There's a plan afoot to replace the Electoral College, and your state may already be part of it
By: Elliott Ramos (NBC News)
And there is not too much left to be wondered about (if anything) if one looks at the states, listed and on the map, of why this is being done. It's control people. The coasts....................and of course Colorado has its share of "migrants" from California.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Nov. 9, 2020, 8:24 PM UTC / Updated Nov. 10, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC By Elliott Ramos
Colorado voters have decided to join a growing list of states that hope to decide a president by popular vote, the latest move in a national chess match over the way the United States elects its presidents.
Called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the agreement calls for states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, once enough states join the agreement.
So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia have approved the pact, covering 196 electoral votes of the required 270 to win the presidency.
That 270 matters: The states that have approved legislation to join the compact agreed it would not take effect until the 270 threshold is reached. Once it does, those states will have the power to use their Electoral College votes to elect a winner, according to the popular vote. This uses the Electoral College to effectively phase out the Electoral College, though it would not apply to states that do not sign up.
Colorado's Senate was the first state legislative body to try to pass the national popular vote proposal in 2006, though the legislation failed multiple times. It was ultimately signed into law last year by Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, but was then was successfully challenged by Coloradans Vote, a group that gathered enough signatures to invoke a rarely used referendum to ask Colorado voters to confirm or repeal the law.
John Koza was part of that early effort and was the creator and chair of the National Popular Vote nonprofit. He is a computer scientist who is known for his work in genetics and even co-invented the scratch-off lottery ticket and has had more than a passing interest in how the U.S. presidential election operates.
"I've been interested in the quirks of the Electoral College since the '60s," Koza said."Several of us got together and said maybe a state-based approach, which is what we have, would be a better way to try to get a national popular vote. So that's how the national popular vote got started."
While the compact has gained traction in states run by Democratic governors, it has been supported by some Republicans such as former RNC chair Michael Steele.
Critics, however, say the popular vote initiative will encourage candidates to focus on large cities, which tend to favor Democratic candidates. Koza takes issue with that.
"We know how candidates campaign now, and they would campaign the same way they do now, except it would be spread out over the whole country," he said.
That sentiment is echoed by Sylvia Bernstein, the coalition coordinator for the Yes on National Popular Vote campaign.
"It shouldn't be a partisan issue," Bernstein said. "The reason why people should support the national popular vote is pretty simple. … The candidate with the most votes should win, just the way it happens in every other election in this country."
She said candidates should be forced to campaign across the entire country, not just in a handful of swing states.
"Right now, we see both candidates hunkered down in Pennsylvania. You know, Pennsylvania has nothing to do with Colorado, or California, or Texas."
Other opponents say states would cede power under the compact.
"The feedback that I was receiving from my constituents was, what can we do about this? Why don't we get to vote on the national popular vote?" said Don Wilson, a Republican, a co-founder of Coloradans Vote and the mayor of Monument, Colorado.
"I would agree that if it's not a partisan issue, I would say that it tears away from our state sovereignty, or your state to be an independent voice," Wilson said.
"The presidential election is the only election we have where state sovereignty and the state's population is combined for one voice."
Both Koza and Wilson already have their sights set on what happens after Colorado. Wilson said he would want to discuss the issue with other states before it shows up in their legislatures.
Koza is looking to Virginia, which passed the compact in its House of Delegates, then was punted by committee to be taken up by the state Senate after the election.
One thing all parties agree on is the likelihood of a legal challenge after the campaign reaches the required number of electoral votes. Proponents are confident that the courts will ultimately allow states to decide how to carry out presidential elections.
"It's hard to imagine that something that's important wouldn't get challenged in court," Bernstein said.
"We feel very confident that we would survive those challenges. The Constitution is very clear that state legislators have the exclusive and plenary right to award the state's electors however they so choose. And so that's exactly what this compact does."
Elliott Ramos
Elliott Ramos is a data journalist for NBCNews.com.
Tags
Who is online
153 visitors
New Mexico is kind of a surprise........
Trump and his supports are off topic.
The electoral college promotes division in our country. When there is no EC there will no longer be red states or blue states. Presidential candidates will have to campaign in all states.
Candidates will campaign in large metro areas, essentially the coasts and Chicago.
You mean a hand full of big cities.
That is how I see it as well Vic .. I feel like Montana would no longer have a say .. only 3 votes to toss in the mix .. but those 3 count as much as the 196 trying to 'pick the winner' at will .. where is the say of We the People in a electorate that becomes mob rule?
It would be mob rule!
Our federal government is what separates the United States from other countries in the world ... should mob rule become the way of electing the president, then Constitution will no longer hold weight (?) it is how I see things .. I could be wrong, but once the Constitution becomes only a piece of paper .. there will no longer be a 2 party system in place ... we need more than one viable party .. actually need more than 2 viable parties
We are in danger of one party rule. I think we might even need Divine intervention.
It is basically that way now. When the SC ruled against rogue electors, they are supposed to vote the will of the people's vote.
YEP! many do not see that as a problem - yet at the same time scream at the sky that 'democracy' is threatened.. not realizing that a one party rule is what destroys this 'so called democracy' they are so afraid of losing. They cry about the autocrats rule .. but want to create it in the US through one party rule...?
The next ice age is on the way .. that Divine enough for you? stock up on fire wood.. : )
Yet some people did not complain about 'one party rule' when donald and the republicans held all branches of government.
Funny this is only brought up now, when donald loses.
Huh? Did you read the article? It is the blue states club .. the presidential loss is not the subject. The electoral college future and the implementation of one party mob rule .. there was a time when Clinton and Obama etc etc had both legislative branches of government, was that mob rule in your mind?
No intent to sound snotty .. my choice of wording may not be too eloquent ...
Isn't that Democracy? The biggest mob majority makes the decisions?
Although your term of "mob" was designed to invoke images of rioters, that's just your attempt to obfuscate the truth.
I was reacting to the statements that think it would lead to one party rule. The only way that it would is if republicans are afraid they could never win any elections.
The only way it could in these scenarios is the house and that is because of apportionment.
The senate and the presidency are equally apportioned.
People have been complaining about the EC for years. I don't see the possibility of getting enough states on board to change it.
Nor did Democrats complain when they held all 3 branches of government. They sure has hell bitched once Kennedy died and they lost his seat losing their super majority in the Senate.
Thanks for the clarification
I do not think one party rule has anything to do with Republican never winning another election .. it has to do with clusters of people feeling they are more important than the whole of the population .. I hear it on the regular ... Montana's cows have more say than millions of people in CA - which is nothing more than hysteria that somehow CA is being discounted because the states have equal representation in the Senate... while in the House .. Montana has 1 rep .. I do not hear CA crying that they are over represented in the House....
I once thought the EC was outdated and needed changing ... but then I realized that the EC is what keep the playing field somewhat level nationwide.... and agreed the EC will most likely remain .. yet this article is showing that an end run around the EC is in the works.
Actually, if you know your ancient history, it was part of what led to the demise of the Roman Republic. (appeasing the mob)
Although your term of "mob" was designed to invoke images of rioters
Ozzie, today at least, it wasn't me who introduced the term.
That's simply not correct. Eliminating the electoral college won't affect Congressional races at all. Eliminating the electoral college won't change how House seats are apportioned by partisan control of state legislatures.
The facts revealed by the 2020 election is that the Democratic Party is becoming less competitive in Presidential races because blue states are losing electoral votes. The population in red states are increasing faster than the population in blue states.
What Donald Trump in the White House should have taught us is that vesting too much political power in the executive branch is dangerous. We have too many executive agencies with authority to impose regulations without legislative involvement. Congress has been shirking its duties to allow more time for fund raising and campaigning. And the makeup of Congress means that red states and blue states will never go away.
He never said they would Nerm_L.
Yes, he did by claiming that eliminating the electoral college would do away with red states and blues states.
Red state/blue state identification isn't determined by Presidential elections. Midterm elections don't include Presidential elections; the red state/blue state identification is based solely upon Congressional elections for midterm elections. The argument was based upon flawed logic.
Your allegation of a strawman argument is baseless and you have been proven to be wrong with simple logic.
In regards to Presidential elections.
His comment is only 3 short sentences. You can go look at it again. If the words confuse you I will be more than willing to help with the definitions.
And Presidential elections are not what identifies states as red or blue. Eliminating the electoral college cannot achieve the stated result.
Following the 2020 census, the Democratic Party will be at an electoral disadvantage and less competitive in Presidential elections. That's why there is renewed interest in eliminating the electoral college.
WHAATTT???!?!?!?!???
I find this interesting .. for starters if you do not want to be part of the club - just do not sign up? Actually what does this accomplish? Outside of New Mexico / Colorado'ish (was once a dreaded red state, now turned blue in the highly populated areas) these are states that are auto blue .. no totals necessary on election night - as soon as the polls closed their electorate vote went straight to the president elect
Once again .. what is the purpose of the compact? If Montana's 3 electors decided to go against the state vote .. they can Constitutionally cast those to whatever candidate they want to - yet the 'norm' is to cast per the popular vote of the state .. within the states is where the popular vote applies.. the popular vote does not apply to the federal government .. thus making the federal government a Republic and the states the democracy putting said elected official in federal office...
I support the electoral college .. as I feel that a low population state like Montana would never have a say without it ....
I am really interesting / curious to read others thoughts on the subject
False.
As in so many other states, electors sign a pledge that mandates that they vote for the nominee of the party that nominated them for the position AND the SCOTUS ruled that they must uphold that pledge.
Montana Code Annotated 2019
TITLE 13. ELECTIONS
CHAPTER 25. ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE
Part 3. Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act
Pledge
13-25-304 . Pledge. Each elector nominated by a political party under 13-25-101 or by an unaffiliated presidential candidate shall execute the following pledge: "If selected for the position of elector, I agree to serve and to mark my ballots for president and vice president for the nominees of the political party that nominated me ." The executed pledges must accompany the submission of the corresponding names to the secretary of state under 13-25-101 (1).
So if a majority of the electors in any state are selected by the Republicans they should vote for Trump?..............not following the logic. That takes the vote out of the equation..................please elaborate further..........
I cited that statute Jim. I didn't make that shit up.
You can look up the like statute in NC.
Each state decides how electors are delegated. In most, the parties nominate/elect their electors and depending on the popular vote in that state, the party that wins sends their electors to vote in convention which then reports it's vote total to the Congress. THAT is why the popular vote 'predicts' the electoral college vote, since the party electors are pledged to vote for the party nominee.
Thanks for looking that up ..
This is interesting .....
I missed this decision back in July .. my bad ... yet now I get why the club is being formed... interesting how the Supreme Court left the decision to the states, yet there are states seeking an end run around political parties within individual states, as well as around said decision by the Supreme Court stating that electors are not free agents.... going to be interesting to see how this all plays out
I believe that it is poorly worded Jim ... the electors agree to cast their EC votes for the candidate(s) that the voter by 'majority' select ... just think of the whole state of Montana as a mini metro complex : )
Don't see them looking at a Constitutional Amendment - which they will need - to make this a viable solution.
That is just it 1st .. they are not looking to obtain a Constitutional Amendment - just create a club that once the 270 threshold has been reached, said states in the club cast their votes for the winner creating a mandate perhaps? So far outside of New Mexico it is blue states that have joined in .. going to be interesting to see how many states join in...
I sincerely do not like the whole red state / blue state thing ... yet I do believe that large metro areas should not be choosing the winner either...
And on the opposite end, large metro areas should not be bound by rural area rules and mentality.
Imo the problem is reps nowadays tend to work for party instead of state. Work for group instead of district, when not all needs are the same.
Because ...? rural area rules and mentality are not [insert description] as the concrete jungle of a large metro area rules and mentality? This is where the catch 22 comes into play .. mob rule scares me .. I want my states voice to be heard, coming from a state of a million people .. the electoral college gives said state a voice.
There is 'mob rules' in place within each state .. but that said mob rule is not good enough (?) more 'mob rule' is needed? I do not know .. I am looking for others opinions ...
Does that not alarm you?
I want to hear crazy talk .. states picking the winner after the 270 threshold is already crazy talk .. but ta da here we are
Because of different needs....
Good point .. sooo whose needs are more important? Where one lives is a choice made .. personally I could never live in a metro area - I tried, it sucks.. : )
I guess my point is that both dems and reps don't necessarily use their position advocating for local needs and wants. It seems to all be what is best for the party and party goals overall, with some perks thrown into bills every now and then as a good job.
I am the opposite, Haha. I can't stand being out in the middle of nowhere. Drives me nuts.
Now a secluded beach, that is a different story.
No worries. The popular vote total does not equate to 'mob rule'
That is why a viable third party is needed ... not the reduction down to one party rule...
Haha nope .. I need mountain ranges and glaciers ... : )
You're missing the point. It's not that one group's needs are more important that another's, it is which needs are shared by the most number of people. That's Democracy.
Where they live makes no difference.
I don't see this happening because of the Constitution.
I know that some may find this odd coming from me (and those who know me well, will not) but I am not for the popular vote. There was a reason our founders put that into the Constitution. I am for amending it, so that the EC is proportional, which I feel is fair, like what Nebraska and Maine have, but other than that, I don't think we should fool around with our Constitution. It's a slippery slope.
Ooooo I am saving that meme! Love it.
Btw... that scene made me cry like a baby.
That is mob rule .. a Republic represents the individual .. not the masses...
I know this about you .. and I agree...
Also agree .... it is the best way for the 'metro complexes' to feel their needs are met .. without discounting those rural individuals that assist in feeding the nations needs
AMEN!
Wouldn't doing it proportional just be the same as not having the EC? As that is just splitting the EC votes according to popular votes in areas.
Not quite. It still represents those who live in less populated areas. Also, it still falls within the Constitution, so that we don't get into a slippery slope. The gift our founders gave us was that document and it should be protected at all cost.
I am not missing the point .. the many feel their needs should take precedence over the needs of the few .. that is not how a Republic works
We are not a straight republic and more than we are a straight democracy. But what you are stating, in not so many words, is that you believe some people's votes should be more important than other people's. I can't wait to hear you try to justify that claim.
And when an individual needs take priority over the majority needs is how dictators work.
Special interests should not be able to override majority interests.
Yes but it is still just basically breaking it down to the will of the people. If one county/area voted a certain way, they get the electoral vote. It is just breaking it down, instead of a one for all state, it is giving in to what the people voted for initially. Imo basically making the EC mute.
It seems like it is breaking down to 'mob' rule vs minority rule.
The representation of the individual does not a dictatorship create - or the US would have been under autocrat rule from the get go!
That is a slippery slope Ozzwald ... what is your definition of special interest?
Ender,
It is breaking it down to the will of the people, but it doesn't break with the Constitution. It meets both needs and wants.
Not at all .. what you are stating, in many words is that the need of the many is more important than the needs of the few - the beauty of the US is that my vote within my state counts equally to every other vote within my state .. my state then represents me in the federal government. A metro area has their vote within their state .. thus swaying the states electoral vote .. think we just saw it play out last week...!
I just don't see how it would make much of a difference unless it was adopted by all states.
It would still be people vying for the winner take all more populous states.
If one state is proportional yet only has three votes, candidates would think of them as an after thought. Easier to go after the twenty to fifty winner take all states.
The one or two votes from a whole state may not even be thought of as worth going after.
The only thing I could see happening would be it would break apart places like Texas.
I think places like California may lose a couple but would largely be unchanged, same with Florida.
Mob = majority.
The representation of one individual over all others DOES make it a dictatorship.
It is not a slippery slope. Special interest indicates it is of interest to one specific person, or a small subset of the people, not the majority. (i.e. surveys have shown that a smaller subset of people effected are pro-life) That makes it a special interest, not a majority interest.
Well then, how about BLM? DACA? Or a plethora of other recipients of pandering?
Both BLM and DACA have the support of the majority.
What? [eyes rolling with a silly look on my face.. now my head is just shaking] ... do you understand the difference between a democracy and a republic .. a democracy (which the United States is not) is dominated by the majority, laws are made by the majority .. leaving the minorities rights rather unprotected .. do some research .. a republic on the other hand, protects the individuals i.e. the minorities rights from the dominance of the majority i.e mob rule..
I keep being told the United States is a 'representative democracy' to me that is just straight up BS terminology designed to divert the nation from the ideals of what a republic stands for and move towards majority rule..
Whoa, okay .... not really a definition of 'special interest' ... but if you wanna go there, neither should the majority be able to override / lord over the interests of the minority ... ! Seems quite condescending to feel as though group think majority 'mind set' is in some way superior and able to make the decisions for the whole of society.... LBGTQ is a special interest fighting hard for their rights - so I am thinking it is not all special interests .. just the special interests that are not politically correct majority supported special interests that are the problem?
This nation is a 2 way street .... and I am thankful to live in a country that protect the rights of the individual / minority ..
Unadulterated virtue signaling. Are you familiar with the term baizuo? Most couldn't really give a shit less. It's all theatre.
Really MUVA? What DACA case is on the SCOTUS docket for this session. Please be specific.
I expect crickets...
Nope. A proportional EC would ensure that each congressional district was heard. Also, each state will get two electoral votes just for being a state. So a proportional EC better represents the people and retains the constitutional voice of the states.
I addressed this directly here: The Electoral College Debate .
(deleted)
Unadulterated BULLSHIT! You replied to a comment about special interest vs. MAJORITY interest. Since BLM and DACA have majority support, they are of MAJORITY interest.
Why yes Jim, I am. Yet since I am a POC, it doesn't apply to me.
BTFW, it's a racial epithet and verboten here on NT.
You're the one that brought that shit up, not I Jim. Since you like Chinese sayings:
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, the notion of representative democracy is fundamental to the concept of a Republic. Modern nations cannot realistically operate with full direct democracy; this is obviously impractical to the point of absurdity. Thus we rely upon a system of representation wherein we elect individuals to vote on our behalf. That is representative democracy.
The USA is a Republic because we are governed by the will of the people (the people are the supreme power) and not by the will of a monarch (or a dictator). Our method of expressing our will is representative (indirect) democracy (with a little direct democracy with referendums, etc.). That is not a bullshit term, it is the proper label for how we operate.
You need to go back to class.
The United States is a democratic republic, this simply means that we do not have to vote on every decision the government needs to make, it means we ELECT representatives Democratically, to do most of the decisions necessary to run the government.
One of the reasons the electoral college was created was the impossibility, at that time, to be able to count votes from across the country.
It was also designed as a stop gap, incase a completely unfit individual was elected, to override that selection as a last possible resort. However we have seen how well that worked out.
Yes, they should, that is the definition of democracy. What you are missing is that sometimes the interests of the majority, do not coincide with the interests of the nation at large. (i.e. slavery, women's right to vote, civil rights, etc.)
The good of the nation overrides the good of the majority or the individual. Minorities also have representatives, and their job is to support that minority by proving that their interests are for the good of the country, or to argue and try to gain a majority approval.
There, you got it.
Not having the EC, district voices are heard, votes are cast. It would be letting a smaller district get an EC vote.
In affect, it would be giving more weight to smaller districts.
Ie, a smaller population a larger voice than a larger population.
It still sounds like just using the popular vote with extra steps yet in practice would give a louder voice to minority populations.
So it would be taking away a louder voice from major population centers and giving it to small ones.
Sounds to me like it would be basically instead of majority rule it would be minority rule.
Until they move into your neighborhood. And racial epithet? LMAO. Political I will give you but racial?
I removed that comment after reading 6.1.12
I know you are an intelligent individual ... why do you insult my intelligence as well as your own .. I almost got sucked in.. my bad
Peace out!
What I suggested would exactly mirror the system that we use for Congress. We would, in effect, elect our PotUS using the same method as we elect Congress. Each representative in the House is the choice of a single congressional district and that district gets one vote for PotUS. Each senator is the choice of the popular vote of the State and that State gets one electoral vote for each senator.
How? The districts are based on population. The mathematics will cause some congressional districts to get a full vote when they deserve only a fraction. This occurs in states like Wyoming wherein the entire state is one congressional district. But this is simply the results of integer arithmetic based on the number of districts allowed. This can be addressed by doubling the number of districts (or more). But note that this problem already exists in the House and for the same reason.
How?
I am overthinking this, I think.
So you are saying it would still go along with population. Where densely packed areas would get more votes than sparsely populated areas.
Jim, I am a person of color. Most people think I look Hispanic or Latino, especially with my summer tan. I speak pretty good workplace Mexican too.
I AM the one that the neighborhood doesn't want moving in...which is one reason why a couple of my neighbors in the township had an issue when we moved in...
Since it's Chinese equivalent of 'white leftist', you can't deny it's racial.
So why did you use it here?
It would be as fair as the apportionment of the congressional districts. The districts are inherently fair within states (they must be) except for the issues with integer mathematics. And in states with smaller populations, the disparity will naturally be greater. But we have lived with this with our House representatives forever.
Bob Nelson has suggested that we should have a ten-fold increase in the number of districts due to the population of the USA now. While that is a logical point, I do not want to see the size of the House grow to 4,350 representatives (yikes!). But I certainly can see doing this logically for the electoral college. It is simply numbers. So we could assign 10 electoral votes for each congressional district and 20 for each state. Districts that are sparsely populated (in the states with a single district) would get less than 10 votes according to their actual population. The electoral college would then consist of 5,380 votes with 2,691 votes (the required absolute majority) to win. It is just arithmetic in a spreadsheet.
This way the mathematics will no longer get in the way.
How does asking you a relevant cogent question insult your intelligence OR mine?
Yet they are not in practice. Some districts have 50,000+ more people than others in the same state.
As a Democrat in a deep RED, GOP controlled state, what would you suggest I DO Tex?
Are you suggesting that as a minority, you have no real voice against the majority? Ironic
I must agree to disagree ... if the United States is a representative democracy .. then it is the 'republic system' of checks and balances enforced in the Constitution that protects the minority from the majority .. so it seems to me that is a representative republic ....!
I had a professor that loved to say that 'throughout history democracy and republic have been used as if they were interchangeable so the argument is moot' .. yet he also believed that if the Constitutional Convention had known that Great Britain was moving away from monarchy rule into a parliamentary system .. the US would have parliament instead of congress .. I disagree with that as well..
What does the word representative mean as you use it? If the people elect others to represent them politically by casting votes on their behalf, then that is precisely what is meant by representative democracy.
Republics are inherently based on representative democracy. How is it possible for control to lie with the people (the demos) if there is no means for the demos to express their will?
Wikipedia has a nice overview on this:
Didn't you JUST say I 'should do something!' Tex? Why yes, YES you did.
Indiana.
Look it up Tex. I know for a fact it's true here in Indiana.
I merely stated a fact. It you view facts as complaining, perhaps you should rethink your mindset.
I merely stated a fact. It you view facts as whining, perhaps you should rethink your mindset.
No, please explain.
Still ignoring facts.
golly, republicans sure do hate it when a vote by the people fixes a problem that should have been fixed when slavery ended. those federalists approach states rights like a fish out of water, flip, flop, flip, flop. I appreciate how my home state of Colorado fights fascism by using the republican play book against them. we're undoing all the ALEC laws too.
Oh, is that what it is? And you really believe that?
when the EC doesn't reflect the popular vote, it's broken. americans are sick of seeing the loser of the popular vote by millions end up in office, especially when it's usually the party of losers benefit. you can participate in fixing it or stfu when others do, as is their right to do so. sound familiar?
They won the election, but lost the electoral vote. That should not happen in any kind of a democracy.
You need a Constitutional Amendment.
You obviously do not understand the American election system. The election is the popular vote, by people selecting who they want to win. The electoral college bases their decision partly on the electoral vote, but they are also able to ignore that vote and select the next president while disregarding the people's choice.
Do you say the same thing in regards to Trump? He needs to just DEAL WITH his loss.
In this instance you are correct.
All within the states rights ... it does not take a Constitutional Amendment for the states or the elector to cast their electoral votes as desired .. my dreaded red state of Montana's electors could cast their votes at will ... any state can. Everyone is all about 'tradition' .. break tradition, no skin off my nose, but why have a state vote at all (?) the members of the club can just wait for the 270 threshold to be reached by the early states then pick the winner...
All states should be representated equally on the federal level.
Reason we have two Senators for each state and the number of House Reps proportioned on the state's population.
Removing the Electoral College would put lower populated states at a disadvantage.
Exactly what the elitists want to see............
This club doesn't make sense to me. Would CA switch their Democrat electoral votes to a Republican winning the popular vote?
Hahaha .. now that would be poetic justice on an epic scale ... : )
The elitists are those who believe that the less than 600,000 residents of a state like Wyoming should, in effect, have more political power than the nearly 40 million resident of California or the nearly 10.5 million residents of Georgia, as examples. The state lines are artificial boundaries that signify nothing. The states have 2 Senators each. That is a lot of political clout. Why should a minority determine the one elected representative of all the people?
I hate that word. I don't even know what it means in this context. I don't agree with the popular vote, but I am also from one of those areas that conservatives label elitist and I am sorry, but I don't know anyone who is an elitist.
You're going strictly by the Senate. Care to share the stats on the House? THAT is where most legislation, especially that which dictates funding, comes from. And two out of 100? That there 2% really carries a boatload of political clout..............may wanna change up your thinking a bit............or not. Your choice of course as always.
We can thank Frank Luntz et al for bastardizing our language and helping to change praise into pejorative. It's seems that the only time the term 'elite' is still praise is when it's an adjective connected to an athlete.
The Constitution provides that funding bills come from the House.
How many Senators represent rural or small population states vs. large population urban states?
" there is now a clear and pronounced partisan small-state bias in the Senate thanks to mostly rural, less populated states voting increasingly Republican. In fact, it’s reached the point that Republicans can win a majority of Senate seats while only representing a minority of Americans."
My thinking hasn't changed at all.
I repeat, why should a minority determine the one elected representative of all the people?
That COULD be changed with a one sentence Amendment to The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. If we take Wyoming's 580,000 as a cap for district size, we're looking at 567 members of the House. THAT would be much more representative of the population.
I didn't realize that it was Frank Luntz who did that beauty. Yes, it is amazing how a word that meant top of the lot, became a dirty word. It really drives me crazy.
Won't ever happen but nice try.
I agree, the congress can change the number of representatives.
I did a test run and it didn't alter the 2016 or 2020 election outcomes. So the states currently being argued about... remain the same. I did notice a very sliver of improvement for the R's... 0.015%, which I did not anticipate. I read somewhere of 4,350 and saw another smidgen towards the R's. I kept the senators at two each state for each scenario as any change to their number or electoral count would require a constitutional change.
If they have to change it, each Congress district gets one electoral vote for that district and the overall state winner gets the 2 votes the senators count for.
If you're going by district, why not the vote that the Representative of that district counts for?
The whole argument that candidates would only campaign in big cities is stupid. Show me one attendant at a Biden OR Trump rally that was truly undecided before they walked in. This isn’t the 50’s. Anyone who has any interest in going to a campaign rally has already been thoroughly saturated with all the information they could ever need to make a decision via any number of sources. Rallies are just cliques at this point.
I have to agree with you there.
There were CLEARLY no undecided voters in any Trump rally coverage I have seen. The only person who I am aware of who ever was close to being in that position was the poor black guy that Trump singled out of his lilly white crowd and exclaimed “there’s my African American”. He never lived down that day of infamy.
They already only campaign in big cities and swing states .. I have no issue with where a candidate campaigns
Agreed .. yet has nothing to do with the EC
This election may change everything. Look at the Democratic convention. Very successful and hundreds of people saved tons of money staying in their home states. Virtual could be the way to go from now on. Sure there will be campaigning at state fairs and the like, but I agree with you that 'stadium rallies are passé.
I am mystified at the apparent willingness of some states to forfeit their power and sovereignty. I really believe they haven’t thought it through and they embrace plans like this because they think it will always benefit them. That is unrealistic and short-sighted, though. A thing like this can - and will - backfire.
So they are at 196 and need to be at 270. Where is the other 74 coming from? Not holding my breath.
Right. Have you ever tried to take a bone away from a dog that is chewing on it?
In this case it’s an inbred pit bull.