Gerrymandering and the Winner-Takes-All Rule of the EC Have To Go

Remember his headline? "It's official: Clinton swamps Trump in popular vote" - excerpt:

We should never ever forget what happened. Because it was the 5th time in American history that the wrong-candidate was made PotUS. Just because our forefathers made a genuinely incorrect mistake 232 years ago when the Constitution was signed and six year later an Electoral College.

But what was actually a key part of that original Constitution signed in 1787? This:

It is never too late to change it! Meaning what?

Meaning that given the fact that the US has shown amply - over the past TWO CENTURIES - that the popular-vote has been and still is manipulated by Gerrymandering and the Winner-Takes-All rule of the Electoral College. Meaning further also that the US cannot think of itself as a Truly Fair and Democratic Nation because it does not employ a truly honest method of electoral-voting! Neither on the state nor the national level.

We must rid the US of both illegitimate manipulations ...

 

Remember this headline? "It's official: Clinton swamps Trump in popular vote" - excerpt:

We should never ever forget what happened. Because it was the 5th time in American history that the wrong-candidate was made PotUS. Just because our forefathers made a genuinely incorrect mistake 232 years ago when the Constitution was signed and six year later an Electoral College.

But what was actually a key part of that original Constitution signed in 1787? This:

It is never too late to change it! Meaning what?

Meaning that given the fact that the US has shown amply - over the past TWO CENTURIES - that the popular-vote has been and still is manipulated by Gerrymandering and the Winner-Takes-All rule of the Electoral College. Meaning further also that the US cannot think of itself as a Truly Fair and Democratic Nation because it does not employ a truly honest method of electoral-voting! Neither on the state nor the national level.

We must rid the US of both illegitimate voting manipulations ...

 

Which 38 of the sovereign states in the union do you think would amend the constitution to reduce their political power?

 

Those that don't like gerrymandering and the EC do not understand either.

 

As I posted more than once before, if states awarded EC votes by percentage one third of all Presidential elections would be decided by Congress. The founding fathers liked that idea, since it happened twice in some of their lifetimes.

 

"Awarded by percentage"? What does that have to do with the system of choosing electors described in the constitution?

 

Fairness was never the goal. The EC was designed because they knew the public might someday elect a raving lunatic. The electors came too close for comfort with Aaron Burr, but they figured the 12th amendment would prevent a repeat of that. In 1824 some states split their ballots and at least one ignored the popular vote in the state. The only thing that changed after that election was the effort to limit the Presidential race to 2 people who differed in policy or temperament.

 

Lesson for the OP. I know it's long, but try to get thru it.

 

You stated it. Now prove it !!!!

 

The EC was instituted because of the states that refused to join the Union without it. Removing it would effectively represent a 'breach of contract' on the part of FedGov and legitimize secession for those states.

Theres certainly an argument to be made for doing that- perhaps the nation would be better off with those who want a limited democracy and those who want an unlimited democracy parting ways.

Im just noting that this is the likely result of getting rid of the EC- a dissolving of the Union.

Gerrymandering is indeed a problem, practiced by both major parties. It shall continue to be so until we overhaul our district (re)definition system. I propose a hexagonal grid be randomly drawn across the US and each hex be made into a district, and concretely kept that way until the end of time.

 

what is this popular vote thingy and what purpose does it serve?

 

THE SOUTHERN STATES because they feared that the northern states would want to free the slaves. Which led inevitably after 70 years to the CIVIL War.

Why do you think we call it the CIVIL War. And why do you think this happens as shown here - excerpt:

.

OK, but that means that you want to keep the EC as it is, which DISTORTS THE POPULAR VOTE AND FIVE TIMES IN AMERICAN HISTORY THE WINNER-TAKES-ALL VOTE RULE HAS ELECTED THE LOSER OF THE POPULAR VOTE!

If that above makes no sense, then you really do not understand the meaning of a "fair and indisputably honest democratic vote"! Because the EC-method actually MANIPULATES the total vote because of its winner-takes-all rule. If YOU did not vote for the majority presidential-vote winner, then your vote is simply NOT COUNTED. All the EC-votes are automatically allocated to the majority vote winner.

Each American citizen is entitled to one single vote. And that's all. No manipulation of that universal popular-vote across America should be allowed!

The Electoral College is an historical error made at a time when there was no fast and safe way to get the popular-vote of all states to Washington, DC. So the votes were sent on horse-back over land trails to DC.

In fact, the country did not have that many roads and no rail system until the first one in 1827! It was not until 1869 that the Central Pacific line and the Union Pacific line joined to create the first transcontinental railroad.

The real-problem is one of identity. After all, a driver's license is the only common identity-card across America. But what you suggest as an honest definition of "voting sector" is as good as any. The alternative is to have no individual in-state "borders" - just a certain number of elected-winners per voting-population number.

Today, parents can request at-birth a National Identity Card based upon a Social Security Number. (See here.) The "identity" is established at birth (and the child's DNA-code could one day be encrypted). But an Identity Card should be produced when the young-adult is sufficiently "identifiable" by photo, methinks ...

 

Doing away with the electoral college would take a constitutional amendment which will never happen. How a state awards their electoral votes is up to each state's legislature. They can change it anytime they like or want. Maine and Nebraska award their electoral votes via the winner of each congressional district with the remaining two electoral votes going to the candidate that won the state.

Pennsylvania legislature debated going the congressional route several years ago, then decided not to. Pennsylvania's main reason was going the congressional district route would weaken the state's political power. With 20 electoral votes, it was deemed, Pennsylvania had more political power with the winner take all than it would have with 18 separate presidential races in each congressional district. Most big states view it this way. If your in California, 55 electoral votes, a Democrat you want to keep the winner take all. Your party's candidate regardless of the size of victory will get all 55 electoral votes. Going Congressional district way, would mean you would have to give some of those 55 electoral votes to the Republican. That is something you don't want to do. The reverse is true for Texas which is controlled by the Republicans.

Gerrymandering, each state legislature also has the power to make gerrymandering illegal. California has went to what they call a bipartisan or non-partisan committee to draw their districts. Not their state legislature. Congress also could outlaw gerrymandering as you pointed out. Very few states nor congress will ever do so. Each party loves the opportunity to gerrymander when they can, but each party's howls like a stuffed coyote when its done against them. The Democrats gerrymandered the heck out of Illinois and New York after the 2010 census because they could, the Republicans did the same for Texas and North Carolina.

I have made numerous suggestions about both that wouldn't require a constitutional amendment. But as long as one party or the other sees a political advantage in either how electoral votes are awarded or in gerrymandering, neither is willing to give that advantage up.

 

This again?

 

Someone is worried.

 

That Absurdly FALSE (Fake) Narrative has been Debunked 1000x over.

That claim was woefully wrong. Although Donald Trump did win the popular vote in a significantly larger number of counties than Hillary Clinton did, the margin was not so one-sided. Vote tallies by county differ depending on the standards used, but an Associated Press tally of the actual ratio pegged it at 2,626 to 487, not 3084 to 57:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/

 

You're right about doing away with it. It can be done if the entire nation voted the amendment - so effectively that means doing away with it is probably "not on".

But it can be "neutered". Any amendment can be amended. Where that must be done is in the presidential vote where the state Electoral College can be required to report only the total Popular-vote. The list of countries that employ an Electoral College. (Including the Vatican! Holy cow!)

The Supremes have abrogated some laws passed by Congress. Which is goodness, if we understand that all three powers are fully independent. (And that independence in the past has been balanced between both political sides. When and if that balance is upset - as is the case presently since Donald Dork as stuffed two-of-his-own there - then Uncle Sam is in for BigTrouble ...

 

Prove what? Congress decided the 1800 election among 3 founding fathers. Congress decided the 1824 election while several founding fathers were still alive. Find any letter written by one of these old men after 1824 that suggests they objeted to the outcome and wanted a change in the Constitution so it couldn't happen again.
For the percentage, I did a lot of hard calculations of close elections. Simply put: if a state has 3 ECs you need 83% of the vote to get all 3.
If there's 4 you get 3 at 63%, etc.
In 2000 for example, Ralph Nader would have 6 Ecs, enough to keep Gore and Bush from winning.
1960, 1968, 1976, 1992 (with Perot taking over 100 ECs) and 1996 would also go to the House.
That would be fair.
It would make it worth a visit to Rhode Island to get that third EC, maybe even to Wyoming.

 

I think one possible solution since the electoral college isn't going anywhere that can be done by each state's legislature would be to let the 48 states who want a winner take all to keep it. But only if a candidate wins the majority of that state's electoral votes. No more plurality winner taking all of a states electoral. If no candidates receives a majority, then revert to the congressional district method with the plurality winner getting the final two electoral votes along with each electoral vote for each congressional district won.

There were 12 states in 2016 where the plurality winner received all that states electoral votes. Where no candidate received a majority. The way I look at it, if a candidate didn't receive a majority of the vote, you had more people vote against that candidate than for. Why give in that instant all the electoral votes of a state to a candidate that more people in that state didn't want than did.

This is only a suggestion. But one I think would bring more balance to the electoral college and be fairer to all candidates than what we have now. It would also be more representative of the people's vote.

 

LOL nice try but no. The Great Compromise of 1787, from which was born the EC was small states vs big states, not northern states vs slave states. Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware and New Hampshire were notable proponents. Delaware actually threatenned to ally itself with 'some foreign power' as a means to 'retain its sovereignty' if it was to be 'outvoted' by more populous states that wanted to run the show purely via population, like Virgina wanted to do.

Did you even research the subject, or did you just go with 'smear it with slavery!' without even looking?

 

Which leaves the question, which left wing enemy to freedom will become the President?

 

More one-liner nonsense from the Rabid Right ...

 

You know, on election night, what the news and viewers have always broadcast and watched with relish, are the calling of the states for this or that candidate, and the coloring in of the map....not who has the most collective votes. The point being that states matter.

 

I beg to differ. Go find the population numbers for 1790 here: List of US states and territories by historical population

Add the population numbers of both the southern and northern states. Which I find to be:
North = 2.05M
South = 1.59M
Predominance North by 29% (Which means predominance also in the HofR!)

This predominance in Congress would heavily favor the North, which must have been of very subsequent concern to the Southern states.

And which inevitably led to the Civil War. How's that?

The North and the South were constantly battling one another in Congress. This is largely due to the fact that the North was far more aligned in its European trade with countries that were already without slaves. Slaves in Europe were freed from as early as a century before (16th) and by the 17th century there were very,very few major European states that still had them.

Of course, slavery was absolutely essential to the South with its largely agrarian economy. In the north, the country was also largely agrarian but by the end of the 18th century elements of manufacturing had seeped in from Europe. The South knew very well that the Industrial Age would favor the northern states, which had borrowed from Europe its reluctance to buy slaves. It obviously felt that slavery was essential to its economic fortunes.

Of course, neither am I any great historian. But I can relate the fact that slavery in Europe was of no great consequence as regards manpower both before and after the 17th century. And not largely in the North of the US in the 18th century* ...

*Nonetheless, in 1789, New York was indeed a slave-state. See historical map of North/South slavery here.

 

Deleting the part of my part of my post that directly refutes your assertion is dishonest.