Eliminate the Electoral College

[DanS]

OK, fair enough. State interests need to be defended at the Federal level. But what does that have to do with the Presidential vote?

Only that the presidential vote was also part of the power distribution compromise made at the constitutional convention. If you reopen up the issue for the office of the president, you reopen up the entire compromise.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Ned
Mr. WhereItsAt:

1) Small states are protected because states get two extra votes for each senator. This allows the candidate favored by the small states to carry an election when an election is essentially even. This happened in 2000. Bush won the election solely because of the extra two votes he received from each of the 10 more states he won than Gore. ("Twenty bonus electors.") If the current elections close, Bush will win again because he will have won more states, i.e., the small states.

All this shows is that the balance intended by the founding fathers works.

I see... interesting. Perhaps they actually foresaw that a population bias in some areas would mean these places had a much larger effect on the Presidential vote than the rest of the country. It still seems more than a little odd to me that a system that favours the more numerous, smaller, less populous areas would be deliberately put in place however. The C in C can be elected by a minority? There can't be too many nations with fair democratic elections that can claim the same thing!

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


Only that the presidential vote was also part of the power distribution compromise made at the constitutional convention. If you reopen up the issue for the office of the president, you reopen up the entire compromise.

States have control over how their EC votes are distributed. Voters should demand similar measures to that currently proposed in Colorado accross the county in every state.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


States have control over how their EC votes are distributed. Voters should demand similar measures to that currently proposed in Colorado accross the county in every state.

The people cannot change the way the electors are allocated. Only the state legislatures.

But, beyond that, I agree that Kalifornia and New York and other states where Democrats dominate should allocate their electoral votes.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt


I see... interesting. Perhaps they actually foresaw that a population bias in some areas would mean these places had a much larger effect on the Presidential vote than the rest of the country. It still seems more than a little odd to me that a system that favours the more numerous, smaller, less populous areas would be deliberately put in place however. The C in C can be elected by a minority? There can't be too many nations with fair democratic elections that can claim the same thing!

You might also be surprised that there is no right to vote for president. That was not the original plan. That developed as a matter of practice, and is still discretionary according to the wishes of a state's legislature.

A major reason the Supreme's acted in 2000 was to head off the Florida legislature who were going to appoint the electors of the state if the Sec. of State could not certify the elections by the statutory deadline. Since the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount, that could not be accomplished by the deadline. So the Supreme Court of the US simply called a halt and let the results of the election as it stood after the second recount be certified.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
The people cannot change the way the electors are allocated. Only the state legislatures.

Except in states where referendums can be passed, like in Colorado, or California.

But, beyond that, I agree that Kalifornia and New York and other states where Democrats dominate should allocate their electoral votes.

You are so cute-NOT. All states should.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Except in states where referendums can be passed, like in Colorado, or California.

This not something that the Constitution of the United States permits State Constitutions or referrenda to resolve, as the sole and exclusive power to regulate how the electors are allocated is expressly granted to the State Legislatures, not the States.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap

You are so cute-NOT. All states should.

You go first.

[Ned]

Republicans! We have a simple method of ruining the Democrat party forever! Support proportionate delegates in just three states: New York, California and Massachusettes!!!!!!!

[DanS]

States have control over how their EC votes are distributed. Voters should demand similar measures to that currently proposed in Colorado accross the county in every state.

I don't care how the state legislatures decide how they choose their electors. This is somewhat removed from the question at hand.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


This not something that the Constitution of the United States permits State Constitutions or referrenda to resolve, as the sole and exclusive power to regulate how the electors are allocated is expressly granted to the State Legislatures, not the States.

And if the state legislatures by law allow the people to chose, well, there, done. Like in Colorado.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ned
Republicans! We have a simple method of ruining the Democrat party forever! Support proportionate delegates in just three states: New York, California and Massachusettes!!!!!!!

Add Illinois as well... It would give the collar counties to Chicago, and downstate Illinois the opportunity for their votes to mean something.

[Ned]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't care how the state legislatures decide how they choose their electors. This is somewhat removed from the question at hand.

But Dan, you are ignoring the opportunity of a lifetime. Republicans can introduce proporationate allocation in New York, California and Massachusettes. If the Democrats back the proposal, they are ruined as a national party. If they oppose the proposals, they are viewed as anti-Democratic.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


And if the state legislatures by law allow the people to chose, well, there, done. Like in Colorado.

True. But typically referrenda are allowed by the State's constitution, not by the State Legislature. I am not sure how the particular Colorado issue got on the ballot.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming


Add Illinois as well... It would give the collar counties to Chicago, and downstate Illinois the opportunity for their votes to mean something.

So true. Illinois is now solidly in the need of proportionate division of electors. Chicago has become way too dominate.