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

[dfwgator]

So what happens if the National vote margin to within say, a thousand votes.

How are you going to do a recount, when there are over 150+ million votes to go through?   

[Suppressed]

Should the World Series go to the team with the most total runs, even if they lose all but one game?

[truth_seeker]

As I understand it the EC leaves states with the freedom, to allocate their votes as they see fit.

Nebraska and Maine currently use "proportional," last I checked.

There is a good chance that "winner-take-all" is the issue, not the EC.

[Cyber Liberty]

As I understand it the EC leaves states with the freedom, to allocate their votes as they see fit.

Nebraska and Maine currently use "proportional," last I checked.

There is a good chance that "winner-take-all" is the issue, not the EC.

It does, but it also prohibits state from forming Compacts, which is what the NPV movement is all about (See Mach's post upthread describing the movement).  Supporters of eliminating the EC so the large urban centers will forever decide the direction of the country, support states colluding to do an end-run around the constitution.  Proportional awarding of the Electoral Votes is just another form of Popular Vote. 

I support neither.  I don't like that we have ANY states with proportional awarding of EVs.  I like having 50 separate elections that have to be fought and won locally.

[Doug Loss]

It does, but it also prohibits state from forming Compacts, which is what the NPV movement is all about (See Mach's post upthread describing the movement).  Supporters of eliminating the EC so the large urban centers will forever decide the direction of the country, support states colluding to do an end-run around the constitution.  Proportional awarding of the Electoral Votes is just another form of Popular Vote. 

I support neither.  I don't like that we have ANY states with proportional awarding of EVs.  I like having 50 separate elections that have to be fought and won locally.

I'm for each state deciding how to pick electors in whatever way they choose.  But NPV has states forming an unconstitutional compact to hold elections and then to ignore the results of their own elections and select electors according to the tenets of that compact.  Not only is that compact unconstitutional, but holding and then ignoring the results of an election could also (arguably) be unconstitutional under Article IV, Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Holding and then ignoring the results of an election to pick representatives is a clear repudiation of "a Republican Form of Government."

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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

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

At what point in time can you imagine this assurance?

Each state is responsible for its own election process.

Are you suggesting the federal government take this responsibility over?

If so, then you are advocating something far, far worse than the EC.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm for each state deciding how to pick electors in whatever way they choose.  But NPV has states forming an unconstitutional compact to hold elections and then to ignore the results of their own elections and select electors according to the tenets of that compact.  Not only is that compact unconstitutional, but holding and then ignoring the results of an election could also (arguably) be unconstitutional under Article IV, Section 4:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Holding and then ignoring the results of an election to pick representatives is a clear repudiation of "a Republican Form of Government."

Isn't that a direct violation of the 14th amendment?  Specifically, Section 2. 

[ABX]

I had a tit for tat last night with a lib over this and swapped it up using their terms.

Basically, using a county vote map (I think it was the 2000 map), I showed them how all the big Wall Street bankers would have all the say and the poor, organic, small town farmer in Kansas would have no say.

Eliminating the electoral vote gives all the power to Wall Street and banker types and hurts the poor organic small business farmer.

;)

[Cyber Liberty]

I had a tit for tat last night with a lib over this and swapped it up using their terms.

Basically, using a county vote map (I think it was the 2000 map), I showed them how all the big Wall Street bankers would have all the say and the poor, organic, small town farmer in Kansas would have no say.

Eliminating the electoral vote gives all the power to Wall Street and banker types and hurts the poor organic small business farmer.

;)

Next you'll be telling me that Democrats are lying when they say Democrats are for the little guy and against the big Wall Street banks. 

[TomSea]

At what point in time can you imagine this assurance?

Each state is responsible for its own election process.

Are you suggesting the federal government take this responsibility over?

If so, then you are advocating something far, far worse than the EC.

Nobody said anything about the federal government.

All I said is that the electoral college is the best method until the integrity of elections can be assured. And maybe it is the best method after that.

Do not read things into this that nobody came close to saying so one can accuse others and act like they are "Mr. Small Government" strutting about as proud as a peacock.

By the same logic, I guess I could pretzel-logic that one wants voter fraud.

[TomSea]

For the record, there are some news websites making a big deal out of Clinton winning the "popular vote";

But with so much fraud going on and Obama basically urging illegals to vote, we should remember that that "popular vote" is meaningless in what it means because of voter fraud. The integrity of the electoral system is not proven; this says nothing about the Federal Government now managing elections.

[Doug Loss]

Isn't that a direct violation of the 14th amendment?  Specifically, Section 2.

I don't think so.  That section says, "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

The right to vote isn't abridged by NPV; the results of the elections are ignored.  That could be considered abridging the right to vote, but if so it would apply to the entirety of the electorate and would therefore reduce the representation in Congress by the proportion of those who voted in the election to the entire voting-age population of the state.  The states that did this would surely howl if their Congressional representation was reduced by roughly 60% (it would be fun to watch), but I doubt it would ever get that far.  NPV would be declared unconstitutional for the other reasons first, I should think.

[Lando Lincoln]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6s7jB6-GoU

[ABX]

For the record, there are some news websites making a big deal out of Clinton winning the "popular vote";

But with so much fraud going on and Obama basically urging illegals to vote, we should remember that that "popular vote" is meaningless in what it means because of voter fraud. The integrity of the electoral system is not proven; this says nothing about the Federal Government now managing elections.

It is so close, we don't know who won the popular vote yet. There are hundreds of thousand of provisional ballots, mail in ballots, and other votes not counted yet that may shift that.

[TomSea]

State, Local, Municipal Control could also lead to more fraud per Miami and Philadelphia. Something to watch.

If one talks of State control in this, it could be worrisome.

[Lando Lincoln]

It is so close, we don't know who won the popular vote yet. There are hundreds of thousand of provisional ballots, mail in ballots, and other votes not counted yet that may shift that.

I read somewhere California will not spend the time and $$$ to count absentee ballots since the outcome is not in doubt.  Very high percentage are military.  I'll see if I can find the article.

It didn't make sense to me since more than the Presidential election was on the ballots.  But, it is California.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't think so.  That section says, "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

The right to vote isn't abridged by NPV; the results of the elections are ignored.  That could be considered abridging the right to vote, but if so it would apply to the entirety of the electorate and would therefore reduce the representation in Congress by the proportion of those who voted in the election to the entire voting-age population of the state.  The states that did this would surely howl if their Congressional representation was reduced by roughly 60% (it would be fun to watch), but I doubt it would ever get that far.  NPV would be declared unconstitutional for the other reasons first, I should think.

I agree with that.  I hope it stays clear of loony liberal judges who would rule it constitutional because they have personal affection for the popular vote.  The way the courts are stacked these days that is an ever-present threat.

[Cyber Liberty]

It is so close, we don't know who won the popular vote yet. There are hundreds of thousand of provisional ballots, mail in ballots, and other votes not counted yet that may shift that.

As of Thursday there were about 600,000 mail-in and provisional ballots in Arizona that had not been counted, which was why AZ wasn't called until yesterday. 

[truth_seeker]

Thankfully Trump should get one or more SC appointment very soon, thereby vastly reducing any chance of changing our nation election process.

Individual states are free to allocate their electors, as they see fit. For instance California and New York could use the proportional method, thereby INCREASING results for the GOP.

[Lando Lincoln]

Thankfully Trump should get one or more SC appointment very soon, thereby vastly reducing any chance of changing our nation election process.

Individual states are free to allocate their electors, as they see fit. For instance California and New York could use the proportional method, thereby INCREASING results for the GOP.

It would be an interesting exercise to tabulate the result using the proportional method.  I could envision extreme delays and endless fights in counting all the votes.

[Cyber Liberty]

It would be an interesting exercise to tabulate the result using the proportional method.  I could envision extreme delays and endless fights in counting all the votes.

The problem I have with proportional is the same problem I have with straight-up popular vote.  Candidates can afford to completely ignore the small states because whatever EVs that get lost that way can be made up by winning districts in other more populous states.  Since Congressional boundaries are drawn by population (Large cities have multiple districts), such an EV allocation scheme takes us right back to having Presidential Elections decided only by large population centers.

Given my druthers it would be winner take all for all states, but the Constitution is silent on that AFAIK.   I like the idea of candidates having to run 50 local elections rather than one big, fat election.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It is so close, we don't know who won the popular vote yet. There are hundreds of thousand of provisional ballots, mail in ballots, and other votes not counted yet that may shift that.

These may never be counted if outcome is not in doubt. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/hillary_wins_the_popular_vote__not_.html

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nobody said anything about the federal government.

All I said is that the electoral college is the best method until the integrity of elections can be assured. And maybe it is the best method after that.

Do not read things into this that nobody came close to saying so one can accuse others and act like they are "Mr. Small Government" strutting about as proud as a peacock.

By the same logic, I guess I could pretzel-logic that one wants voter fraud.

Go back and read your post which says
quote Good to have the Electoral college until the integrity of the elections can be assured.
Unquote

My point is there will never be any assurance.

So I was attempting to ask you to explain how we can get the assurance of integrity of elections since they are run by the state.

[HootOwl]

The constitution gives each state the power to control its elections as it sees fit.  The state is given a certain numbers of electors, and they (the state) has their own method of picking these electors.  This was a compromise,  proposed by Ben Franklin (I think) that determines how many electors the state gets.  One elector for each member of the US House plus one elector for each member of the US Senate.  No way will most states give up this power.

[Cyber Liberty]

The constitution gives each state the power to control its elections as it sees fit.  The state is given a certain numbers of electors, and they (the state) has their own method of picking these electors.  This was a compromise,  proposed by Ben Franklin (I think) that determines how many electors the state gets.  One elector for each member of the US House plus one elector for each member of the US Senate.  No way will most states give up this power.

Can a state bind its electors according to the results of a vote in another state? 

Let's say Arizona casts more votes for candidate X than for candidate Y.   California votes Y over X instead.  Can AZ assign their electoral votes to candidate Y instead of X because of the way the vote went in CA?