Skip to comments.Dem's amendment would give 29 more electoral votes to popular-vote winner
Posted on 10/26/2012 1:38:36 PM PDT by Nachum
The head of the House Democratic campaign arm this week proposed a constitutional amendment that would give the winner of the popular vote in the presidential race an additional 29 electoral votes. Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) did not offer an explanation in the joint resolution filed in the House for why he was proposing to change the way elections in the U.S. are decided. Under the Constitution, the candidate who wins at least 270 electoral votes wins the presidency, regardless of the popular vote. The prospect of a split between the popular vote and the Electoral College usually provokes cries
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Well, this is a new one.
And just before the election....
How about let’s not.
How’d they come up with 29? If you don’t like the Electoral College just eliminate it and go with the popular vote (I wouldn’t do that myself). What kind of bizarre bs is this?
Why did this fool even bother?
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Stupid proposal and not a well written article. The Constitution does not say.... the candidate who wins at least 270 electoral votes wins the presidency, regardless of the popular vote...
1) A constitutional amendment? That takes a lot. Wasn’t the last one the ERA?
2) If Romney wins the popular vote, you can expect them to withdraw this.
Would not be for this election
It is really stupid
No justification for it
Only happened twice in our history
The guy is moron
Why 29, why not 523
If it were me, I would have states award the EV proportionally
Same number of electoral votes as Florida. Coincidence?
I love the smell of desperation in the morning!
MAKE VOTE FRAUD A CAPITAL OFFENSE!!!;)
Probably because their projections indicate a 296-242 Romney win and they want to hedge their bets.
Why 29? Why not 100? Would they come from the other seven states?
No. They are looking for a way to cheat, or they have one planned already. Run, don’t walk, away from this temptation.
This is just an invitation to "find" boxes of votes after election day from places well known for it like Chicago, Seattle and the Minnesota prison system.
Are they going to amend the Constitution to do this?
This better never pass
Here’s and idea from a guy in a state with less than 10 electoral votes to offer: NO!
I think the last one prevented Congress from giving themselves an immediate pay raise
He’s from NY state and I’m guessing his proposal would mean that the winner of the national popular vote would get NY’s 29 electoral votes no matter which candidate actually wins the election in that state.
Do you remember when Clinton was polling high in the popular vote in his first run, and all the media pundits were coming out advocating using the popular vote instead of the EV count. Turns out he lost the popular vote and you never heard another word about using the popular vote after that ...until NOW! What scumbags!
It would have been enough to turn Bush - Gore into a "mandate" for Gore. It is also the number of electoral votes of Florida.
This would push campaigns to court large states rather than just swing states and the candidates would have to offer pork.
...it will probably pass.
With McCain and the usual gang of idiots giving us a lecture on how it will make elections more fair.
So what do you want me to say?
I give them credit for figuring out up front it would have to be a Constitutional amendment. They’re not usually that bright.
That would keep from giving too much weight to the larger states and would firewall vote fraud at the district level (once you steal enough votes to steal a district, stealing more wouldn't help).
They jumped on that bandwagon again after 2000 when AG won the popular but lost the election.
That won’t pass.
LOL! One of those times I wish JimRob would include a “like” button!
How about a law requiring a picture ID to vote instead?
This will be quickly withdrawn when Romney wins the popular vote...
Actually there is a good argument for popular vote vs electoral college. Under the EC system, eleven battleground states get the most attention because they are swing states. The rest are ignored because one party dominates it. In states where one party dominates by 10 or more, very little effort or campaigning occurs. Rather the dominant states are used as fund raising sources to fight in the 11 swing states. One way is to decide delegates by Congressional districts like Maine and Nebraska. Win that district, you win the delegates.
Yeah, good luck getting 38 states to agree!
Stuff like this is what makes me sure that the internal polling for the democrats shows them losing big time.
This is not the kind of stuff that is suggested by a team that thinks they will win.
I like it.
The problem with going by popular vote, you get “turn out the base elections” and occasionally a Hitler wins.
With the electoral college, NY and TX are left out and only swing voters in swing states matter in a close election. THIS IS A VERY GOOD THING. The center must hold and civil wars are bad.
The bad thing about the electoral college is that outside of 10 swing states, the rest of the country is ignored.
This hybrid plan means you need to pay attention to the swing voters in swing states AND AT THE SAME TIME TURN OUT YOUR RESPECTIVE BASE IN NY, CA, TX, AL, ETC.
Popular vote for president would be a problem. In a close race we'd have legal action galore demanding recount after recount in every state. It would take forever to declare a winner.
It looks to me like the Democrats believe they will come up 28 votes short after election day. Great news.
I like this plan.
Today, candidates are spending more time in NH and Iowa than NY and TX. This is wrong.
With a strictly popular vote plan, NH and IA would be totally ignored, and equally wrong.
This plan makes candidates focus on the swing states and also do some campaigning in the big states too.
I don’t like the popular vote because you can get a Hitler winning.
also a big storm like the one headed to NYC could change the results of the election (or a huge snowstorm in MN, ID, and WY), (or a New england snow storm).
With the electoral college, both parties are forced to the middle.
OK, we’ll swap you the 29 EVs for (1) a full re-registration of every voter in the nation, in person, with full ID, every four years. (2) Removal of all deceased persons from the voter rolls within five days of their death announcement. (3) ID required of every voter, no exceptions. (4)No vote counts released to the media until after the polls close on the West Coast. (5) No physical votes (Paper ballots, punchcards, etc.) to be handled out of public view; members of both parties must be involved in any transporting of ballots from precints to town hall or wherever ballots are taken for counting and (6) all counting to be done in public.
Oh, I almost forgot: (7) Ballots “found” after the election will be void. I know, maybe the RATs will try to hide some from Pub districts to invalidate them, that’s why workers from both parties have to transport them.
29 instead of 30 - lol
It’s like my granddaughter told me last year, “you know why we celebrate the 4th of July?” (She’s six, so said why do we) As only a six year old can say it, “because grandma saying happy July 5th would sound silly”
When I read ‘29’, that is exactly what I thought about a bunch of six year olds.
Look what happened when we stated electing senators by popular vote.
Here in Michigan, Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Flint get to elect our senators, and the rest of us get to STFU and take it.