CAN WE GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

No, we can't get rid of the Electoral College. But we can change how it functions.

How so? From Wikipedia here: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

Excerpt:

Iow, it's not going to be easy. But, it is very likely that the effort would make the US become - finally - a True and Fair Democracy ...

 

Here's a thought let's let Caliphornia, New Yawk and New Joisey tell everybody how they ought to live. Yeah that's the ticket!

 

Repeal and replace the Reapportionment Act of 1929, implement the Wyoming Rule, and problem solved...

 

Speaking of control of the senate everyone move to Atlanta now and set up house. You can register to vote next day not kidding.

 

Perhaps we should allow those in the comfort of air conditioning and their comfy armchair, the power to control those working out in the hot sun. That sounds fair!

 

There's nothing fair about a true democracy for 49% of The People.

 

The problem with the electoral college is its generally an all or nothing format. If every state agreed to distribute their electoral points in proportion to how the people voted, it wouldn't be so problematic. However, as is the way most states work is if a candidate gets a mere majority, no matter how small (whether it is by plurality or not), they get 100% of that states electoral college points.

 

Am I having déjà vu, or did the OP make this same argument about getting rid of the Electoral College about 2 or 3 weeks ago?

 

I don't get it. This would have to be approved by 100% of the states. You only need 66% to approve a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college altogether. It would appear easier to do that. Am I wrong?

What did I misunderstand?

 

States do not vote, people do. And the flip side is that we voters in the majority are tired of minority voters tyrannizing the majority

 

Centralised democracy is not superior to localised democracy.

 

Won't happen.

It would require 2/3rds of State Legislatures.

And, so many are controlled by the GOP that it is a non-starter.

Especially, since the GOP knows that they would never have a chance at winning another POTUS Election without the EC.

 

You don't understand that a Change in the Constitution requires the voting-approval of 100% of the states. Go find that approval-rate, and BINGO! We'll be rid of the EC!

We just had the opportunity of getting rid of one of the worst presidencies the country has ever known! And yet, nearly half the voting population voted to keep in office!

As I never tire of saying - what most Americans generally learn in high-school about Civics wouldn't fit a thimble! For a proper assessment of high-school Civics Education I suggest you go to the Brookings here: A Portrait of Civics Education in the United States

Also here from the same site: 2018 Brown Center Report on American Education

Excerpt:

'Nuff said ... ?

 

Been there, done that! That executive "comfy-chair" sits in most head-offices of American companies.

The EU has the best legal-protections for personal-body protection of any collection-of-nations on earth. The US is still "hung-up" on its CEO-Mentality. Which goes like this: "IF YOU'RE MAKING THAT MUCH MUNEY NET YOU MUST BE DOING THINGS RIGHT!"

Typical male-BS - it's all over the place in the US ...

 

What is this? Is this like the 7th thread you've started about the getting rid of the Electoral College so far?

And each time, someone has gone to the long thought out effort to explain to you the reasons why it exists, and why it still serves a relevant function.

 

The states already did that when they decided to give the Electors to the popular vote within their individual state.
So far, all 50 states have decided to do that.

The problem with that is that individual states could not verify the integrity of their elections.

There would be accusations that some states had cheated to change the overall popular vote numbers.
Right now, under the current system, that is not much of an issue.

But if a state like California would agree to election rules imposed on them by Red states, this could be a possibility.
(It's never going to happen though, California is going to be very unlikely to agree)

 

You would probably be saying goodbye to mail-in ballots and require voter ID.
Two things Blue states have been very reluctant to agree to.

If I were in charge of a Red state, I would totally agree to this for just one election, just as an experiment so we could all see by how much the vote result numbers changed after certain states were required to implement more stringent procedural policies to ensure the integrity of the election.

 

Isn't there a rule that says the EV members MUST abide by the popular vote of their OWN state? So the Compact can't change that, can it?

 

The counter to that argument being the people in states like Wyoming (pop. 600K) have disproportionate power over the people living in CA (pop. 40M). The Senate and the EC are representative of the states........but not the people.

 

"Certain legal questions may affect implementation of the compact. Some legal observers believe states have plenary power to appoint electors as prescribed by the compact; others believe that the compact will require congressional consent..."

 

The American people are not up to changing how they vote - regardless of the monumental errors that the EC makes in determining a PotUS. (As seen vividly when !)

Once around with a new national voting procedure must be enough. Otherwise, the Replicants - who have become greatly-dependent upon manipulating the voting procedure - will assure than nothing changes in the tiresome quibbling that will ensue any political-discussion of what must - and must-not - change.

So, what I am saying is the voting for the presidency is not the only default of our supposed free-election system. Which isn't "free" because it is being manipulated by vested interests on both sides of our political system's duality (Rep&Dem).

Because that was the Undercover Political Game Rule that we-the-sheeple supposedly accepted for two-centuries!

First, rather, voter-mentalities must change. And - given that half the voting population voted for JERKO - I don't see any change possible on Uncle Sam's political horizon ...

I don't mind discussing where and how I think the US should change. But I am convinced the mentality is not THERE to change anything. A major dysfunction is necessary to wake-up America that is very badly informed about how its country is run.

Largely due to its comparatively poor level of Civics-education nationally at the high-school level. Which is underscored in this review here: A Look at Civics Education in the United States

PS: And I wont go into the fact that a great many women voted for Trump despite his history of manipulating some sexually. Which was it? They didn't know or they didn't care?!?

 

That is something both you and Conservatives could agree with. Students should get a better civics education in school.
Many children are not taught anything about civics or voting in school.

You're going into a different topic. What Trump is known to have said/done isn't that bad, while the other accusations against him by a handful of totally random women were spurious and not very believable. And lastly, Stephanie Clifford ("Stormy") being a woman in that particular "occupation" won't get that much sympathy, although more so since she (allegedly, still no proof though) sold her body to him.

Anyway, I can't imagine why you would even bring that up here when the stuff against Biden in this department is arguably worse.

 

You are right. But while I understand why you phrased this way, I wouldn't say "only 66%" because a constitutional amendment currently is out of reach. One would need either two thirds of state legislatures, or two thirds of Congress. With all the gerrymandering, the GOP has a firm grip on a significant percentage of each of these avenues, enough to fend off any attempt by the Dems to reach two thirds. Given that abolishing the EC would result in the GOP never winning a presidential election again, they will never go along with it.

 

I’m with you on EC vote being distributed based on proportion of votes and not winner take all. That way people’s votes can actually matter regardless of the state they are in.

 

My reading of the law and the Constitution, for what it's worth, is that if enough states want to destroy the republic they probably can because the legislatures can certify whomever electors they choose. However, it is likely not as easy as described in that many if not most states would require a change to the state's constitution, although this assumes they follow the law and their constitutions.