New Bill to eliminate the Electoral College

[Jhhnn]

Simply put, people who live in more populated states are less real Americans than the people living in the "heartland". Just ask the heartland dwellers and they'll explain it to you. Small town people are better people, they just are.

Historically, it was a concession to the slave states to coax them into the Union. It would have been best if we had jettisoned the EC after the Civil War.

People in the heartland have been badly exploited & their best qualities turned against them by decades of right wing disinformation & agitprop. The Jerb Creators have been throwing them off the train since Reagan, at least. They've been computerized, consolidated, automated & offshored all to Hell & gone. Modern multinational Capitalism moved on to greener pastures. When they do come around, it's to build WalMarts & drive Main Street out of business, then move to a different town 30 miles away & do it again. Amazon takes it to an even higher level. Money goes out all the time but it doesn't come back the way it used to do. Their kids grow up & move away because there aren't any jobs so the whole thing proceeds downhill. It's apparently pretty easy to get them to blame all the wrong people.

 

[Texashiker]

Do you have evidence they worked blue collar jobs? The exit poll info isn't that specific.

You know good and well voting is anonymous.

It is just common sense coal miners woudl not vote for hillary.

Also, doubling down on your lie about emotion-based voting doesn't make it any less of a lie. "Make America Great Again" and red caps are emotion-driven voting. Voting for someone completely inexperienced in politics and whose main credentials are his inheritance, his hotels and a TV show? That's emotion-driven voting, too.

Do you remember the little girl who asked hillary something along the lines of, "When I grow up, will I make the same as a man?" Who do you think told her she will make less than a man?

Surely someone forgot to tell the little girl there was already a federal law that addresses equal pay on the books? So what "exactly" was hillary going to do? Pass yet another law when we already have one?

That is the type of emotional voting I am referring to.

Logic says we already have a law on the books, so use it.

emotion says women should make the same as men and hillary is going to fix that.

 

[Jhhnn]

DP

 

[Texashiker]

People in the heartland have been badly exploited & their best qualities turned against them by decades of right wing disinformation & agitprop. The Jerb Creators have been throwing them off the train since Reagan, at least. They've been computerized, consolidated, automated & offshored all to Hell & gone. Modern multinational Capitalism moved on to greener pastures. When they do come around, it's to build WalMarts & drive Main Street out of business, then move to a different town 30 miles away & do it again. Amazon takes it to an even higher level. Money goes out all the time but it doesn't come back the way it used to do. Their kids grow up & move away because there aren't any jobs so the whole thing proceeds downhill. It's apparently pretty easy to get them to blame all the wrong people.

And the middle class / blue collar workers / fly over states.... voted for Trump to fix that.

Trump is the result of globalization and free trade destroying the middle class.

 

[Jhhnn]

And the middle class / blue collar workers / fly over states.... voted for Trump to fix that.

Trump is the result of globalization and free trade destroying the middle class.

You mean all that Free Market stuff conservatives have voted for since Reagan?

 

[Texashiker]

You mean all that Free Market stuff conservatives have voted for since Reagan?

Factually incorrect statement.

Just about every president since Nixon has signed free trade agreements.

 

[Jhhnn]

Factually incorrect statement.

Just about every president since Nixon has signed free trade agreements.

Who keeps voting for more of the same, harder & deeper? And what have Trump & the GOP delivered other than just that?

Y'all have been getting chumped for decades. The fact that 62M Americans were nutty enough to actually vote for the greatest charlatan in America illustrates that all too well. Trump won't save you from anything other than using your mind. All you've accomplished is screaming Fuck You at the rest of America & the world while your economic oppressors get richer.

 

[Texashiker]

Who keeps voting for more of the same, harder & deeper? And what have Trump & the GOP delivered other than just that?

Y'all have been getting chumped for decades. The fact that 62M Americans were nutty enough to actually vote for the greatest charlatan in America illustrates that all too well. Trump won't save you from anything other than using your mind. All you've accomplished is screaming Fuck You at the rest of America & the world while your economic oppressors get richer.

For the past 40+ years regardless of who was elected they promoted the same agenda - global free trade, which as resulted in the destruction of the middle class.

This electoral college issue would hand over the fate of the nation to just a handful of counties and cities.

Let's be honest, democrats are still butthurt hillary lost. All hillary had to do was follow the script, and she would have won the election. Then along came Trump, who addressed the working middle class, and the effects of free trade.

Democrats want to abolish the EC to make sure nothing interrupts the open borders / socialist (and communist) / free trade process ever again.

 

[Jhhnn]

For the past 40+ years regardless of who was elected they promoted the same agenda - global free trade, which as resulted in the destruction of the middle class.

This electoral college issue would hand over the fate of the nation to just a handful of counties and cities.

Let's be honest, democrats are still butthurt hillary lost. All hillary had to do was follow the script, and she would have won the election. Then along came Trump, who addressed the working middle class, and the effects of free trade.

Democrats want to abolish the EC to make sure nothing interrupts the open borders / socialist (and communist) / free trade process ever again.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

https://www.cato.org/blog/have-trade-agreements-killed-manufacturing-sector

What's happened is that the investor class has exploited technology to take a bigger piece of the pie for themselves since Reagan. Give 'em a tax cut so it will all trickle down like it never has. Because God, guns, gays, race & evil soshulism. And Commies!

 

[Texashiker]

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Let me guess, you have never worked a manufacturing job?

Furthermore, you have never seen a factory close, people lose their jobs, their homes, and in some cases their families?

I have.

In the early 1980s numerous shipyards along the Gulf Coast closed, and those jobs sent overseas. 30+ years later, some of the areas have never recovered, while others are just now starting to recover.

Shipyard welders went from $16, $17... $18 an hour, to making $8 an hour.

Then there is the toy, textile, and computer industries.

I currently work in a welding shop which builds equipment for the oilfield. Good thing it is a family owned business, or my job could be sent to Mexico in the blink of an eye.

 

[Jhhnn]

Let me guess, you have never worked a manufacturing job?

Furthermore, you have never seen a factory close, people lose their jobs, their homes, and in some cases their families?

I have.

In the early 1980s numerous shipyards along the Gulf Coast closed, and those jobs sent overseas. 30+ years later, some of the areas have never recovered, while others are just now starting to recover.

Shipyard welders went from $16, $17... $18 an hour, to making $8 an hour.

Then there is the toy, textile, and computer industries.

I currently work in a welding shop which builds equipment for the oilfield. Good thing it is a family owned business, or my job could be sent to Mexico in the blink of an eye.

Like I said, the investor class has been fucking workers since Reagan. It's all about shareholder value, as they call it, taking total dominance over all other considerations. They de-capitalized their existing operations in a variety of ways in pursuit of greater profit. It's the same thing they did to Detroit & the Rust Belt. Movin' on to greener pastures. Thanks for all your hard work, but your services are no longer required. Enjoy your Freedom, chumps.

 

[kohler]

...

This electoral college issue would hand over the fate of the nation to just a handful of counties and cities.

. ..
Democrats want to abolish the EC to make sure nothing interrupts the open borders / socialist (and communist) / free trade process ever again.

"The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states," former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
The current secretary of DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, echoed those comments– 3/21/18

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, the president’s narrow victory was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not in CA or NY).

In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have won in states with 270 electoral votes to elect the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.



Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”
“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”
“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”

Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview
“I would rather have a popular vote. “

Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill

 

[Starbuck1975]

They intended electors to exercise free will & good judgement in their choice should the occasion demand it, which didn't happen-

No it did not, so we should focus on addressing why the safeguard did not work rather than eliminate it entirely.

 

[kohler]

Also. These cries of "the popular vote lost to the electoral vote" isnt the real issue (aside from the fact most people calling for this dont understand the difference between a democracy and a republic), but rather liberals KNOW with a popular vote only, it will assure a steady election of liberal candidates. The largest 20-25 cities would decide election outcomes, as most of the largest US citites lean left. Nevermind the votes of suburbs and smaller cities wont mean a thing.

Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

[The] difference between a democracy and a republic [is] the delegation of the government, the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest."
In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents." - Madison

Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.

With the National Popular Vote bill
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Candidates, as in other elections, would allocate their time, money, polling, organizing, and ad buys roughly in proportion to the population

Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting, crude, and divisive and red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes, that don’t represent any minority party voters within each state.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable winner states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
We can limit the power and influence of a few battleground states in order to better serve our nation.

 

[kohler]

There is a problem, within 16 years two candidates won the Presidency without majority support of the voters.
That’s a problem in my book.

In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

There are several scenarios in which a candidate could win the presidency in 2020 with fewer popular votes than their opponents. It could reduce turnout more, as more voters realize their votes do not matter.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district or county. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 36 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).

 

[kohler]

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.

CA and NY have enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

 

[kohler]

No it did not, so we should focus on addressing why the safeguard did not work rather than eliminate it entirely.

Now, the Electoral College would not prevent a candidate winning in states with 270 electoral votes from being elected President of the United States

Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes.
2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 24,067 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 31 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 29 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.

States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors.

In Arizona, HB2302 went into effect in August 2017. Electors must cast their vote for candidate and vice president candidate who jointly received the highest number of votes in the state. If the elector refuses to cast that vote, they will no longer be eligible to hold their position as an elector.

April 10, 2018 - A federal appeals court judge has ruled that Colorado’s presidential electors must vote for the winner of the state’s popular vote.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

 

[kohler]

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).

There is also the interstate compact idea of the states agreeing among themselves to award all their delegates to the winner of the national popular vote.

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

 

[Jhhnn]

No it did not, so we should focus on addressing why the safeguard did not work rather than eliminate it entirely.

We already know why. It's because the GOP cares only about winning. It's also because state law often criminalizes electors voting any way other than their state decrees. There's no way to fix that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

CA and NY have enacted the National Popular Vote bill.

Which is a step in the wrong direction. The National Popular vote bill is simply a popular vote override, not a proportional electoral allocation. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

 

[BoomerD]

Let me guess, you have never worked a manufacturing job?

Furthermore, you have never seen a factory close, people lose their jobs, their homes, and in some cases their families?

I have.

In the early 1980s numerous shipyards along the Gulf Coast closed, and those jobs sent overseas. 30+ years later, some of the areas have never recovered, while others are just now starting to recover.

Shipyard welders went from $16, $17... $18 an hour, to making $8 an hour.

Then there is the toy, textile, and computer industries.

I currently work in a welding shop which builds equipment for the oilfield. Good thing it is a family owned business, or my job could be sent to Mexico in the blink of an eye.

What happened to the very good paying tugboat job? (I have the right guy, right?)

Your job for the family-owned company could STILL go to Mexico...if the oilfield companies decide that saving money is more important than the convenience of having a fairly local shop do the work. You DO know that...right?

 

[Starbuck1975]

There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.

The Founding Fathers rightfully feared foreign intervention in our elections, did not trust the whims of the masses and also needed to secure the support of the smaller states by assuring a balance to counter the larger states. The electoral system preserves that intent. As I said earlier in the thread, Democrats certainly didn’t have a concern over the electoral college when they won the White House.

 

[zinfamous]

In other words, just a couple of counties in the nation will elect all future presidents?

The founding fathers never wanted a democracy.

lol--Have you guys seen TH's forum that he is now linking in his profile? It looks like he is an admin, and it is batshit insane as you might expect. It makes JohnConnor's forums look like a gathering of Mensa members (and remember--that was with 2 people making all of the posts)

I guess Tuglife didn't work out, so now it is Countrylife.

 

[zinfamous]

The Founding Fathers rightfully feared foreign intervention in our elections, did not trust the whims of the masses and also needed to secure the support of the smaller states by assuring a balance to counter the larger states. The electoral system preserves that intent. As I said earlier in the thread, Democrats certainly didn’t have a concern over the electoral college when they won the White House.

The EC was established to defend "the rights" of slave holders and their states. This was "the compromise"

Yeah, so let's just keep going with that model, since the only way such states had influence then, is the only way such states have influence now. Strangely, the EC power-holding states are every bit as deplorable and inhuman as such slaveholders of the day. So, fuck them all to hell. Then and now.

Also, Democrats never lose the vote when winning the EC. That only happens for Republicans. I don't know what you are talking about concern here, considering their long history of observably legitimate wins in such elections. ....OK, there were all those Dead People in Chicago that elected Kennedy, but that wasn't an EC issue.

 

[blackangst1]

"The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states," former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
The current secretary of DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, echoed those comments– 3/21/18

According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, the president’s narrow victory was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not in CA or NY).

In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have won in states with 270 electoral votes to elect the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.



Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”
“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”
“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”

Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview
“I would rather have a popular vote. “

Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
“ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), and Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001).

Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill

Politicians flip sides all the time. I mean take the wall for example. Most Democrats for for a wall before they were againdst it. Take John McCain. He stuck his finger in the wind to see the political wind before making statements. So meh. Bottom line is eliminating the EC is a bad idea.