Share this comment
The point is, we need to get rid of "battleground states." A few states shouldn't get to decide every election. The Electoral College's "winner takes all" for each state needs to go. It should be one person, one vote when it comes to presidential elections. (Yes, even if it doesn't always go the way I want it to.) latimes.com/entertainme…
The point is, we need to get rid of "battleground states." A few states shouldn't get to decide every election. The Electoral College's "winner takes all" for each state needs to go. It should be one person, one vote when it comes to presidential elections. (Yes, even if it doesn't always go the way I want it to.) https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/newsletter/2020-11-07/arts-newsletter-template-essential-arts
That takes a rewrite the constitution. States have the power to make those decisions. The system was weighted, intentionally, in favor of rural and small states to get unanimous approval for a united states constitution. Electoral reform requires amending the constitution. On the other hand, if we allow the courts, Congress and the rule of law to be torn down, we won’t have to worry about it. All those decisions will be made without our input. Meanwhile, as we still have some semblance of our democratic institutions, those who don’t support a right wing authoritarian agenda will continue to need in the range of 50% +7 to 10% majority.
You can see here that only in the past 20 years have we had such consistently narrow presidential elections where the popular vote was within a few percentage points.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-Presidential-Election-Results-1788863
Here is an alternative solution that does not require a rewrite of the constitution and preserves the majority vote. Some states have already agreed. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
How are the "courts, Congress and rule of law to be torn down" affecting the current Electoral College system? It's working as designed. It's not designed to be a popular vote.
I said if they are torn down, we won’t have to worry about it. Another words, we won’t have to worry about the electoral college..
The fact that a couple elections have been won while not winning the popular vote is an example of why the Electoral College works. It was a compromise that has an element of the popular vote built in, but is not solely dependent on just popular vote.
Imagine if the state of Texas had 100 Million voters and 85% voted for one candidate. So 85 Million people in Texas would effectively decide the election for the entire country. I don't think that would be desired.
Sorry, but I don't see Trump getting elected while having lost the popular vote by 3 million as an example of the Electoral College "working." It is a minoritarian system and should be scrapped or bypassed (a la the National Popular Vote initiative).
I appreciate your opinion. It's working as it was designed and can be changed through an amendment to our Constitution.
Which will never happen in our polarized society.
More than a couple. And it’s becoming more of a risk. Yes, it’s become a problem in the last 20 years as the majority in the popular vote has shrunk. So here’s a reasonable solution that works around the constitutional requirement. It preserves the well as a majority and the constitution.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
Why are close elections where "the majority in the popular vote is getting shrunk" a problem?
The electoral college has become more of a problem because it tends to favor states with fewer voters. That makes a bigger difference when you have a smaller majority.
But I suspect your real issue of saving the electoral college forever lies in something not stated. I say that because your arguments do not support your initial statement, which was not actually correct.
—The Electoral College is based off of people, not acreage. The more people in a state, the more Electoral Votes that state gets.—
How does it "tend to favor states with fewer voters"
Each state gets electors based off of the number of Senators (2) and the number of representatives it has (which is based off of population). If you look at the context of my initial statement, how is that not correct?
The senators are not based on population.
And according to you…
—More meaningful in the fact that the people of Alaska have more influence under the current system than if it was only based on popular vote. Currently they get 3 of the 538 Electoral votes. The less populated states (with fewer Electors) get more of a say under the current system.—
Yes, the states with fewer Electoral votes can potentially play a bigger role when you have a smaller majority. That is how it was designed, and people can change it (via popular vote) by electing Representatives and amending our Constitution.
This was a workaround. The authors and founders also anticipated the document being amended frequently as needed. But once hours is given, it’s very hard to get back
I doubt they saw the computer age and log rhythms. Calculation of electoral votes for each state is one problem. Here is what you can do block by block, street by street with computer computer driven gerrymandering. It’s an extreme example but It’s really the main reason the GOP prefers more control over who votes and not expanding voting access or rights. Thomas Hofeller had a well kept secret until after his death.
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote
Not following the point you are trying to make here.
I was trained on GOTV, specifically for non-partisan work. That was the late ‘90s. Frank Luntz was one of the speakers. The 90s were the very early stage of organizations using computers. Windows was in its infancy.
GOTV is not what the GOP relies on. Hofeller’s marriage of two strategies (picking your voters and picking who will vote) is used at the local, state & at the national level in policy decisions… including a census question guided by his research.
The folks who came up with electoral votes did not foresee this or political efforts successfully transcending regional boundaries. That’s one reason they gave states so much control. Neither did they know how difficult it would be in the future to amend the Constitution. (Removing the electoral college will not address all the problems. ) Hard to say how far it needs to go before it no longer works for you.
"One person, one vote" actually has been the law of the land for about 60 years.
That's an oft-quoted slogan which bears little relation to reality.
It was also the meaning of a Supreme Court decision, Reynolds v. Sims, in 1964. To the extent that it doesn't bear a relationship to reality today, that's primarily, if not exclusively, the Republicans' fault at this point. But then for at least the last 50 years, Republicans haven't given a damn about the law where their own behavior is concerned.