Posted on 02/05/2018 9:04:48 AM PST by SunkenCiv
Article II of the Constitution gives states broad authority to decide how their electoral votes are selected and divided among the candidates. In 48 states, the candidate who gets the most votes wins all of the state’s electoral votes. But the Constitution doesn’t require that rule. Maine and Nebraska have implemented district- by-district voting. One electoral vote goes to the winner in each congressional district, and the remaining two electoral votes are awarded to the winner of the statewide popular vote.
Assume, however, that a state enacts a law giving all its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. And assume further that the law says it will not be effective unless enough other states pass the same law to yield a total of at least 270 electoral votes. That would be perfectly valid under Article II. It would force a majority of electoral votes to be cast for the national popular vote winner -- without amending the Constitution.
But is it a good idea? The Framers meticulously crafted an electoral model that reduced sectionalism and reinforced minority rights. Instead, popular voting would favor regions with high voter density and large states over small. "One man, one vote" may be the rallying cry of a democracy; but that is not our form of governance. We are a constitutional republic; political outcomes are not always determined by majority rule. For example, it takes two-thirds of Congress to override presidential vetoes, approve treaties, impeach a president, or expel a member of Congress. Imagine if NPVIC had been operative in 2004: George W. Bush would have received all of California’s electoral votes even though John Kerry trounced Bush statewide by 10 percentage points.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
“Should We Reform the Electoral College?”
?????????????????????????
***************************
What has ever been fixed?
;(
***
“A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You would think that citing this fact alone would put an end to this silly argument.
Exactly.
True, but the country dodged one spectacularly huge bullet with the last election. I would not count on that happening again. The instances of illegals voting are too damning of the corruption within the system. Each State should have an equal voice in who sits in the Oval Office.
Our forefathers knew exactly what they were doing when they created the Electoral College.
Any changes should be to the voting process itself.....proper ID, polls open more than one day, no early voting, no mail in except for troops and "necessity"...
It is a terrible idea. California would always elect the next president.
Assigning electoral votes by congressional district, then allocating the 2 by statewide votes is the best way to insure that every vote has equal weight, regardless of what state you are in, rural vs urban, etc.
It is the only change that I would ever approve of.
Until/unless the RNC and DNC and start showing us they respect the Constitution we currently have, I don’t want any reforms. What we have would be fine if they’d follow it. And if they won’t follow it now, why would we think they’ll follow it after reforms.
“Reform” to them means less power for us (citizens, businesses, and states) and more power for them (major parties and their politicians). They’ll spin/sell the “reform” in all sorts of ways, but you can bet we get screwed.
Yup. Our governor going back to 1941 (35 of which continuously have been D's) are in essence the governor of King Co and not the state (such as Governor Crazy Mouth* now)
*The way his mouth contorts when he speaks makes me pop Dramamine like candy
Ideally electoral votes would be distributed based on US citizen population and not just ‘population.’
California 55 Texas 38 Florida 29 New York 29 Illinois 20 Pennsylvania 20 Ohio 18 Georgia 16 Michigan 16 North Carolina 15 New Jersey 14 Virginia 13 Washington 12 Arizona 11 Indiana 11 Massachusetts 11 Tennessee 11 Maryland 10 Minnesota 10 Missouri 10 Wisconsin 10 Alabama 9 Colorado 9 South Carolina 9 Kentucky 8 Louisiana 8 Connecticut 7 Oklahoma 7 Oregon 7 Arkansas 6 Iowa 6 Kansas 6 Mississippi 6 Nevada 6 Utah 6 Nebraska 5 New Mexico 5 West Virginia 5 Hawaii 4 Idaho 4 Maine 4 New Hampshire 4 Rhode Island 4 Alaska 3 Delaware 3 District of Columbia 3 Montana 3 North Dakota 3 South Dakota 3 Vermont 3 Wyoming 3
538 total, 270 needed to elect, figures from 2010 census, US Census Bureau -- 55+38+29+29+20+20+18+16+16+15+14=270, thus, 11 largest states, California to New Jersey.
I lived in Seattle for 46 years, and was born in eastern Washington. I moved to rural KY six years ago. It was the third best decision I ever made. The first being accepting Christ and the second being marrying my wife.
Surprisingly, Republicans and Conservatives Shouldn’t Fear a National Popular Vote
Townhall.com | Dec 11, 2017 | Rachel Alexander
Posted on 12/11/2017 10:14:06 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3612618/posts
California does have some very pretty places, but it is mostly concrete, asphalt, dust and graffiti.
No.
The Dims would push for CDs being allocated equally by population, centering even more power in the cities where their voters are located.
There is a problem in that the House has been stuck at 435 members since the 19th century. I don’t think there is political interest to increase its size but that would make the body more representative and the Electoral College a bit more favortable to the large states without amending the Constitution.
If the electoral college was modified or changed I would sorta support a percentage based electoral vote. In Washington we have 12 electoral votes. By a wide margin the state is Republican on a county basis, however the majority of the population is in the larger blue cities. Unfortunately the popular vote over rides mine. Why not make it a percentage electoral vote based on the popular vote, when the states vote, if it is 55‰/45‰ then states electoral votes should be split as well, 7 Democrat, 5 Republican rather than mob rule.
That being the case, the possibility of a Republican getting 50.1 percent of the national popular vote total — but losing in California — may not be far-fetched. If the popular vote winner did not have the required 270 electoral votes, California, as a result of joining the NPV, would have to cast its 55 votes for a Republican, which would likely tip the scale in favor of the Republican. Would the 60 percent of California voters who vote Democrat tolerate that occurrence?
That's really the point -- no matter how the Electoral College is altered, or even if it is eliminated, the Snowflakes won't accept the outcome. WE are the Resistance, not them.
The NPV would push up Red voter turnout in Blue states, because a couple of percent difference in turnout in, say, California, could flip ALL of the NPV states to the Republican candidate. The Snowflakes would be cring their stupid little eyes out, then their op-ed enablers would be ranting for electors to be faiithless, for the election to be thrown into the House, rant rant rant.
Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes by congressional district, the other states do winner-take-all.
:’)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.