of our 45 presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote.
200 years isn't short sighted. And no one that I can see is referencing the most recent election. I'd be *fine* if Romney won in 2012 by winning the popular vote, and I'd still want it changed if Romney lost in 2012 despite winning the popular vote because of the electoral college.
Would you fly on a plane if 5 out of the last 45 times it flew, it malfunctioned? Would it be shortsighted of you to want it fixed?
Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever mention that winning the popular vote is a requirement for becoming president. I think that is exactly what was intended. I don't agree with you that 5 out of 45 times it malfunctioned.
Did you know the constitution it states "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." Obviously that was abandoned and replaced. Don't see why the current method can't be abandoned and replaced.
How is that obvious? Each representative represents about 690,000 people now. That's far more than 30,000. We'd need over 10,000 representatives to even come close to breaking that rule...
It mean for the population of 30,000 = 1 ECV. New York City alone with 8.337 Million people should have 278+2 Electoral votes if the constitution is actually being followed as written. (if you don't have 30,000 people, you still get 1+ 2 for the senators)
They capped it back in 1911 when they thought there was getting to be too many electoral votes to manage (population back then was just over 92 million compared to 323 million now).
Comments
Wasn't there a story last week that he was declared the winner of a golf tournament at one of his properties that he didn't even play in?? I didn't care about it enough at the time to actually read the story......
Yes, there is a way votes are supposed to be counted. The one with the most votes in the state election gets the electoral votes of the state. That is the entire idea that the system is built around. The idea that every vote in that state election can go to a candidate that gets *zero electoral votes in that state* is a meaningless election. You didn't get to exercise the same sort of voting power that everyone else has to alter the presidential outcome. Your vote is drastically diminished in importance compared to everyone else. Your vote has been rendered meaningless. This is actually one of the things the founders specifically wanted to avoid with the establishment of the electoral college.
Oh wow, that is even worse than I thought. They are trying to change the whole system for everyone, arbitrarily.
That is about as low and as scummy as it gets. The electoral college is in the constitution for a reason, and constitutional changes, let alone changes to the entire presidential election system, weren't ever intended to be done by the stroke of a few governor's pens.
Instead of holding a national debate, making their case to the public, and changing the constitution the way it should be done, with the awareness and consensus of us all, they want to get together and decide it's in their best interest to usurp the system and make every small state and low population center a community with no real representation and no incentive by anyone to cater to their needs. Forgotten towns. Forgotten states.
Can we just get the secession over with already? I think i'm about done attempting a political union with folks who want to ensure people like me don't ever have a say in our own governments because the needs of New York and California outweigh the needs of us all.
That's not going to happen but if it did those forgotten empty states need the blue states way more than the other way around. California is the fifth biggest economy in the world, so yes they deserve to have the biggest say along with other states that have the most Americans. This tyranny of the minority needs to change.
Trump's been crying and begging Fox to put crazy Jenine Pirro back on TV all day. Hardly Presidental action, it's actually pathetic that he's so needy for his propaganda.
@WarChiefZeke the constitution specifically says that the way in which Electors are chosen should be a matter for each State.
Electors being chosen to be electors isn't the same as electors choosing who to vote for. They are supposed to vote for who the state supports. There are examples of "faithless" electors and it is technically allowed in some states, but examples of such are incredibly rare and have never produced any significant results.
Faithless Electors are those who don't vote for the person pledged, as opposed to not voting according to the popular vote in their State. Some States, though not all, have laws to require Electors to vote in a particular way, though as you say it's rare for Electors not to vote as pledged whether a law is in place to require them to do so or not. Whether States have a law requiring Electors to vote in a particular way is a matter left by the constitution to the State and the proposed change to the method of selecting Electors does not change that. Here is the text of the Colorado law referred to by CNN, which is consistent with the requirements of the constitution.
Because this is what i'm talking about right now. Not sure why I am expected to state an opinion on everything else before I state one on this subject. It seems like anytime I bring any subject up there is an attempt to deflect to other points.
Math.
Not sure why on earth you think Maine and Nebraska don't follow the popular vote of their state. They do. They use a different method but they are still basing their decisions on the popular votes of the state. The split electoral system is probably a more accurate way to gauge state popular opinion, if anything.
So yeah, that's basically how it works everywhere and how it is supposed to work.
Well, to be fair even in Maine and Nebraska the Electors are chosen directly in accordance with the votes cast in the State, even if the methodology is different from all other States. That is significantly different from the proposal adopted by a number of States now for Electors to be chosen by votes cast across the whole country rather than just in their own State.
I agree the proposed method does not infringe the constitution, but it's not unreasonable to question whether it fits in with the original intentions of the people who drafted the constitution. I think almost certainly in fact it does not do that - and there's a good reason for that. At the time the constitution was written the speed of information was slow (it was still about another 50 years until even the electric telegraph was introduced) and all the agreed electoral processes reflected that. The idea that the results of one State could be influenced by votes elsewhere would probably have been dismissed on the grounds of practicality even if it had been considered attractive.
The fact that some of the premises behind the constitution are outdated (and that the courts are inconsistent in the way they take that into account), is a very strong reason for updating the constitution. If that is not done though it seems inevitable to me that there will be increasing moves to find ways to get around the constitution in order to better reflect current political and social situations.
If the population of a state voted a 100% for a candidate that lost the popular vote, there votes wouldn’t matter in the slightest because the other candidate garnered 50% of the vote in larger states. It’s swinging the disparity too far the other way.
Let’s even assume that those 100% votes were for a 3rd party Candidate that has happened to form in the next 20-30 years (If the GOP keeps skewing right, expect this to happen) and the votes are 40, 30, 30 across the nation. Should those X votes actually go to tha candidate that gets less than 50% of the vote?
If anything, these states should adopt a policy that reads as follows: If the majority of the state votes for the person who wins the national majority vote, all electoral votes will go to that candidate. If the majority of the state votes for the
person who does not get the majority, ECV will be split according to the state’s percentage.
That policy would be happy compromise IMO until all states split their electoral votes.
It certainly does not fit their intentions, we can go right to the Federalist papers for that. As for whether it is Constitutional, that's an open question. I would lean towards no, because of the fact that the Supreme Court takes into serious consideration what the original intent was when it comes to constitutional issues. But we won't know unless it is challenged, which it probably will be at some point.
I'll look forward to seeing it. I can't really see though any possible basis for a successful challenge. The constitution specifically says that it's up to individual States to select their Electors. In the case of grey areas I agree the courts will refer back to original intentions, but this issue looks pretty black and white to me
I would have thought that a change to the law was much more likely as a means to prohibit this proposal. I think such a change could be done without amending the constitution itself - and while I can't see the Supreme Court introducing that type of change themselves, I could certainly see them ruling a change passed by Congress as constitutional ...
I don't think this adds up. Of course they matter, unless your definition is that winning is the only thing that matters. Their states votes contribute to a pool, which if it's large enough - wins.
If 100% of a states population votes for a candidate, and he doesn't win - that's democracy. It means a larger population voted for him elsewhere - and their votes count equivalently as much.
Under the current system, winning 20% vs 25% in a state is a meaningless distinction. Similarly - winning 80% vs 85% is also meaningless.
In a population national vote, those 5% differences are incredibly meaningful.
Additionally, we have an issue where something like 200 EV are essentially "locked in" on each side. The most important views of someone Rhode Island or Idaho are never considered. If you go to a populat national vote - suddenly it would be a viable strategy to court votes from all parts of the country (FWIW - this could be awful. At least it would be equitable)
The absurdity of this argument is that we already recognize that popular voting is a valid form of determining representation. Statewide offices don't use a state base electoral college(to my knowledge) It's a popular vote. I don't hear people complain about how that system is "so unfair" to the farmers in county X or the suburban families in county Y.
This is pretty much a collation of states signing the same bill. When they reference the popular vote, do they mean the popular vote of only the states that have signed the bill or the entire nation?
If it is only states that signed the bill, I personally see no problem with it. They are just creating a "super state," if its the latter, I do have a problem with it as votes outside of the super state is influencing everyone else's.
You'll notice big, bad California and New York got a total of ONE campaign event from both candidates. Are they being ignored and forgotten?? The entire swath of country from Idaho to the Dakotas didn't see hide nor hair of Trump or Hillary after the conventions. Neither did almost the ENTIRE south aside from North Carolina and Florida. Only New Hampshire out of the New England states got any attention at all. Again, historical swing state. Since 3/5ths of the map is basically locked in before voting even starts based on polling and historical trends, you get this. You can read the whole thread for a more detailed breakdown, but whatever the electoral college is doing, it sure as hell isn't "making candidates pay attention to forgotten towns". It causes almost all campaign events to take place in the major media markets of about a dozen states.
You could EASILY argue Ohio and Florida have been choosing the President since the dawn of the millennium. Let's take the "left-coast" as an example. At least 40-45% of the voters in those states are conservatives. Under the electoral college, their vote basically vanishes into the ether, because electoral votes are winner take all (except for a few small exceptions in Nebraska and Maine). My vote in ND for Hillary was equally meaningless, as she would have been lucky to break 35% here. At least under a national popular vote, my single vote would have the same meaning as everyone else's does. It's such a basic fundamental principle that it's a wonder we even discuss this. But leave it to America to make the argument this is better. And yeah, the original intent of our founding demigods (pardon me, founders) was for this system to be in place. Their intent was also to own slaves and make it so only male, white landowners could vote, which is basically the same aristocracy they were rebelling against with some farmers and plantation owners thrown into the mix.
It's a short-sighted plan by emotional people who dislike the result of an election that happened two years ago. Tinkering with the system while emotions are running high is going to result in bad unintended consequences IMHO.
Sure, but since this wasn't an election issue, you have no idea if anyone actually supports it but the people proposing the bill.
IMO, anything that deals with how an election is run should be made a referendum in the next election, and if passed enacted for the next election. A governing party shouldn't be able to change the rules on the fly even if you support it or not.
It has happened 5 times in the last 200+ years. To say it another way, 5 of our 45 presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote.
200 years isn't short sighted. And no one that I can see is referencing the most recent election. I'd be *fine* if Romney won in 2012 by winning the popular vote, and I'd still want it changed if Romney lost in 2012 despite winning the popular vote because of the electoral college.
Would you fly on a plane if 5 out of the last 45 times it flew, it malfunctioned? Would it be shortsighted of you to want it fixed?
“One side has about 8 trillion bullets, while the other side doesn’t know which bathroom to use,” states the meme,
"Wonder who would win...” added King, apparently not noticing that his home state was depicted on the losing side
He is talking about civil war, kind of like we heard earlier in this thread. He is inciting violence. This civil war stuff is apparently floating around in the alt-right echo chamber.
It's clear the right doesn't support American values.
Republican treason is intensifying just look at their covering up of the release of the Mueller report. Trump bragged he told House Republicans to play along with voting to support releasing the Mueller report then he had Lindsey Graham kill it under false pretenses. Their support for the fake national emergency (didn't matter for two years and nothing changed) is another subversion of America and an unconstitutional power grab.
Southern states started to cry that they couldn't set policy for the rest of the nation unilaterally and tried to secede before. Real American Patriots from today's blue states had to defend the Constitution and will do so again.
I've commented on one issue while failing to comment on related issues for multiple reasons: (1) because someone else had already expressed the same views as mine; (2) because it hadn't yet come up in the discussion; (3) because I wasn't aware of the other issues, or they just didn't come to mind at the time; (4) because addressing both would be redundant; and (5) because doing so would distract from an existing tangent.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever mention that winning the popular vote is a requirement for becoming president. I think that is exactly what was intended. I don't agree with you that 5 out of 45 times it malfunctioned.
All purges should happen immediately after an election and be compared to the voter list. If someone actually did vote that election, obviously they shouldn't be purged. If someone didn't vote, contact should be attempted to determine if the individual still wants to be on the list. Work with the postal service to make sure these letters do not get forwarded to another address and you have an ideal way to keep registration up to date. This also gives a person ample time to get themselves back on the list should they change their mind or forgot to make contact with the elections office.
Doing it 6 months before election is just trolling.
Did you know the constitution it states "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." Obviously that was abandoned and replaced. Don't see why the current method can't be abandoned and replaced.
How is that obvious? Each representative represents about 690,000 people now. That's far more than 30,000. We'd need over 10,000 representatives to even come close to breaking that rule...
It mean for the population of 30,000 = 1 ECV. New York City alone with 8.337 Million people should have 278+2 Electoral votes if the constitution is actually being followed as written. (if you don't have 30,000 people, you still get 1+ 2 for the senators)
They capped it back in 1911 when they thought there was getting to be too many electoral votes to manage (population back then was just over 92 million compared to 323 million now).