Posted on 02/21/2018 2:40:45 PM PST by SMGFan
A coalition that includes a Latino membership organization and a former Massachusetts governor filed lawsuits on Wednesday challenging how four U.S. states allocate their Electoral College votes in presidential elections. The lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Massachusetts and California, states that went for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016, and South Carolina and Texas, where a majority of votes went to Republican U.S. President Donald Trump.
The lawsuits challenge the winner-take-all system used in those states to select electors who cast votes for president and vice president in the Electoral College after a presidential election. Forty-four other states and the District of Columbia also use that system.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
By Congressional district and bonus to winner of the state? Might work in a small state but chaos in larger states , districts closely divided.
The Left never quit folks. If anything, the EC should be strengthened. Whoever wins the most counties in a state wins that state.
I’d like to see EV proportionally allocated.
It would mean the losing candidate picks up some EV in a state they wouldn’t otherwise win.
Watch liberal heads explode at the thought of a GOP candidate picking up EV in NY and CA.
A district EV vote system would accomplish the same thing.
Trying to use Reynolds v. Sims to overrule hard coded language in the Constitution won't pass muster.
The Constitution says the states can give their EVs to a duck if they wish..................
Boies: “This is a clear violation of the principle of one person, one vote.”
One man one vote is a social justice scotus construct from the early 1960s. It has done incalculable damage.
California in 2016, the Presidential ballot provided proof positive that the Electoral College is needed.
California would have flipped the election against the outcome of the other 49 states.
One state, no matter how misguided it is, should be able to flip and election against the outcome in the other 49 states.
Without California, Trump would have won the popular vote. At least the last I looked he would have.
That is the problem with the National Popular Vote initiative - in 2016, it would have given California veto power over thirty states.
Agreed. This will go nowhere. There is no "one man one vote" provision in the Constitution. There's isn't even a right to vote for President in the Constitution. We only do that because all of the states have chosen to hold elections. They can't use the 14th to enforce a voting right that doesn't exist and can't read it as amending another constitutional provision that it doesn't directly address. This is nonsense. They are only hoping they'll get some activist judges to go along.
Why would our Judicial System even allow a licensed “Officer of the Court” to get away with filing nonsense like this?? Every Lawyer involved should be Remanded for Contempt for 30 Days and receive a $10,000 Sanction for crap like this, then Permanent Disbarment
The Stupid will Stop if we hold these people accountable.
This is judge-shopping for liberal federal judges. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them file in Hawaii also.
They may win a battle in certain state courts, but the Supreme Court will crush them. Earl Warren and William Brennan are no longer on the court.
“It would mean the losing candidate picks up some EV in a state they wouldn’t otherwise win.”
Take Minnesota (my state) as an example.
In the 2016 election, Trump would have won 5 electoral votes - 5 congressional districts.
Clinton won 3 and the overall statewide vote for a total of 5 electoral votes.
I think that a proportional system would hurt Democrats more than Republicans.
But, she didn't win.
HA!
Of course the rats want to do away with it.
Democracy stinks. History is littered with short-live democracies that cratered between the bloodlettings of factions going at each other’s throats. Our Framers were well aware of their shortcomings from the lessons of history and their personal experiences since 1776.
The National Popular Vote - Vicious Democracy.
http://articlevblog.com/2016/08/the-national-popular-vote-vicious-democracy/
I prefer the district system where the majority winner receives that district’s electoral vote. If no majority winner, the district has a run off in 30 days with only the top two candidates allowed in the run off.
The two state electoral votes are given as, one to the winner of the most districts within the state and the second is given to the one who wins the majority of votes within the state. If either of those two conditions are not met, then the governor decides which candidate, of the ones on the ballot, receives the electoral vote.
Now having said all of that, this is the WRONG way to affect the change to the electoral college. To change the constitution, you need a constitutional amendment - period.
Exactly!
Ping.
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.