Winner Take All Electoral College

[Obscurity]

The US constitution does not designate how states assign their electoral votes.

Without a constitutional convention, how can we amend our electoral process so 14 states (The battleground states) do not control the entire election for president?

Would declaring "Winner Take All" elector states an unconstitutional practice help?

I am of the opinion that eliminating winner take all would automatically ensure all states matter in the presidential election. The EC is fine; the way electoral votes are awarded is the problem. Democrats in Texas may as well not vote. Republicans in California may as well not vote.

Why is it OK for fourteen states to dictate the outcome of the presidential election despite who votes for who?

 

[Harshaw]

The US constitution does not designate how states assign their electoral votes.

Without a constitutional convention, how can we amend our electoral process so 14 states (The battleground states) do not control the entire election for president?

Would declaring "Winner Take All" elector states an unconstitutional practice help?

I am of the opinion that eliminating winner take all would automatically ensure all states matter in the presidential election. The EC is fine; the way electoral votes are awarded is the problem. Democrats in Texas may as well not vote. Republicans in California may as well not vote.

Why is it OK for fourteen states to dictate the outcome of the presidential election despite who votes for who?

The bolded statements pretty much contradict each other. The first one is correct; the Constitution specifically and overtly leaves it up to the state legislatures, full stop.

So there's no basis to "declare" that any manner they choose to do so is "unconstitutional," much less for a winner-take-all format. As I frequently say, they could read the spots on the side of a cow and it would be constitutional.

If you want it to change, lobby the states to change it. There's no simple, one-fell-swoop solution, but that's exactly as it should be in a constitutional democracy.

 

[haymarket]

The US constitution does not designate how states assign their electoral votes.

Without a constitutional convention, how can we amend our electoral process so 14 states (The battleground states) do not control the entire election for president?

Would declaring "Winner Take All" elector states an unconstitutional practice help?

I am of the opinion that eliminating winner take all would automatically ensure all states matter in the presidential election. The EC is fine; the way electoral votes are awarded is the problem. Democrats in Texas may as well not vote. Republicans in California may as well not vote.

Why is it OK for fourteen states to dictate the outcome of the presidential election despite who votes for who?

Simple - abolish the EC and declare the winner the same way that every other elected office in America is determined by - who gets the most votes from he voters wins.

 

[Obscurity]

The bolded statements pretty much contradict each other. The first one is correct; the Constitution specifically and overtly leaves it up to the state legislatures, full stop.

So there's no basis to "declare" that any manner they choose to do so is "unconstitutional," much less for a winner-take-all format. As I frequently say, they could read the spots on the side of a cow and it would be constitutional.

If you want it to change, lobby the states to change it. There's no simple, one-fell-swoop solution, but that's exactly as it should be in a constitutional democracy.

I understand your point about the bolded section, but there absolutely is a basis to declare the practice unconstitutional. It disenfranchises votes, and, it makes us a dictatorship based on only a handful of states.

If this practice were outlawed every state is automatically competitive.

IT needs to be abolished.

 

[Helix]

I support eliminating the EC. One of its purposes was to act as a stopgap in case the voters elect a dangerously unqualified fool as president. The 2016 election shows that the EC is unwilling to act in this capacity, so I don't see a good reason to keep it. Just use the popular vote count.

 

[chuckiechan]

The US constitution does not designate how states assign their electoral votes.

Without a constitutional convention, how can we amend our electoral process so 14 states (The battleground states) do not control the entire election for president?

Would declaring "Winner Take All" elector states an unconstitutional practice help?

I am of the opinion that eliminating winner take all would automatically ensure all states matter in the presidential election. The EC is fine; the way electoral votes are awarded is the problem. Democrats in Texas may as well not vote. Republicans in California may as well not vote.

Why is it OK for fourteen states to dictate the outcome of the presidential election despite who votes for who?

Winner take all has been challenged and lost:

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/lawsuits-filed-invalidate-state-winner-take-all-laws

 

[Harshaw]

I understand your point about the bolded section, but there absolutely is a basis to declare the practice unconstitutional. It disenfranchises votes, and, it makes us a dictatorship based on only a handful of states.

It doesn't disenfranchise anyone. Everyone gets to vote in the choice of the state's electors, and everyone's vote counts the same in that choice. The election is a state one, not a national one.

Comparing the relative "strength" of a person's vote against that of a person in another state is a categorical error, because no one is voting for President. They're voting for state electors.

Taking the state popular vote away entirely is perfectly constitutional. If that is, then a full free election of the electors certainly is. There is no "right" to vote for President at all.

If this practice were outlawed every state is automatically competitive.

IT needs to be abolished.

Being what you consider a good or bad idea isn't a factor in determining constitutionality.

Again, there is no one-fell-swoop solution to what you consider a problem, but that's a GOOD thing about having a constitutional democracy.

 

[Ikari]

The US constitution does not designate how states assign their electoral votes.

Without a constitutional convention, how can we amend our electoral process so 14 states (The battleground states) do not control the entire election for president?

Would declaring "Winner Take All" elector states an unconstitutional practice help?

I am of the opinion that eliminating winner take all would automatically ensure all states matter in the presidential election. The EC is fine; the way electoral votes are awarded is the problem. Democrats in Texas may as well not vote. Republicans in California may as well not vote.

Why is it OK for fourteen states to dictate the outcome of the presidential election despite who votes for who?

The states have some leeway in deciding how their votes are cast, historically it has been "winner take all", so I don't think there is any possibility of declaring the "winner take all" states unconstitutional. You'd have to amend the Constitution to change how they are doled out on a federal level.

I actually think that any law (outside an amendment to the constitution) that dictates how the electoral college votes are cast should be unconstitutional. The point of the electoral college was supposed to be to give some protection against popularism, and thus an elector could vote outside the wishes of the State if they felt it was necessary. Now, the number of cases of "faithless electors" has been few and far between. But one of the ideas of the electoral college was that if the state voted for candidate X, the elector wasn't tied to candidate X, and if one had compelling reason otherwise could vote for candidate Y instead.

 

[Harshaw]

I actually think that any law (outside an amendment to the constitution) that dictates how the electoral college votes are cast should be unconstitutional.

Yes. The electors are free to vote as they choose and can't be forced to vote any particular way. To do so would defeat the purpose.

 

[washunut]

Simple - abolish the EC and declare the winner the same way that every other elected office in America is determined by - who gets the most votes from he voters wins.

Sounds like someone who does not believe we live in the United STATES of America. Why not get rid of the senate using the same logic.

 

[akyron]

The US constitution does not designate how states assign their electoral votes.

Without a constitutional convention, how can we amend our electoral process so 14 states (The battleground states) do not control the entire election for president?

Would declaring "Winner Take All" elector states an unconstitutional practice help?

I am of the opinion that eliminating winner take all would automatically ensure all states matter in the presidential election. The EC is fine; the way electoral votes are awarded is the problem. Democrats in Texas may as well not vote. Republicans in California may as well not vote.

Why is it OK for fourteen states to dictate the outcome of the presidential election despite who votes for who?

Mob rule is good for the country according to progressives.



Not really in practice though.

If you like it chaos so much, head for Venezuela where socialists have taken over.

 

[Grand Mal]

Mob rule is good for the country according to progressives.



Not really in practice though.

If you like it chaos so much, head for Venezuela where socialists have taken over.

Being from Texas you and your neighbour together count for one vote in Wyoming.
The reason, the sole reason, for the electoral college is to over-ride the popular vote occasionally. If you and most other Americans are good with that, enjoy.

 

[akyron]

Being from Texas you and your neighbour together count for one vote in Wyoming.
The reason, the sole reason, for the electoral college is to over-ride the popular vote occasionally. If you and most other Americans are good with that, enjoy.

Constitutionism has got us this far. So far so good.

 

[Grand Mal]

Constitutionism has got us this far. So far so good.

Well, some would say that an enourmous population boom from immigration and instant access to some of the emptiest, most resource-rich land on the planet just when the Industrial Revolution was picking up steam had more to do with it than the constitution but like I said if you're good with it, enjoy.
Knowing your opinion of 'mob rule' I'd guess that if a referendum showed that a big majority opposed the electoral college you'd still not support abolishing it. Hypothetically. Is that a right guess?

 

[akyron]

Well, some would say that an enourmous population boom from immigration and instant access to some of the emptiest, most resource-rich land on the planet just when the Industrial Revolution was picking up steam had more to do with it than the constitution but like I said if you're good with it, enjoy.
Knowing your opinion of 'mob rule' I'd guess that if a referendum showed that a big majority opposed the electoral college you'd still not support abolishing it. Hypothetically. Is that a right guess?

The Electoral College made it possible to end slavery. Lincoln did not get the popular vote and like the slave owners of old, democrats are today having a conniption and making the exact same old tired arguments that were leveled against Lincoln..



This country is a federal union, and this Electoral College is both the symbol and practical enactment of Federalism.


Here is the progressive line from Time:

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

A more honest and constitutional view from the Washington Post.:

In defense of the electoral college


So you want slavery again? Yes. I would oppose that with everything I could muster.

 

[smallvoice]

Simple - abolish the EC and declare the winner the same way that every other elected office in America is determined by - who gets the most votes from he voters wins.

OK, you like tyranny of the masses. Go for it.

 

[Grand Mal]

The Electoral College made it possible to end slavery. Lincoln did not get the popular vote and like the slave owners of old, democrats are today having a conniption and making the exact same old tired arguments that were leveled against Lincoln..



This country is a federal union, and this Electoral College is both the symbol and practical enactment of Federalism.


Here is the progressive line from Time:

The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists

A more honest and constitutional view from the Washington Post.:

In defense of the electoral college


So you want slavery again? Yes. I would oppose that with everything I could muster.

Come off it. It's not a choice- electoral college or slavery. Slavery was abolished by parliaments all over the world, seamlessly. Slavery would have been ended in the US electoral college or no.
I understand the idea behind it (I think). The people elect the House, the States elect the President. It looks awkward and cumbersome to most people around the world but like I said- if you guys like it that's all that matters. I was just wondering what your position would be if most Americans opposed it but even that doesn't matter, much. Just a small curiousity on my part.
What's with the video? I don't open video links but I know what that one is and don't know why you'd show it to me.

 

[Grand Mal]

OK, you like tyranny of the masses. Go for it.

Tyranny of the masses. Mob rule. Sounds like you guys are nostalgic for the aristocracy, like you miss the feudal system.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The US constitution does not designate how states assign their electoral votes.

Without a constitutional convention, how can we amend our electoral process so 14 states (The battleground states) do not control the entire election for president?

Would declaring "Winner Take All" elector states an unconstitutional practice help?

I am of the opinion that eliminating winner take all would automatically ensure all states matter in the presidential election. The EC is fine; the way electoral votes are awarded is the problem. Democrats in Texas may as well not vote. Republicans in California may as well not vote.

Why is it OK for fourteen states to dictate the outcome of the presidential election despite who votes for who?

The way it appears I suspect it would be a matter of having each individual state elect to abolish winner take all. That part of the constitution was designed to appease slave states where populations were small to counter the non slave states...

And not much has changed, those states are going to want to keep their right to destroy the country

 

[Fearandloathing]

Tyranny of the masses. Mob rule. Sounds like you guys are nostalgic for the aristocracy, like you miss the feudal system.

Actually they fought a war to get rid of royalty and the first thing they did was build a palace for the president. Talk about pomp and bull****, Trump is the only leader, who is piped into the room with authorized march music and has an official "theme". It's only been a few years that Canadians have settled for our prime minister riding in a limo, now he has a plane, a little one so we're still cool with that.

 

[smallvoice]

Tyranny of the masses. Mob rule. Sounds like you guys are nostalgic for the aristocracy, like you miss the feudal system.

Not me. You. Try to keep up.

 

[haymarket]

Sounds like someone who does not believe we live in the United STATES of America. Why not get rid of the senate using the same logic.

I fully accept that the name of our country is The United States of America.

What does the Senate have to do with an election winner being determined by the people who cast votes in an election?

 

[haymarket]

OK, you like tyranny of the masses. Go for it.

Is it tyranny when Governors are elected by who gets the most votes?

Is it tyranny when US Senators are elected by who gets the most votes?

Is it tyranny when US Representatives are elected by who gets the most votes?

Is it tyranny when State Senators are elected by who gets the most votes?

Is it tyranny when State Representatives are elected by who gets the most votes?

Is it tyranny when Mayors are elected by who gets the most votes?

The answer exposes your faulty thinking on this.

 

[akyron]

Come off it. It's not a choice- electoral college or slavery. Slavery was abolished by parliaments all over the world, seamlessly. Slavery would have been ended in the US electoral college or no..

Perhaps many years later...But after Eli Whitney had a certain notion ..Democrats raced forward to represent the plantation which of course evolved into sharecropping, and more recently barrios, slums, projects, and welfare.

The arguments at the core are the same. Just painted a little differently.

 

[akyron]

Is it tyranny when Governors are elected by who gets the most votes?

Is it tyranny when US Senators are elected by who gets the most votes?

Is it tyranny when US Representatives are elected by who gets the most votes?

Is it tyranny when State Senators are elected by who gets the most votes?

Is it tyranny when State Representatives are elected by who gets the most votes?

Is it tyranny when Mayors are elected by who gets the most votes?

The answer exposes your faulty thinking on this.

Perhaps it is the questions that expose the faulty thinking here. A strawman aflame

"Those who wish to abolish the electoral college ought to go the distance, and do away with the entire federal system and perhaps even retire the Constitution, since the federalism it was designed to embody would have disappeared.

None of that, ironically, is liable to produce a more democratic election system. There are plenty of democracies, like Great Britain, where no one ever votes directly for a head of the government. But more important, the electoral college actually keeps presidential elections from going undemocratically awry because it makes unlikely the possibility that third-party candidates will garner enough votes to make it onto the electoral scoreboard.

Without the electoral college, there would be no effective brake on the number of “viable” presidential candidates. Abolish it, and it would not be difficult to imagine a scenario where, in a field of a dozen micro-candidates, the “winner” only needs 10 percent of the vote, and represents less than 5 percent of the electorate. And presidents elected with smaller and smaller pluralities will only aggravate the sense that an elected president is governing without a real electoral mandate.

The electoral college has been a major, even if poorly comprehended, mechanism for stability in a democracy, something which democracies are sometimes too flighty to appreciate."