The Electoral College - State Voters Won't Count

1. 83

   GA Andersonposted 5 years ago

   Let me channel Jake for a moment...
   
   BIG BREAKING NEWS! Bombshell announcement! A CONSTITUTIONAL crisis!
   
   Deleware has voted to join eleven other states in awarding their 3 electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner!
   
   The votes of state voters in these 12 states no longer matter! YOUR STATE WILL VOTE FOR THE POPULAR VOTE GETTER regardless of how YOU VOTE!
   
   Okay, enough of Jake for now. Here's the deal. Delaware has voted to join eleven other states, (including DC), pledging to award their state's electoral college votes to the national winner of the popular vote.
   
   The bottom line is clear; no matter how you vote in those states, your vote will be counted as a vote for the national vote winner.
   
   What the hell! It is bad enough that the Electoral College has become as subverted as it has with the almost universal winner-take-all state rules for Electoral College vote assignment, but now in these 12 states - the state vote doesn't even count. It is going to the national popular vote-getter regardless of how state voters vote.
   
   Here is a Google search of the stories: https://www.google.com/search?q=delawar … p;ie=UTF-8
   
   Is this Superman's Bizarro World?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The biggest single motivator for this appears to be non-swing states wanting a bigger share of campaign dollars spent in their state.  Follow the money trail, always, and this one is no exception.
      
      That it will indeed give almost total control of presidential elections to just a handful of populous states seems to bother no one.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         There were two other points in some of the articles I read.
         
         One was the apparent fact that the states in this conceptual "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" are Blue or Blue-leaning states, and the second was that the "Compact's" stated purpose was to gain enough member states to reach a block total of 270 electoral votes. Thus circumventing the Constitution's Electoral College mechanism - without having to accomplish a Constitutional amendment.
         
         I think it stinks. It is a blatant attempt to implement a pure democracy election process - something our framers very specifically sought to avoid.
         
         Just more proof of the"bread and circuses truth.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The Electoral College serves a purpose. There is no point in having one if Wyoming or Utah allow their electors to all go to the winner of the popular vote, whenever that is determined.
      
      The will of the people is best reflected in the popular vote, however, the Founding Fathers in theirwisdom had to throw a bone to the smaller states and require that the proposed Presidential candidate had to appeal over many demographic groups. So, reluctantly, I give cowboys and rural folks (flyover people) more weight in this process than they deserve.
      
      As long as the incidents of the presidential Victor winning is OCCASIONAL with the Electoral College over the popular vote, I can live with it. But, if it becomes a pattern, I will have to inquire further as to the democratic underpinning of the idea and the need to make adjustments.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Agree.  There is a purpose to the electoral college and it is being subverted by the states changing to the popular vote.  Simply put, they are giving up their right to operate as one state in a republic of states and handing over their right to participate in the operation of the republic to others.
         
         With the ever increasing change to metropolitan living, and the change in philosophy that appears to accompany that change, it is easy to predict that the day will come when even with the electoral college the more sparsely populated states will be completely disenfranchised in presidential votes.  But for now it is only rarely that the electoral and popular votes do not match, and even when they don't it's pretty close.
         
         To me, the comical part of this is that this appears driven by Democrats mad about the last election.  But the reality is that BOTH parties have benefited; BOTH parties have had the election "stolen" by the constitutional requirement for an electoral college rather than a popular vote.
         
         But I do have to wonder just what the voters in a state that forces electors to vote contrary to the will of it's people in order to change an election are going to have to say about it when it happens.  Don't think I would want to be a congressman in that state when it goes down!

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            It is good, Wilderness, that you recognize the inevitable trends of the electorate and that it is moving away from focus on rural sentiments. For, that reason, I don't make much of a fuss, because inevitably time will bring me the outcome that I am seeking in this matter. And what happens when these rurals are simply out voted through EC and popular vote will be anybody's guess.
            
            Only the GOP has benefitted from the EC in both 2000 and 2016. I don't recall any examples of EC over popular vote occurring anytime in the 20th century. Any discussion of this occurring in the 19th century is irrelevant as the nature of the political parties were quite different.
            
            I don't like the idea as proposed as it stirs up a cauldron over an issue that will eventually work in the favor of progressives in time with a little patience. So, for right now.....

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               LOL  Moving away from a focus on rural areas?  It's so far towards the anthills of country now that there is very little "moving away" that can happen.  Any focus on rural people is long gone already.
               
               Yes, it is all working in favor of socialistic liberals now (not sure how that can be considered "progressive", though).  The only question is how far it will go before it all collapses into poverty and misery for all.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Think The Hunger Games and you might glimpse a vision of the future.
                  
                  The "rural" states feed the nation. How far will these dissatisfied breadbasket states go to express their dissatisfaction in the future? Hmm...
                  
                  Could The Hunger Games be our modern 1984?
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     When in Rome. The other states need to think of a way to legally thug these states. When in Rome.
                     
                     Here is a list I believe of states in question.
                     
                     District of Columbia – 3 electoral votes
                     Connecticut - 7 electoral votes
                     Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
                     Illinois – 20 electoral votes
                     Maryland – 10 electoral votes
                     Massachusetts – 11 electoral votes
                     New Jersey – 14 electoral votes
                     Washington – 12 electoral votes
                     Vermont – 3 electoral votes
                     California – 55 electoral votes
                     Rhode Island – 4 electoral votes
                     New York – 29 electoral

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Sorry, Phoenix, that cannot be permitted.

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           I might be all for it. As long as those states pay my state "protection money". We can call it a tax.  Its the will of my states people.

                           replyreport
                        2. 83

                           GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           Thanks for the list Phoenix. I think that if the list were in descending numerical order, the point would be much more obvious:
                           
                           California – 55 electoral votes
                           New York – 29 electoral
                           Illinois – 20 electoral votes
                           New Jersey – 14 electoral votes
                           Washington – 12 electoral votes
                           Massachusetts – 11 electoral votes
                           Maryland – 10 electoral votes
                           
                           Connecticut - 7 electoral votes
                           Hawaii – 4 electoral votes
                           Rhode Island – 4 elector votes
                           District of Columbia – 3 electoral votes
                           Vermont – 3 electoral votes
                           
                           All Blue states.
                           
                           Now, if they can get Florida and Pennsylvania to join, (29 & 20 EC votes) - on our current "progressive" trend, guess who gets to decide every presidential election?
                           
                           23 states instantly become passengers with no directional say.
                           
                           (*symbolically illustrative not numerically completely accurate)
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              the Right and conservatives need to employ the art of persuasion to get a wider variety of people to see their point of view. That is if they want to have any hope of winning in the future.

                              replyreport
                              1. 83

                                 GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                 But first, they have to take religion out of the political decision equation.
                                 
                                 I don't have a problem with folks living their lives, and making their life decisions with and by religious values. I just don't think they have a place in decisions that affect all folks - not just religious folks.
                                 
                                 GA

                                 replyreport
                  2. 80

                     Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Rural people and states recognize that this system works on the will of the majority and that has to be the rule, or the idea of "democracy" is mere pretense. While the rural states are the breadbasket, the coasts produce everything else, what about their disatisfaction?

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        There are two different majorities Cred, and the difference is the definition of our nation.
                        
                        A majority of states and a majority of citizens. Said differently - the majority of the Electoral College, (the states), and the majority of the popular vote, (the citizens).
                        
                        We know which majority our Constitution was designed for. It boils down to nothing less than a national structure of pure democracy vs. a representative democracy. Again we know which one our Constitution was designed for.
                        
                        Also, on a "boiled down" level, can your "progressive" desire be anything other than a desire to change our nation from a republic of states to a nation of citizens?
                        
                        The topic of this thread also seems to "boil down" to that same point. An abandonment of State Rights in favor of the adoption of a single nation of citizens. Doesn't that abandonment sound a bit like one of the issues facing the EU, (Brexit)?
                        
                        Could such an abandonment lead us to multiple mini-Brexits of our own?
                        
                        That sounds stark, but is it such a stretch to get from giving up Electoral vote Rights to giving up any other State Rights?
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 80

                           Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                           No, problem, GA. I support Electoral College as it currently is. I  am aware that that natural demographic changes in this society will alieviate my concern about it in coming years.
                           
                           You are not one of those repeal the 17th Amendment types are you?
                           Without sounding arrogant, I am the State, the State should have no interests other than those professed by a majority of it citizens. The closer the representive apparatus of our system is to the majority of the electorate the better.
                           
                           Accepting the idea of the Electoral College in principle becomes a more reliable and accurate expression of the public will when your earlier idea about apportioned EC votes from the states is applied.

                           replyreport
                           1. 83

                              GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                              I am fine with the 17th. I am not fine with the EC as currently implemented. I think what we do have is better than a pure democracy, but it is not being implemented in the way I think it was originally intended to be.
                              
                              Your "I am the State" thought is exactly as I feel also.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
               2. 80

                  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "Yes, it is all working in favor of socialistic liberals now (not sure how that can be considered "progressive", though).  The only question is how far it will go before it all collapses into poverty and misery for all."
                  
                  There is one solution, there was a time maybe 100 years ago when all the electoral votes were primarily in the NorthEast. That certainly has changed. Get more people to settle in Idaho, it is a nice area and you can increase your numbers, the numbers of electors for the state and compete with liberal oriented states more successfully. The problem is with the increase in population will come a greater infusion of liberal ideas and concepts. This is happening in Texas now. Oklahoma is unique in the fact that its large urban areas are almost as Republican as its countryside. Can one objective be obtained along without the loss of another? Maybe, but it doesn't seem like it over the long haul.
                  
                  With the infusion of population, can Idaho remain the Idaho that you currently know?

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     There is another solution; go back to the Constitution's concept of the Electoral College - proportional assignment of the state's votes. Get rid of the subversive winner-takes-all assignment we now have.
                     
                     I am becoming a lot more interested in the concept of Choice Voting or Proportional Representation Voting. Either would lessen the grip of a two-party system.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        That is an idea I could work with as it makes it all the more likely that the Electoral College outcome coincides with popular vote tally.

                        replyreport
      2. 83

         GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Look at the most basic question Cred. Under this procedure, your vote will not be counted as your vote. These states are saying that no matter how you vote, it will be counted as a vote for the national popular vote winner.
         
         Of course, if you support the national vote winner then you can think that your vote counts, but what if you didn't?
         
         Would you want your vote counted for Pres. Trump if he gets the popular vote in 2020?
         
         This is not an "adjustment," it is a hijacking.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            In this one, you are preaching to the choir. I am with you in agreeing that the proposal that was the subject in this thread is wrong headed.
            
            For the very reasons you point out in your example, I am opposed to to state electors Awarded electoral based on a national popular vote rather than the winner in their prospective states.
            
            But, that does not ameliorate my concern about the Electoral College supplanting the popular vote, too often.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               "But, that does not ameliorate my concern about the Electoral College supplanting the popular vote, too often."
               
               It has happened 4 times: 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016.  That doesn't seem outrageous in over 200 years.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "It has happened 4 times: 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016.  That doesn't seem outrageous in over 200 years"
                  
                  You are right, it isn't, so as long as it stays that way, we are good. Just have to keep an eye on it.

                  replyreport
               2. 67

                  PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  ie it's intent is working flawlessly?

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                     Pretty much.  The intent was always that states, not individuals, are choosing a president.  And that the states vote was representative of what it's citizens desired.
                     
                     This new thing takes away from the whole concept of states rights, the idea that we are a republic of cooperating states, a union of states, and travels further down the path of viewing the nation as one composed of individuals rather than quasi independent states.  And, of course, puts more power into those states with large populations that will then ignore the desires of those semi-independent political entities (called "states") and the people in them.

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                        Mob instead of republic. Historically that has worked out well.

                        replyreport
   3. 86

      Sharlee01posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Rhode Island, New York, and Connecticut. Colorado" All states that are known to as a rule vote democratic. It is clear the Dems are a bit scared that they are losing a grip on their "sure thing"...  President Trump has provided an improving economy that most states are really feeling. By assuring electoral votes to the popular winner, will work to keep those states blue.  This is so obviously wrong. and that the democratic party will stop at nothing to win in 2020.  It will be interesting to see if voters stand up and fight to have their vote count?
      
      Not sure what these 12 states have any legal standing to really pull this off? It would seem to me this kind of venture will be futile and end up in the Supreme Court?
      
      "Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.” Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system."

      replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   I'm at a loss for words on this. I get the frustration, but I think the move is ill advised. If you cheat to win, it's only going to exacerbate our partisan problems.
   
   We are definitely peering over a precipice,as a country.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Unfortunately, this isn't cheating Live to Learn. It is a technically, (although contrary to the spirit of the Constitution), legal power grab.
      
      If it succeeds, the desires of over half of the states' voters won't matter in presidential elections. Wyoming and Wisconsin may never see a presidential candidate visit again.
      
      You are right, we are at a precipice.
      
      GA

      replyreport
3. 67

   PhoenixVposted 5 years ago

   It would not surprise me if the states that are doing this, were originally vocal advocates for the electoral college in the beginning. For the very reasons they will now undermine.
   
   States that produce oil, gas and food should stop doing commerce with them. Every state for themselves.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No, it's not the original advocates for the electoral college.  Most of the states playing this game now did not even exist when the college was designed and implemented.
      
      What is surprising is that many of the states involved are those that are most need of an actual voice in an election - the smaller ones without the huge population producing more votes.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         PhoenixVposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Which states are doing this? I was thinking about the 92 election with Perot. I looked back and found he got, I believe 19 million popular votes, but no electoral. What will this do to the 2 party system? Lock it in or open it up?

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ … te_Compact
            
            I think it will lock it in, solid as a rock.  Or perhaps in our system a 1 party - the Republicans stand no chance in the large metropolitan areas, leaving just the (fixed) democratic party to choose a president in their primary.

            replyreport