A full and impartial audit of the vote (the last thing Hillary wants) would most likely reveal that Trump/Pence won the popular vote as well.
the system originally worked EVEN better until the civil rights act destroyed how the house districts were allocated.
Originally up until the 60’s or so, all house districts were split up fairly evenly across a state, protecting the rural areas from the tyranny of the large cities. This practice was ended by court order during the civil rights era to give more voting power to inner city blacks.
The 2000 election was in the 20th Century.
Without the EC, Trump would have probably campaigned in California and New York, picking up maybe another million votes. The results may not have pleased Hillary.
I haven’t thought it through, but the only thing I’d consider if they were to “tweak” it would be possibly eliminating “winner takes all” and assign electoral votes each congressional district.
Is that a bad idea? Seems to be it would be grant more power to the individual voter by allowing him to make a difference in his district. So northern CA would be different than southern. Urban Ohio would be different from rural, etc.
Man, these founder dudes were freaking brilliant! If you think we now have “fly over country” in the middle of the US, just imagine how bad it would be if we had a pure national majority vote. They would just camp out in NY and CA.
The Electoral College resists “tyranny of the majority”, critical in a nation devoted to individual liberty.
The Electoral College resists “tyranny of the majority”, critical in a nation devoted to individual liberty.
We are the United “States”. Break the agreement that allowed large and small states to coexist, and you might as well tear up the Constitution.
Oh my goodness if true CNN is reporting that after all the votes are counted in all the red state Trump might win the popular vote! No wonder they’re poking it!!!! Reported on Townhall web!!!
Too funny. You just know that if the situation was reversed and it was HRC got an EV victory, the same people would be saying "Respect the Electoral College."
Too funny. You just know that if the situation was reversed and it was HRC got an EV victory, the same people would be saying "Respect the Electoral College."
The wisdom of our founding fathers is still serving us well.
If we really want the people’s will, each member of the House of Representatives should cast their electoral vote, the way their Congressional District voted in the General Election. Thus we would have each Electoral vote (representing the approximately 700,000 people) cast on how the membership of that district voted.
This will avoid the current practice of statewide, “winner take all”. In large urban districts, vote fraud can be conducted easily. All we have to do is look at places where over 100% of the voter population voted in 2012.
If Electoral votes are cast by the outcome in each district, the will of the American People will be reflected in the office of President.
Senators are a different matter. Since we now vote on Senators, they no longer reflect the will of the state they represent, but are beholding to those who funded their election.
So, I believe the 17th Amendment should be repealed. Then the Senator from each state would vote either how their legislatures decided (special session between the November vote and January 20th, or how the popular vote statewide indicated.
With this, the will of the voters, at the time of the General Election, would prevail. Large organized groups in urban areas would no longer determine the composition of the Electoral Congress. And voter fraud would be isolated to these large urban areas where it is conducted with immunity.
Also we should declare a national “Vote Day” holiday. This can be combined with November 11th, Veteran’s Day, so people will be reminded of how important their vote is, and those who died for this right.
We need runoffs to get new parties started. Notwithstanding the IRS. Nothing will matter until the corruption is exposed and dealt with.
I’ve seen one suggested improvement that I think workable that would actually improve the Electoral College...that an elector must vote according to the majority vote in his district (NOT the state-wide majority vote). Only the two electoral votes allocated to senatorial positions would be governed by the state-wide majority.
This change would, of course, have to be implemented by state legislatures.
I believe that this would be fairer than the current “state wide takes all electoral votes” system currently in place.
Note that the Founding States had decided not to give ordinary voters the power to vote for either the POTUS or senators, only the power to vote for representatives in the House. The power to vote for senators was given only to state lawmakers, state lawmakers voting for POTUS indirectly through electors.
In other words, state lawmakers had control of the Senate and POTUS as a firewall to inure that elected federal officials understood the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers better than ordinary citizens do.
More specifically, the Founding States had established the Senate partly to kill unconstitutional House appropriations bills that not only stole 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also state revenues uniquely associated with those powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Regarding Obamacare for example, note that the states have actually never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes, the corrupt feds establishing Obamacare without the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V state supermajority.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So consider that each state would be able to use its 10th Amendment-protected state power to establish its own healthcare program using state revenues if the corrupt feds weren’t stealing state revenues by means of unconstitutonal federal taxes as evidenced by unconstitutional Obamacare.
And speaking of the fed’s limited powers, most of those powers listed in the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I, also consider this. Military issues aside, the main reason that citizens would be contacting their representatives concerning domestic policy would be to complain about the quality of the US Mail Service (1.8.7), the Mail Service one of the few powers that the states have actually delegated to the feds to control an aspect of domestic policy.
But as a consequence of the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, that amendment giving low-information citizens the power to voter for federal senators, most of the things that the corrupt, unconstitutonal big federal goverment does these days is based on 10th Amendment-protected state powers and state revenues that corrupt Congress has let non-elected federal bureaucrats, including POTUS, get away with stealing.
However, if patriots work with Trump to successfully politically “force” the corrupt feds to surrender state powers that the feds have stolen from the states back to the states, then citizens are probably going to lose interest in the federal government.
Keeps group-think states like California and New York, with large population concentrations easily brainwashed by mass media and political machines, from overpowering the system and monopolizing election outcomes.....