And then he fucked 'em. They don't seem to like it so far. Maybe if they get it harder & deeper they will...
Trump's trade policies were geared toward winning voters in the rust belt
Problem is it would look like the Star Wars Senate in that shitty Star Wars movie.
i mean, say what you want about the tenets of the sith, dude, at least it's an ethosOnly if our POTUS was actually a Sith lord in disguise. Oh wait...
If all the states assigned their electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote in each state, wouldn't that be the same thing as having a national popular vote, with the electoral college being a more or less useless appendage in the process?
Not exactly. Smaller states would still get extra representation, and states could also assign the +2 to the overall winner in the state rather than proportional. Would have to look at prior elections to see if it really makes much of a difference anyway.
Bingo!No. People in states don't vote as uniform blocks. That's never been the case. Ironically, the EC artificially creates that voting block.
One more thing. How about making state primary dates random each year? Small states should not call the shots every year.
Who would decide that? Would that not be a private matter for the parties involved? Or are primaries, and hence the two dominant parties, somehow institutionalised in law?
I disagree with it being self serving. It's serving constituents the way it should be.
Terrible idea.
If all the states assigned their electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote in each state, wouldn't that be the same thing as having a national popular vote, with the electoral college being a more or less useless appendage in the process?
OK, I didn't fully understand how it works. Read up on it more fully. It's an agreement among states to assign their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote. While that may be an easier way than amending the Constitution, it could well lead to states assigning their votes to candidates who lost badly in their states. A constitutional amendment, if possible, would be preferable.
. . . Not sure it would be constitutional to dictate how states assign their electoral votes, and I think they are not going to change one by one. I'm not sure if the idea of states banding together to require electoral college votes for the popular vote winner has legs. Obviously it would work and bypass need for federal/Constitution change.
And then he fucked 'em. They don't seem to like it so far. Maybe if they get it harder & deeper they will...
Elaborate.
We're better than the founding fathers.In other words, just a couple of counties in the nation will elect all future presidents?
The founding fathers never wanted a democracy.
In other words, just a couple of counties in the nation will elect all future presidents?
The founding fathers never wanted a democracy.
How is the Constitution amended?
Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.
The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.
The actual wording of Article V is: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Yes. But there is a way to partially neuter the electoral college without abolishing it. That is to assign electors based on the percentage of the vote each candidate received (proportional representation).I haven’t read all the replies in the thread, so this might have already been covered, but since the electoral college is mandated by the US Constitution, wouldn’t it have to be changed by much more than just a bill in Congress?
There is nothing wrong with the electoral system. The easiest fix would be for all the states to eliminate the winner takes all system, because the states imposed that limitation upon themselves. I don’t see CA or TX or NY changing that any time soon.
Elaborate.