Poll: Should the Electoral College be replaced by popular vote in Presidential Elections? (members only)

[Free Vulcan]

I am of the opinion that the electors for the EC should be assigned on a per congressional basis - whoever gets the most votes in that district, should get that elector.

The two extra "senate" electors should be assigned as follows:
One elector goes to the candidate with the most votes in the totality of the state (if a tie, Governor decides)
One elector goes to the candidate with the most districts won within the state (if a tie, Governor decides)

I'm for awarding of electors by congressional district also.

[uglybiker]

I'm in the Constitutional camp, and I think any politician who espouses making an end-run around the Constitution with schemes like the National Popular Vote movement needs to be dogged out of office for it.

After a proper ass-whuppin', of course. 

[Neverdul]

If there's a way to game the vote allocation, Dems will find it. 

Here in AZ, some folks with heads much larger than their brains figured it would be a swell idea to have an "independent commission" draw the Congressional District boundaries to get Gerrymandering out of the hands of the filthy Legislature (historically dominated by Republicans).  A ballot initiative was proposed and passed. The rules were the panel members cannot be elected officials and must be politically unaffiliated.  It was stacked with Dems the second time it was used, and until the 2014 election the majority of Congressmen in AZ were Dems.

Yes. Gerrymandering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States

But it is not just the Democrats. The Republicans have used it too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#/media/File:TravisCountyDistricts.png

[jmyrlefuller]

No, but winner-take-all should be abolished.

The EC is an important buffer that separates a republic from mob rule. It is nonetheless broken as long as so many Americans have no say in the process because they live in a state where the votes are stacked against them.

I would propose a number of reforms: namely, none-of-the-above voting that actually counts, the requirement of a majority for any elector to be pledged to a candidate, and the allowance of unpledged electors if no such majority exists. I wouldn't object to proportional or by-district allocation of electors, but there are some things that do need to change, without destroying the EC—and winner-take-all is one of them.

[Cyber Liberty]

No, but winner-take-all should be abolished.

The EC is an important buffer that separates a republic from mob rule. It is nonetheless broken as long as so many Americans have no say in the process because they live in a state where the votes are stacked against them.

I would propose a number of reforms: namely, none-of-the-above voting that actually counts, the requirement of a majority for any elector to be pledged to a candidate, and the allowance of unpledged electors if no such majority exists. I wouldn't object to proportional or by-district allocation of electors, but there are some things that do need to change, without destroying the EC—and winner-take-all is one of them.

I like winner take all because it means the candidates must run 50 separate elections.  The problem I have with proportional awarding of the EC votes is it's not different enough from Popular Vote.  A candidate can make up for writing off EC votes in one state by getting a big win in another.  That will take us right to having the large population centers decide who's President, which is what we're trying to avoid.

Make 'em pay attention to the states once in a while, it's the only time they do.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

WTA in the primaries needs to be abolished. Hopefully the GOP learned it's lesson? If that is at all possible?

[NavyCanDo]

There should be a national primary so that people living in every state has a chance to vote for any of three original 17. By the time we got to vote here on the west coast only Trump remained. How fair is that?

The primary would narrow the field to the top 3 or 4 then debate their way to a national caugust where you get the winner. I would even argue that the top 2 are the candidates President & VP with who came in search on being VP. That would help unite rather than devide.

[Cyber Liberty]

WTA in the primaries needs to be abolished. Hopefully the GOP learned it's lesson? If that is at all possible?

Same reason I don't like NPV.  A politician can simply write off whole states if he can make up the lost delegates by getting big wins in populous states.

[jpsb]

The problem I have with proportional awarding of the EC votes is it's not different enough from Popular Vote. 

That is exactly correct there is no difference between directly using the popular vote or a proportional vote in the electoral college they are the same thing (within the rounding error).

[Sanguine]

There should be a national primary so that people living in every state has a chance to vote for any of three original 17. By the time we got to vote here on the west coast only Trump remained. How fair is that?

The primary would narrow the field to the top 3 or 4 then debate their way to a national caugust where you get the winner. I would even argue that the top 2 are the candidates President & VP with who came in search on being VP. That would help unite rather than devide.

I agree that it should be on the same day.  Even the same week would be better.  And, closed primaries!

[Cyber Liberty]

I agree that it should be on the same day.  Even the same week would be better.  And, closed primaries!

I want to repeat that last part, with extra gusto:

And, closed primaries!

[libertybele]

Ditto. The electoral college system is there for a reason. It is a key element of our representational system to ensure that all citizens have a voice, not just those concentrated in a few population centers.

Ditto.

[kevindavis007]

I am of the opinion that the electors for the EC should be assigned on a per congressional basis - whoever gets the most votes in that district, should get that elector.

The two extra "senate" electors should be assigned as follows:
One elector goes to the candidate with the most votes in the totality of the state (if a tie, Governor decides)
One elector goes to the candidate with the most districts won within the state (if a tie, Governor decides)

That change should be up to the states.

[Cyber Liberty]

That change should be up to the states.

What if a bunch of big states collude against the small states that don't like the idea?

[Fishrrman]

I'm entering this thread too late to cast a vote.

The Electoral College should stay... BUT...

...I believe it should be modified to work the way it does in Maine and Nebraska.

That is, instead of a "winner take all" system, it should be Constitutionally redefined so that electors will be awarded by each Congressional district, with (I believe) either one or two (for the Senators) going to whomever receives the highest popular vote in that respective state.

Doing it this way preserves the intent of the Founders, and at the same time dilutes the "popular vote" argument that the left uses against us.

With a "proportional electoral vote" system, voters will be better represented within their districts. That is to say, an area like upstate New York will still have "an electoral voice" that actually gets counted, without being drowned out by the overwhelming population of New York City and the close-in suburbs.

The same for states like California and Illinois (the latter in particular).

Yes, Republicans will lose some votes in states like Texas (the southern part of the state seems to "go blue").
But what's lost there will be more than made up in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida -- and to an extent even in states like Oregon and Washington.

Consider Pennsylvania.
Trump won there this time (by about 1.5%). But this was a special circumstance and I doubt any other Republican could have pulled it off.
If PA was under the "proportional" system, we would gain at least 10 or more of PA's 20 electoral votes in EVERY election. Add those to votes from (non-Chicago) Illinois, eastern OR and WA, (non-DC-area) VA, MI, WI and the sum total of electoral votes for the Republicans would be HIGHER THAN trying to win an election under the winner-take-all scenario that we have now.

I've posted here numerous times that "demographics are destiny".
We can't stop destiny, but we could delay it several decades or longer by "going proportional".

I also believe this should be done by Constitutional Amendment (Article V convention of the states). I believe there might be enough states convinced to "make the switch" by amendment, and if so, it would cram it down the throats of leftist states like California and Illinois that would never do this voluntarily.

We must strike while the iron remains hot.
In time, particularly down in Texas, changing demographics will tip that state into "purple", and then possibly blue as the large cities grow even larger with new Hispanic voters. They won't be voting as do "the old Hispanics" in that state do now.
If Texas tips, Republicans may be locked out of the presidency by the very Electoral College system that exists today.

It needs to be modified "just enough" to even out the odds to keep the votes of traditionally-minded Americans competitive in future presidential contests...

[Right_in_Virginia]

The Electoral College and the two-party system are inter-related.   Together,  they encourage national candidates to appeal to a broad coalition rather than factions.

Agree!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Q:Should the EC be replaced by popular vote in Presidential elections?

A: Fifty percent of the population of the US lives in the following counties (shaded in blue):



This is the county-by-county 2016 election outcome:



Abandoning the EC would be a near guarantee of always having liberal Presidents elected.

[TomSea]

https://emsnews.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/were-the-obama-election-results-fraud-how-many-illegal-aliens-voted/

Check the stats here and it is in the editorials section too.

McCain and Romney actually got more votes than Trump when Romney and McCain ran.

I'm afraid to say, there is a chance the Democrats have pulled way too much voter fraud; especially in some state like California.

Good to have the Electoral college until the integrity of the elections can be assured.

[Luis Gonzalez]

https://emsnews.wordpress.com/2016/11/12/were-the-obama-election-results-fraud-how-many-illegal-aliens-voted/

Check the stats here and it is in the editorials section too.

McCain and Romney actually got more votes than Trump when Romney and McCain ran.

I'm afraid to say, there is a chance the Democrats have pulled way too much voter fraud; especially in some state like California.

Good to have the Electoral college until the integrity of the elections can be assured.

Trump won the Presidency with @112,000 votes.

Hidden within Donald Trump’s historic redrawing of the rust-belt electoral map is this reality: A relatively small number of people handed the election to President-Elect Trump.

In the end, a trio of formerly blue states were most critical to Trump: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The combined margin for Trump in those three states, which gave him the electoral college?

Only about 112,158 votes. (As of November 11, the race in Michigan was so close the Associated Press still hasn’t called the race. The same is true in New Hampshire, where Clinton has a slim lead.)

Elections are decided by voter turnout. The voter fraud meme is largely BS.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/election-results-2016-2012-by-state-county-presidential-voter-turnout-popular-vote-pennsylvania-michigan-wisconsin-new-hampshire-rust-belt-trump-clinton-gary-johnson-jill-stein-third-party-margin/

[jpsb]

The voter fraud meme is largely BS.

I am of the opinion that voter fraud is huge, millions of non citizens vote. Obama told the illegals to vote! I wish you were right but unfortunately you're not.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I am of the opinion that voter fraud is huge, millions of non citizens vote. Obama told the illegals to vote! I wish you were right but unfortunately you're not.

You don't know that you are right with your "millions of non-citizens" vote.

[Cripplecreek]

You don't know that you are right with your "millions of non-citizens" vote.

I'm sure it happens but I think millions is a wild overstatement.

Most vote fraud takes place during the counting.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm sure it happens but I think millions is a wild overstatement.

Most vote fraud takes place during the counting.

And it's highly illogical to believe that all fraud is one sided.

[Sanguine]

And it's highly illogical to believe that all fraud is one sided.

I think it is mostly one sided.  There may be a few exceptions of course, but, yes, it is mostly practiced by the left.

[Doug Loss]

@Cyber Liberty

I posted the link to the guest version of the poll at several places.

One of the people at one of those places posted this link: National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome. As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force..."
Is this what you were talking about?

And that is facially unconstitutional:

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

They overtly admit that the NPV is an interstate compact or agreement, using those exact terms.  Unless Congress authorizes such a compact, it is unconstitutional.