• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Electoral College unconstitutional?

mrjurrs

mrjurrs

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
43,761
Reaction score
31,053
Location
The Bay
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
An obvious bait thread...or is it. The framers included an Article for amending the Constitution. And the 14th was ratified. In Reynolds v. Sims, SCOTUS mandated the principle of one man, one vote for House (federal) election representation.

"In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), this Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a "one-person, one-vote" principle. This principle requires that, "when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials."

In 2024, CA had 40 million people and 54 votes for the presidency. One for every 740,740 people.
Twelve small population states with a combined state population of less than 16.5 million people had 53 votes for the Presidency. One for every 310,377 people.

Imo, the Electoral College as currently constructed is unconstitutional and should be removed based on the 14th Amendment and Reynolds v Sims. And yes, an Amendment has removed a portion of the original Constitution before. The 12th Amendment superseded part of Article 2, Section 1.
 
Rich2018 said:
Nobody says that it is.
Click to expand...
@mrjurrs quote in the OP refers specifically to "When members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts,".

Since the presidency is not a member of an elected body, that paragraph does not apply to him, and it cannot be a basis for determining constitutionality of the EC.
 
Rich2018 said:
The EC is of course constitutional, it's just not democratic.
Click to expand...
But is it? How do you square one man, one vote with the Electoral College?
 
California has been a vocal supporter of the NPVIC. The North Carolina state government was considering signing on which would have given the compact the necessary 270 votes. When it became clear Donald Trump would win the national popular vote, California threatened to withdraw.
 
Rich2018 said:
As I said, it's not democratic.
Click to expand...
One man one vote is a Constitutional provision required by the Reynolds v Sims SCOTUS (the final arbiters of what is Constitutional and what is not) decision.
 
mrjurrs said:
One man one vote is a Constitutional provision required by the Reynolds v Sims SCOTUS (the final arbiters of what is Constitutional and what is not) decision.
Click to expand...

But how can something created by the Constitution be "unconstitutional" ?

The USSC cannot rule any part of the Constitution as "unconstitutional" (unless of course it is repealed by a constitutional amendment).

If the Constitution provides for an Electoral College, it is by definition "constitutional".
 
Rich2018 said:
But how can something created by the Constitution be "unconstitutional" ?

The USSC cannot rule any part of the Constitution as "unconstitutional" (unless of course it is repealed by a constitutional amendment).

If the Constitution provides for an Electoral College, it is by definition "constitutional".
Click to expand...
The same way the 12th Amendment made part of Article 2 unconstitutional.

It was, but then Reynolds v Sims was decided and it changed what was Constitutional and what is not. Remember, the division of Congressional districts was Constitutional even when packed...until it wasn't.

The entire 'it is in the Constitution, but it contradicts something that has been found to be constitutional' is an interesting point imo.
 
eman623 said:
LOL.

The president is not a member of an elected body.
Click to expand...
The presidency is the body.

And your point is irrelevant. The 4th Amendment didn't apply to cell phones...until it did.
 
It isn't unconstitutional, but it's an archaic folksy system that needs to go.
 
mrjurrs said:
The same way the 12th Amendment made part of Article 2 unconstitutional.

It was, but then Reynolds v Sims was decided and it changed what was Constitutional and what is not. Remember, the division of Congressional districts was Constitutional even when packed...until it wasn't.

The entire 'it is in the Constitution, but it contradicts something that has been found to be constitutional' is an interesting point imo.
Click to expand...

But the part of the Constitution that stipulated the role of the EC, has never been repealed.

QED: the EC is still active under the Constitution
Therefore by any definition, it is constitutional.
 
mrjurrs said:
The presidency is the body.
Click to expand...
There is no body.

I means the president has a body, but he or she is not a member of a body.

Rich2018 said:
It is a body - one of three elements that make up the US government (along with the judiciary and legislature)
And it definitely has members.
Click to expand...
You are confusing "body" and "branch".

The Executive is a branch of government. It does not have an elected body of members.

The Legislative is also a branch. It has two elected bodies of members.

The Judicial branch like the executive has no elected bodies of members.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom