What if...?

[AlpsStranger]

I will immediately start a bipartisan movement to end the electoral college, duping millions of freshly enraged red state voters into being ruthlessly dictated to by large, dense urban centers

 

[bhsup]

As it has not been amended out of the Constitution, Antilogic, clearly it is still the preferred way of handling the election, else it would have been changed. It is not hard to amend the Constitution if you have support for your change.

 

[Souron]

That seems like a terrible workaround that is just begging to be abused by some savvy organizer and faithless electors. If a national popular vote is to be implemented, the Constitution should be formally amended.

I agree that a constitutional amendment would be better, but this requires fewer parties to act. Perhaps if this comes into effect, a constitutional amendment will immediately follow.

Also, the faithless electors problem would not be much different to what it is now. You'll still be voting for the party of the presidential candidate to choose electors, technically.

 

[Souron]

As it has not been amended out of the Constitution, Antilogic, clearly it is still the preferred way of handling the election, else it would have been changed. It is not hard to amend the Constitution if you have support for your change.

Popular vote election of the president is said to have 70% support among the populous. Wikipedia sites 72% the Washington Post of June 2007.

 

[Antilogic]

As it has not been amended out of the Constitution, Antilogic, clearly it is still the preferred way of handling the election, else it would have been changed. It is not hard to amend the Constitution if you have support for your change.

I'm sorry if I implied that it did; I was trying to say that the workarounds people are suggesting (that state legislatures appoint their electors on the basis of who wins the national popular vote as opposed to who wins the local vote) could be abused by faithless electors. Best way to change it is through amendments to the Constitution, not the workarounds.

 

[Hygro]

I would almost like it, because it would finally add consensus to end the electoral college.

 

[Souron]

Consensus? Unlikely. But more support for the abolition is likely.

 

[Hygro]

Consensus? Unlikely. But more support for the abolition is likely.

key word was "add".

 

[Souron]

You're misusing the word consensus. Consensus does not mean support. It means unanimous support or general agreement. You cannot have more or less of it.

 

[GoodGame]

Well, already happened in 2000 and there were surprisingly little revolt.

There was a lot of public anger though

 

[GhostWriter16]

I would hold the same set of doubts about the electoral college system I do now. It's happened a few times before (including the most egregious case in 1876 where Tilden won not only a plurality but an actual majority and still lost), but only recently in the 2000 election.

Even if you agree with the anti-sectional argument, which is about all the electoral college has going for it nowadays since the whole slavery thing was fixed over a century ago, there is still a variable space to explore in terms of the representative v. state weighting factor. My favorite quick-fix proposal is adding another 300-400 seats to the House of Representatives.

How would that help with anything?

Why is it the states and not the people who chose the President?

Because that's the way it was set up, for good or ill.

I think in some ways its a good thing (I don't want to see the midwest get ignored) but I think there are some tweaks that should be made.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Well, already happened in 2000 and there were surprisingly little revolt.

There would've been if it wasn't for Florida being the regular drama queen and stealing America's spotlight.

The EC is outdated and is not a proper representation of the people, which is what government should be about.

 

[Dreadnought]

Someone's going to be disproportionally represented either way by the political campaigns.

 

[Antilogic]

How would that help with anything?

I've been toying around with the idea of adding more seats to the House, originally for purposes completely unrelated to this thread. I was doing some rough calculations, maybe to make a thread about it sometime in the Chamberpot.

However, there is a relevant side effect of adding more seats in the House. The electoral college essentially does two things in modern politics: it weights states with lower populations (look at the ratio of fixed electors through # of senators to proportionally-determined electors through # of representatives), and it grants a winner-take-all to the winner of a particular state.

This idea does nothing on the latter, but it will adjust the former ratio in favor of proportional representation over fixed. It has the advantage of not requiring a constitutional amendment, since the size of the House is fixed by a Congressional Act.

 

[W|M]

Link to video.


Link to video.

 

[gozpel]

Does it really matter who sit's on your throne?

I try to follow the politics, but really, this is more than lukewarm.

Obama with the whitest grin ever or Romney with some cash, who will win?

I don't care, it's the assembly they gather after the win, that can make America going again. Not front-figures. And I don't know what assembly-staff is stronger, but I would vote there, IF I knew!

Anyways, best luck to the winner, nad better luck next time for the runner up.

 

[sophie]

I've been toying around with the idea of adding more seats to the House, originally for purposes completely unrelated to this thread. I was doing some rough calculations, maybe to make a thread about it sometime in the Chamberpot.

Please do, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. I remember dt posted an article a while back entertaining the prospect of instead adding 30-40 electoral college spots that are automatically awarded to whoever wins the popular vote, and analyzing how that would change how candidates go about campaigning.

 

[Hygro]

Does it really matter who sit's on your throne?

I try to follow the politics, but really, this is more than lukewarm.

Obama with the whitest grin ever or Romney with some cash, who will win?

I don't care, it's the assembly they gather after the win, that can make America going again. Not front-figures. And I don't know what assembly-staff is stronger, but I would vote there, IF I knew!

Anyways, best luck to the winner, nad better luck next time for the runner up.

It makes a difference in a lot of things, like funding for science, or the health and welfare of a few million of the underserved, or if we are likely to go invade full stop, or if we advance civil rights. It won't change the most fundamental parts of our liberalist capitalist system.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Mitt Romney wins the popular vote, but he loses the electroal college. Would you complain about the inequity of the system, or just say that is how the system words so deal with. Considering the closeness of the election, a scenario like this might happen.

I'd say well Bush didn't win the 2000 election, he was appointed by the Supreme Court, so Republicans don't have any basis to complain as they accepted and defended that.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Someone's going to be disproportionally represented either way by the political campaigns.

Well, obviously, but if more people subscribe to one group than that is the group that should be disproportionally represented because it represents the people. Anything else is a representative of something else, something that government shouldn't be about.