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 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.
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?
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.
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?
I actually think that any law (outside an amendment to the constitution) that dictates how the electoral college votes are cast should be unconstitutional.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
OK, you like tyranny of the masses. Go for it.
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?
Tyranny of the masses. Mob rule. Sounds like you guys are nostalgic for the aristocracy, like you miss the feudal system.
Tyranny of the masses. Mob rule. Sounds like you guys are nostalgic for the aristocracy, like you miss the feudal system.
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.
OK, you like tyranny of the masses. Go for it.
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..
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?