• 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!

What would happen if the Electoral College was abolished

jetjunky

New member
Joined
Mar 22, 2019
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Following the 2016 US presidential election, where Hilary Clinton lost to Donald Trump despite winning the popular vote, many Democrats are clamoring for an abolishment of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College has both good points and bad points; chief among the bad is that small population rural states have more power per voter than larger more urbanized states. This aspect of the system is both unfair and indefensible.

Alternatively, some positive aspects of the system should not be ignored. Firstly this form of election in the US demands a broad appeal to ensure election. No one region of the nation has enough Electoral College votes to win an election, a candidate needs support from the Northeast, the West, the Midwest and the South to win. This makes a region specific candidate unlikely to win and requires prospective candidates to reach out and appeal to a broad base across the nation.

Secondly, this structure discourages a multi party system and favors a two party system. It would be a mistake to assume if the Electoral College were abolished tomorrow that the current two major parties would continue as they are in the future. It is an inevitability that both these parties would fracture into separate interest groups and result in a multi party system.

Most democracies in the world today are multi party. Most examples include two to five medium sized parties, none of which have enough votes to govern alone and so require a coalition to form a government.

The impact of the evolution towards a multiparty system in the US differs for either of the two major parties that exist today. Currently the Republican Party support base is a fairly homogeneous group when compared to the Democratic base. This contrast will result in different outcomes following the abolishment of the Electoral College. Political parties are formed by different ideological groups and ideas. As the Democratic Party represents a more diverse collection of ideas and beliefs it is more likely to fracture into separate niche splinter parties than say the Republican party that is far more homogeneous. Although following the Trump era, the GOP could split into perhaps two major factions, one being more right wing and the other perhaps more centrist.

In this future post Electoral College US with multiple parties, it is unlikely that any single faction would have sufficient support to govern alone. This would require a coalition of two or more parties to gain a majority. Closely aligned parties may work well together and thus have a strong, stable alliance. However, when out of desperation to govern an alliance of less well aligned parties may form. Down the line this may lead to major problems.

A small party that holds a critical number of seats (an amount that grants the larger party enough seats to govern) is known as a “king maker” and can often hold a lot more power than their seat allocation suggests. Due to the complete reliance by the larger party on the smaller party’s’ support for them to remain in power, the smaller party can impose demands, sometimes unreasonable ones, on the larger party as a reward for their continued support. This can result in concessions and compromises by the larger party that could in fact be at odds to promises they made in their election campaign.

The greed for power and desperation to govern can be very consuming and take up a disproportionately large portion of time in such an environment. The stability afforded by a two party system must not be overlooked. More voices in a government cannot be seen as a bad thing however the system is more dynamic and has many more distractions than the current system.

Many, many members of government, candidates, political analysts, the media, you name it assume that the current political landscape consisting two major parties will simply continue without an Electoral College. That is very unlikely to happen. A better solution to the current situation would be to perhaps amend the Electoral College as it now stands. Eliminating the imbalance between states would be good first step. Another aspect that should receive attention is the winner takes all approach. Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California have less incentive to vote currently when compared to voters in the swing states. Proportional allocation of Electoral Votes is a possible solution to this.

The system is flawed and does need attention to eliminate the unfairness that currently surrounds it. However the good aspects of the system should not be ignored as neither should the implications of the systems complete abolishment. We do indeed live in interesting times.
 
I don’t claim to be any expert but I’ve always thought the winner-takes-all aspect for electoral votes in most states is a key issue. I think it would make more sense to split the electoral votes based on the state-wide vote so if a state has 10 electoral votes and the election goes 60% to 40%, the candidates gets 6 votes and 4 votes respectively. That would mitigate the populous states dominating (any more than they already do) and also mitigate populous areas within states dominating too. It could also give more scope for third party or independent candidates to actually get votes, which isn’t going to win them the presidency alone but could broaden the political discourse in the USA, something it desperately needs.

It’d be interesting to hear what people closer to this think about it.
 
I don’t claim to be any expert but I’ve always thought the winner-takes-all aspect for electoral votes in most states is a key issue. I think it would make more sense to split the electoral votes based on the state-wide vote so if a state has 10 electoral votes and the election goes 60% to 40%, the candidates gets 6 votes and 4 votes respectively. That would mitigate the populous states dominating (any more than they already do) and also mitigate populous areas within states dominating too. It could also give more scope for third party or independent candidates to actually get votes, which isn’t going to win them the presidency alone but could broaden the political discourse in the USA, something it desperately needs.

It’d be interesting to hear what people closer to this think about it.

It is perfectly valid for each state to determine how it allocates its Electoral Votes. Certainly allocating votes by congressional district voting is probably better than most alternatives, but the people who matter won't support it because it is wrong, they won't support it because the impact it could have on what other states do. If we change but they don't, then someone an advantage is being gained.

Plenty of talk lately about the Electoral College and that's all it is. Politicians who talk about it have introduced zero legislation to start the amendment process and there is no realistic prospect of enough states ratifying it to take effect. States would be voting against their own self interest if they did ratify it.

The Electoral College has provided a smooth transition of Presidential Power for 230 years. That is the most important legacy of the Constitution is that it has provided an enduring framework. Ties have been dealt with completely and we have experienced pretty much all of them. The end of every Presidential term has ended on time with the departure of the President.

Some argue of Direct Popular vote and spend hours upon hours talking about how unfair mathematically it is and compare single voters in any of several combinations of states. It is all irrelevant. We are a collection of states and in every current method of delegate selection, every vote in a neighborhood, congressional district, area code, or state are all equal. Comparing the weighting of the vote only matters as a debate tool to try to win a debate. The math is incontrovertible but irrelevant. The rules are in place, they are fair, and they work. Team politics say they don't, but procedure and order remain intact.

Everyone arguing for change is the equivalent of the disheveled long-haired bum holding a placard saying "The end is near". It isn't near, the country is doing OK and the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. Those who have differing opinions are not evil, dumb, stupid, nor ignorant. They just differ. Those on DP who spend hours upon hours debating the same points over and over again, or scour the news in search of the next tidbit to run back to DP to hammer the other side are the truly sad people. They should spend some of that time and volunteer in their community. For some of the older folks on DP, this is their life, social or otherwise.

Of course this whole post isn't directed to you, but you made a thoughtful suggestion which may have merit. Contact your local representatives in your state and advocate for the change in your state. You will have accomplished more than 95% of the people on DP who view debate as Monty Python views an argument:

 
If the Electoral College is eliminated, there will never be another Republican President.
Then the nominating apparatus must be repaired.
/
 
chief among the bad is that small population rural states have more power per voter than larger more urbanized states. This aspect of the system is both unfair and indefensible.
If that's a concern to you, shouldn't you be trying to dissolve the Senate, first?
 
I don’t claim to be any expert but I’ve always thought the winner-takes-all aspect for electoral votes in most states is a key issue. I think it would make more sense to split the electoral votes based on the state-wide vote so if a state has 10 electoral votes and the election goes 60% to 40%, the candidates gets 6 votes and 4 votes respectively. That would mitigate the populous states dominating (any more than they already do) and also mitigate populous areas within states dominating too. It could also give more scope for third party or independent candidates to actually get votes, which isn’t going to win them the presidency alone but could broaden the political discourse in the USA, something it desperately needs.

It’d be interesting to hear what people closer to this think about it.
It's up to the states to decide. Some do do it that way.
 
While the OP has some reasonable points, IMO the possibility of "fracturing into regional parties" if the Electoral College is either eliminated by Amendment, or "defanged" should sufficient States sign on to the "winner take all" agreement, is of no concern to the leadership of the Democratic party. :no:

IMO the Democrats see the possibility of either action allowing them to concentrate all their efforts within the largest population areas thereby seeking to create a one-party system via "bread and circuses" policy making.

It has been pointed out that if California's vote count was eliminated from the 2016 election, then Trump would have had won the national popular vote by nearly 1.5 million votes...

Without California, Trump Would've Won 1.4 Million More Popular Votes Than Clinton

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California | Investor's Business Daily

...and it is further pointed out that there are between 5 to 10 States (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Virginia...) whose popular vote count could determine the overall winner in any future Presidential race.

Top 10 Most Populated States in the US — 2018 - Addictive Lists

IMO the Democrats hope to create a one-Party system where they can set up perpetual control of the Federal government by pushing for a direct popular vote, stacking the SCOTUS, and unlimited immigration pouring into cities creating a dependent population via "giveaways" ("slave" reparations, a "national basic income," and other entitlement programs) funded by taking from the rich to give to the poor like modern day Robin Hoods.

However, despite (false) arguments that the sole reason for the creation of the Electoral College was to protect "slavery" and thus it's elimination would be both "moral and empowering," eliminating the E.C. would not empower most citizens via "one person, one vote." No, it would empower the largest population centers at the expense of all of the rest of the nation, and IMO encourage balkanization and eventual dissolution of the United States by either peaceful (unlikely) or violent (civil war) means.

Regardless of the alleged foundations of the E.C., IMO it does what it was designed to do...allow States to select the President of a "Republic" of United States, ensuring that no matter how small or large their population, the residents of each State have some impact on who leads the Federal government.
 
Last edited:
It's up to the states to decide. Some do do it that way.
It’s in the hands of the state leaders and it might not be in their personal or political interests to rock the boat like this. It should be in the hands of the people but it never will be until they're encouraged to think about and discuss ideas like this. That’s why I asked what people actually thought about the idea.
 
I don’t claim to be any expert but I’ve always thought the winner-takes-all aspect for electoral votes in most states is a key issue. I think it would make more sense to split the electoral votes based on the state-wide vote so if a state has 10 electoral votes and the election goes 60% to 40%, the candidates gets 6 votes and 4 votes respectively. That would mitigate the populous states dominating (any more than they already do) and also mitigate populous areas within states dominating too. It could also give more scope for third party or independent candidates to actually get votes, which isn’t going to win them the presidency alone but could broaden the political discourse in the USA, something it desperately needs.

It’d be interesting to hear what people closer to this think about it.


That is not Federally mandated. The States have the power to have their electors vote proportionately, and several do.
 
What defend a system where the votes of some citizens are worth more than the votes of other citizens in the weight and power behind them depending on which state they live in?

How can anyone defend a system for the 1700's that is designed to thwart the will of the American people?

How can you defend a system that five times in our history has let the loser or the popular vote win the election and the winner of the popular vote loses the presidency?
 
While the OP has some reasonable points, IMO the possibility of "fracturing into regional parties" if the Electoral College is either eliminated by Amendment, or "defanged" should sufficient States sign on to the "winner take all" agreement, is of no concern to the leadership of the Democratic party. :no:

IMO the Democrats see the possibility of either action allowing them to concentrate all their efforts within the largest population areas thereby seeking to create a one-party system via "bread and circuses" policy making.

Candidates already concentrate their efforts on swing states and the larger number of electoral votes they have to offer.

It has been pointed out that if California's vote count was eliminated from the 2016 election, then Trump would have had won the national popular vote by nearly 1.5 million votes...

Also, if all the red states were eliminated from the 2016 election, Clinton would have won both the popular vote and the EC vote.

...and it is further pointed out that there are between 5 to 10 States (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Virginia...) whose popular vote count could determine the overall winner in any future Presidential race.

There are 5 to 10 states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio) whose electoral vote count could determine the overall winner in any future Presidential race.

IMO the Democrats hope to create a one-Party system where they can set up perpetual control of the Federal government by pushing for a direct popular vote, stacking the SCOTUS, and unlimited immigration pouring into cities creating a dependent population via "giveaways" ("slave" reparations, a "national basic income," and other entitlement programs) funded by taking from the rich to give to the poor like modern day Robin Hoods.

The Republicans hope to create a one-Party system where they can set up perpetual control of the Federal government by maintaining the EC vote which allows for a minority rule, stacking the SCOTUS, gerrymandering and the suppression of votes of demographics known to vote Democrat.

However, despite (false) arguments that the sole reason for the creation of the Electoral College was to protect "slavery" and thus it's elimination would be both "moral and empowering," eliminating the E.C. would not empower most citizens via "one person, one vote."

The popular vote specifically allows for "one person, one vote." That's the point. Under the current system, a person's vote in Wyoming has more power than a person's vote in California.

No, it would empower the largest population centers at the expense of all of the rest of the nation,

There's a lot to unpack there.

1) Mathematically, that statement makes no sense.
2) Yes, more people (or "large population centers") have more impact than low population centers. That's how elections happen.
3) What's wrong with "large population centers"?
4) How do you know when you a population is sufficiently "low population"?

and IMO encourage balkanization and eventual dissolution of the United States by either peaceful (unlikely) or violent (civil war) means.

The current system has specifically created balkanization.

Regardless of the alleged foundations of the E.C., IMO it does what it was designed to do...allow States to select the President of a "Republic" of United States, ensuring that no matter how small or large their population, the residents of each State have some impact on who leads the Federal government.

The Federalist Papers no. 68 makes no reference to population centers in its rationale for the EC. That is a made-up position by people defending the EC.
 
The EC was a compromise to what was being proposed.

When this debate came up 200 years ago there was a push for a national popular vote.
In fact a lot of the northern states pushed for such a vote. Why? the north held a huge disproportionate amount
of voters compared to the south.

This means of course the southern states balked at the idea because the president should appeal to the most people
across all states. not just massive urban centers.

So the EC was born. The EC was designed to have a popular vote in each state to determine a number of electors.
The number of electors would be based on the population size of the state + 2 for each senator.

This again was a compromise as well. A presidential nominee could campaign in large states but would still need support from
smaller states.

the system does not have a flaw.
 
Candidates already concentrate their efforts on swing states and the larger number of electoral votes they have to offer.
Which is why Hillary lost and people thought Trump was nuts for campaigning in MI, MN, WI, PA, etc...
Yet the system worked exactly like it was supposed to.

Also, if all the red states were eliminated from the 2016 election, Clinton would have won both the popular vote and the EC vote.

Useless argument. The fact remains that the popular vote would give 5 states the power to determine the president compared to now.

The Republicans hope to create a one-Party system where they can set up perpetual control of the Federal government by maintaining the EC vote which allows for a minority rule, stacking the SCOTUS, gerrymandering and the suppression of votes of demographics known to vote Democrat.

Your dishonesty continues.

The popular vote specifically allows for "one person, one vote." That's the point. Under the current system, a person's vote in Wyoming has more power than a person's vote in California.

So you are telling me that people don't get a vote now?
No it doesn't have more power that is a lie. A vote in WY counts a 1 vote in their state just as 1 vote in CA counts as 1 vote in their state.
Only dishonest people use try to use vote power as an argument. WY gets what 1 electoral vote based on population CA get 53?

1) Mathematically, that statement makes no sense.
2) Yes, more people (or "large population centers") have more impact than low population centers. That's how elections happen.
3) What's wrong with "large population centers"?
4) How do you know when you a population is sufficiently "low population"?
Depend on where people are living.
Here in FL Miami, Tampa, Tallahassee, jacksonville tend to be more liberals to very liberal.
they have massive amounts of people but they don't get to decide which way florida goes in the
election.

The Federalist Papers no. 68 makes no reference to population centers in its rationale for the EC. That is a made-up position by people defending the EC.

Why the Electoral College

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

as described they were worried about massive population conspiracies and bribery really.
They were right only their concern was misdirected. They should have been more concerned with
politicians bribing citizens vs outside influences.

although the article makes the same bad argument that you do. that one state has some supposed more voting power than another.
 
Which is why Hillary lost and people thought Trump was nuts for campaigning in MI, MN, WI, PA, etc...
Yet the system worked exactly like it was supposed to.

You're undermining your own position. Captain Adverse argues against the popular vote because it would have candidates focusing their efforts on specific places. The current system has candidates focusing their efforts on specific places.

Useless argument.

Yes, that was the point. Read the statement I was responding to.

The fact remains that the popular vote would give 5 states the power to determine the president compared to now.

States aren't factors in popular elections. Under a popular election, state lines become artificial constructs that only have importance in your mind.

Your dishonesty continues.

Mm hm that's nice.

So you are telling me that people don't get a vote now?

No, I said that one person's vote has less value that another's vote depending on which state they live in. The EC makes that happen.

No it doesn't have more power that is a lie. A vote in WY counts a 1 vote in their state just as 1 vote in CA counts as 1 vote in their state.
Only dishonest people use try to use vote power as an argument. WY gets what 1 electoral vote based on population CA get 53?

Math doesn't exist just to trick you. A person living in Wyoming has more voting power than a person in California. Wyoming has the nation's greatest voting power with 142,741 people per electoral vote, whereas California is in 49th place with 508,344 people per electoral vote.

Presidential election: A map showing the vote power of all 50 states.

Depend on where people are living.
Here in FL Miami, Tampa, Tallahassee, jacksonville tend to be more liberals to very liberal.
they have massive amounts of people but they don't get to decide which way florida goes in the
election.

I have no idea how that is supposed to be a meaningful response to anything I said.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

as described they were worried about massive population conspiracies and bribery really.
They were right only their concern was misdirected. They should have been more concerned with
politicians bribing citizens vs outside influences.

although the article makes the same bad argument that you do. that one state has some supposed more voting power than another.

There was nothing in the piece you selected that said anything about population centers. How you got that from the selected portion is baffling to me.
 
Last edited:
You're undermining your own position. Captain Adverse argues against the popular vote because it would have candidates focusing their efforts on specific places. The current system has candidates focusing their efforts on specific, places.

No i don't. Trump one because Hillary only went after swing states as you argued. Trump went after all the states which is what the EC is supposed to do.
The EC in this case worked as designed.


Yes, that was the point. Read the statement I was responding to.
Nope was referring to you not him.

States aren't factors in popular elections. Under a popular election, state lines become artificial constructs that only have importance in your mind.

Actually they are because they still have to assign electors.
Thanks for bringing up that point as well. That could be a violation of the constitution.
State lines very much have federal implications according to the law and the constitution.

Mm hm that's nice.

Sorry you don't like facts.

No, I said that one person's vote has less value that another's vote depending on which state they live in. The EC makes that happen.

Nope because the EC isn't a contest between states. the EC is the contest in each state.
which means a vote in WY counts as 1 vote. just as 1 vote in CA counts as 1 vote in that state.
it doesn't mean that WY vote counts for more votes than CA does.

Math doesn't exist just to trick you. A person living in Wyoming have more voting power than a person in California. Wyoming has the nation's greatest voting power with 142,741 people per electoral vote, whereas California is in 49th place with 508,344 people per electoral vote.

When the math is trying to be used to make a bogus argument then yes it does. The math you are using is for low information voters in order to think they are somehow getting ripped off.
The presidential election is not 1 election of 50 states. It is 50 individual elections by 50 individual states. where the only votes that matter are the votes that count in that state.
CA has way more electoral votes than WY does, however in order to win the presidency. You need WY believe it or not to help you win.
You simply can't win the election by getting NY, CA like in a popular election. this is why hillary lost.

I have no idea how that is supposed to be a meaningful response to anything I said.

Not surprised you didn't understand it.

It's really quite extraordinary how perfectly you missed the point of each of my statements.
There was nothing in the piece you selected that said anything about population centers. How you got that from the selected portion is baffling to me.

Actually there was you simply didn't read it.
not that i am not surprised.
 
No i don't. Trump one because Hillary only went after swing states as you argued. Trump went after all the states which is what the EC is supposed to do.
The EC in this case worked as designed.



Nope was referring to you not him.



Actually they are because they still have to assign electors.
Thanks for bringing up that point as well. That could be a violation of the constitution.
State lines very much have federal implications according to the law and the constitution.



Sorry you don't like facts.



Nope because the EC isn't a contest between states. the EC is the contest in each state.
which means a vote in WY counts as 1 vote. just as 1 vote in CA counts as 1 vote in that state.
it doesn't mean that WY vote counts for more votes than CA does.



When the math is trying to be used to make a bogus argument then yes it does. The math you are using is for low information voters in order to think they are somehow getting ripped off.
The presidential election is not 1 election of 50 states. It is 50 individual elections by 50 individual states. where the only votes that matter are the votes that count in that state.
CA has way more electoral votes than WY does, however in order to win the presidency. You need WY believe it or not to help you win.
You simply can't win the election by getting NY, CA like in a popular election. this is why hillary lost.



Not surprised you didn't understand it.



Actually there was you simply didn't read it.
not that i am not surprised.

You're too uninformed and undisciplined to debate this with. You haven't taken the time to understand anything that's been said, you've taken meanings from words in the Federalist Papers that don't exist and you have no grasp of math.

Research this issue on some level...any level...and I'll debate this again with you.
 
Following the 2016 US presidential election, where Hilary Clinton lost to Donald Trump despite winning the popular vote, many Democrats are clamoring for an abolishment of the Electoral College.

The Electoral College has both good points and bad points; chief among the bad is that small population rural states have more power per voter than larger more urbanized states. This aspect of the system is both unfair and indefensible. ... [snipped for length]

Nope. The Electoral College gave some additional power to low population states so that high population states wouldn't steamroll them all the time. This was the deal crafted by the founders so that the small colonies would join the union. If low population states were crushed all the time by a few high population centers then they would eventually get tired of this and withdraw their consent to be governed. The deal was an effort to keep the union united.

Parenthetically, the idea that this was to protect slavery is historically ignorant. Virginia had the highest population when the union was formed and was a slave state.

Democrats think they have the votes now so want to abolish the Electoral College and have presidential elections decided by popular vote. They point to the popular vote totals in 2016 to support this idea. But nobody was trying to win the popular vote in 2016. If the popular vote counted the presidential campaigns would have been done completely differently and the voter's incentives would be different. Many voters would turn out who didn't vote in 2016, and nobody really knows what the outcome would be. Even in the deepest of deep Red or Blue states the numbers of conservatives and liberals are pretty close to even, so it would probably be a closer contest than Democrats probably imagine.
 
Nope. The Electoral College gave some additional power to low population states so that high population states wouldn't steamroll them all the time.

Not supported by anything written by the Founding Fathers.
 
If the Electoral College is eliminated, there will never be another Republican President.
Then the nominating apparatus must be repaired.
/

I imagine that the republican party would need to actually be one of principles and ideas if they wanted to win an election. The electoral college and gerrymandering have allowed them to become a mess
 
Nope. The Electoral College gave some additional power to low population states so that high population states wouldn't steamroll them all the time.


That is NOT what Founder Alexander Hamilton explained to the young nation in Federalist Paper 68.

You re repeating something that was made up and invented.
 
I support abolishing the EC federally. If it's done state by state, only blue states will participate, giving Trumpist states another advantage.
 
I support abolishing the EC federally. If it's done state by state, only blue states will participate, giving Trumpist states another advantage.

I believe that may be the rationale for why the pact only takes effect once there's enough states to carry 270 electoral votes.
 
I believe that may be the rationale for why the pact only takes effect once there's enough states to carry 270 electoral votes.

I'd vote all or none. Trumpists have enough advantages already.
 
I'd vote all or none. Trumpists have enough advantages already.

"All" is a nice thought, but thoroughly impractical as a goal. If states adding up to 270 electoral votes join the pact, then the advantages you speak of don't exist.
 
It’s in the hands of the state leaders and it might not be in their personal or political interests to rock the boat like this. It should be in the hands of the people
It could be added by ballot initiative in many states if people wanted it, no need to get state leaders involved at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom