About Getting Rid Of The "ELECTORAL COLLEGE"....iT WON'T HAPPEN, BECAUSE IT FAVORS SMALL

[Stuart G]

POPULATED STATES.....

.....AND .....small populated states like that...It gives them an ...unfair advantage...which they like...

Therefore, in order to change this, a constitutional amendment is needed [it is part of the Constitution)
and the small states will not approve this. This would have to go through state legislatures order to get approval...and no matter what they say, small populated states will not approve...

Small populated states........LIKE THEIR UNFAIR ADVANTAGE...IT IS THAT SIMPLE.....

[Salviati]

1. Does it really though?

Don't get me wrong, I know that they believe that it favors them, but does it really? A solid argument for the case that it really doesn't do anything to increase their influence:

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/small-states-are-not-helped-current-system

[Stuart G]

2. What is important is ..The small states think this...That is the key.

As they say......".Truth is stranger than fiction." And ...solid arguments do not play a role in small state
thinking, and that is not new either.

[unblock]

9. Right. It favors *republicans* because they are spread across more states

The small democratic states are fine with abolishing the electoral college. It's the Republican states, whether small or not, where it's much more of a challenge.

[Goodheart]

16. That article is silly. So, according to its author the small states don't have undue influence

because they don't host campaign events?????????????? Well, I guess if the GOAL of elections is to host a big party every four years. LOL.

That argument is so obviously incoherent it doesn't even rise to the level of "spurious".

[servermsh]

3. That's why we need the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

And the small states don't have to sign but it doesn't matter.

[Stuart G]

5. Question....How does one get that??.." National Popular Vote Interstate Compact."

[droidamus2]

8. Tricky but might work

You just get enough state legislatures to agree to assign their electors, might require some law changes, based on the popular vote in the country rather than totals specific to their state. Once enough states sign on to get to 270 electoral votes it goes into effect. The tricky part is legislatures in the states change all the time what stops a new legislature from dropping out of the compact? If it can be held together you have just made an end run around the Constitution and the need for an amendment.

[Polybius]

34. There's no guarantee it even holds up constitutionally

I guarantee it would be challenged.

[droidamus2]

59. Possible but...

Since the Constitution pretty much leaves it up to each state to run their own part of the federal election there is every chance it would pass the question of Constitutionality.

[Polybius]

75. That part, probably

Last edited Fri Nov 20, 2020, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)

But with the Compact Clause it might not. States aren’t supposed to make huge deals with each other like this.

[The Revolution]

77. Yeah, I think it would be overturned

By this Supreme Court at least. The constitutionality is questionable enough. The whole concept seems fragile to me.

[Polybius]

79. I might even vote to overturn it if I were a Justice

It’s questionable at best. I’m not a fan of loopholes.

[Celerity]

78. the 6-3 RW SCOTUS will slap it down as violating the Compact Clause, plus Red states

will not join it, and we need some to do so

[Polybius]

80. A liberal or two might even join them

I think it would be a 7-2 or 8-1 decision, and rightfully so.

[hack89]

4. As long as we keep our two Senators

I am fine with a popular vote. Having two Senators is where we get traction in DC.


Rhode Island resident.

[Yeehah]

14. Because that's fair

Two senators for 1 million people in Rhode Island. Two senators for 40 million people in California.

This is a fundamental flaw in our system of government and no person who believes in democracy should be fine with it.

[lagomorph777]

25. +1 Why does a small-state resident deserve 40x as much representation?

[dware]

27. It doesn't,

the problem is that it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change that and I don't see that anywhere in the near future.

[lagomorph777]

29. I agree with that - but I always know that the Senate and EC were created to protect slave states.

[dware]

31. Agreed. nt

[hack89]

38. No. It was to protect small states

states like Rhode Island did not want to be dominated by NY, MA or VA. The idea was that the House represented the people and the Senate represented the states - that is why Senators were originally appointed and not elected.

[ChazII]

43. Thank you, Hack.

I appreciate your comments. When I first started voting Arizona had only 4 representatives. This may be selfish of me but I don't want other states to dominate Arizona.

[dware]

45. From an Arizonan,

+100.

[JonLP24]

54. I wouldn't worry about Arizona

Since we are a swing state candidates will spend a lot of time here in the future pretending to be Cardinals fans and things like that.

[JonLP24]

46. There is a big difference between now and then

The population size differences are much larger.
The Dakotas were broke into 2 to pack the Senate this was before Alaska & Hawaii were admitted on a red & blue state basis which is what the opposition is using to base their objections to adding adding both PR and DC as states.

[JonLP24]

49. More people voted for Democrats for Senate than Republicans

But it is the GOP that has the advantages in the Senate while the Democrats are blaming each other for why they don't have more Senators.

[hack89]

56. There is a way to change things

Just don’t expect small states to go along with it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

69. Yes on the EC. The Senate was not created for that.

It's a riff on the British (and other) bicameral systems. It is a recognition that we are a republic and that states need to have power. This whole government/pact isn't just about national power. Federalism is based on the fact that states should have the ability to exert control because we are a collection of states. So, instead of the house of lords based on being landed gentry, the US system has the "top" house based on statehood.

[lagomorph777]

70. In Britain and the US, the concept is morally flawed.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

71. Federalism is morally flawed?

We aren't a pure democracy. Our system isn't set up that way. What purpose will there be for states if we get rid of the Senate? It's a check and balance. The House represents similar sized pockets while the Senate represents states. Also, the longer terms tones down rapid changes in policy that would happen without it. If we just had the House, things would be changing all the time.

[lagomorph777]

72. Federalism is not flawless.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

73. Of course it's not.

Any thoughts on the impact of changing the current system to make states irrelevant?

[lagomorph777]

74. States will still have relevance, even if the power imbalance is corrected.

They still set state law inside their borders.

We just don't have to let the little guys have disproportionate power. They should have the same power per voter as anybody else. No more, no less.

[hack89]

33. I certainly believe in democracy

and I am fine with it. Your views might differ.

[Polybius]

36. I'm not fine with it, I just accept defeat that it's never gonna change

I blame George Washington for this one.

[Turin_C3PO]

40. It's not going to change.

Smaller states will never give up their Senate advantage. We need to focus on things that we can change like adding Representatives to the House, statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, and possibly, expand the Supreme Court. It might take years to get those things done but they’re far more likely to happen than changing the makeup of the Senate.

[Yeehah]

57. Sure it's going to change.

The archaic, undemocratic systems in our government will be changed. Hopefully through the constitutional process. If not, then it will be a new system developed after we defeat fascism in our own country. Because if the system remains the same, fascism will win.

[Quemado]

30. RI gets traction in DC, so do ND, SD, WY, MT, and other low population states.

Both the Senate and the Electoral College need to go.

[hack89]

32. Good luck with that

how will that happen without the support of the small states?

[Quemado]

47. Yeah, I know it's not going to happen.

I don't know for sure, but I think as few as 13 states can block an amendment to the Constitution.

These 13 states make up 7% of the US population:

1  Iowa 3,155,070
2  Arkansas 3,017,825
3 Mississippi 2,976,149
4  Kansas 2,913,314
5  Nebraska 1,934,408
6  Idaho 1,787,065
7  West Virginia 1,792,147
8  Maine 1,344,212
9  Montana 1,068,7785
10  South D 884,659
11  North D 762,062
12  Alaska 731,545
13  Wyoming 578,759
Total 22,945,993

All 50 states 327,533,795

Percentage 7.01%


 

[dware]

51. Yes, 13 states can block any amendment. nt

[dware]

35. Ok,

so, how do you go about doing that?

[Quemado]

50. It's not possible.

See my reply above.

[dware]

53. Maybe in a generation or 2,

but right now?
You're correct, it's not possible.

[Yeehah]

6. There should be a campaign begun to eliminate the electoral college

It is a fundamental flaw in our system of government and to just say "ooooh it's too hard to change" is unacceptable.

Larger population states have enormous economic power and a vast advantage in the House of Representatives. That power can be used to leverage sufficient small population states to approve an amendment.

[Stuart G]

7. I don't think small populated states will ever approve such an amendment.

Why give up that advantage??....Is Wyoming going to give up its advantage?

[jimfields33]

10. The focus always red states

But I’d like to hear from Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont and others on their opinion of it.

[progree]

24. I'm from Minnesota with a smaller population than the average state, and I believe

in getting rid of the EC and the gerrymandered Senate though that would supposedly hurt me (in the Senate 16% of the population has half the senators, and I'm one of those 16 percenters).

But no, I feel that I would benefit more from living in a DEMOCRACY where every vote counts the same than I would where my fucking little state has more clout. But that's because I'm a progressive. Just like I think Black Lives Matter even though I'm white. Just like I believe in a more progressive tax system even though I'm rich by most standards.

I'll never understand how some people can be more concerned about a state's representation than about people's representation. What again are all the good reasons why some people's votes shouldn't count as much as others? Because they live in a state where people want to live?

[maxsolomon]

52. Minnesota has an AVERAGE number of representatives.

It's electoral power is equivalent to OH, WA, WI, CO, AL, and many others.

It's very small states (VT, NH, RI) or very lightly populated states (AK, WY, MT) that have an unfair advantage in the EC & the fucking Senate.

[dware]

11. IOW you would like the bigger states to strongarm the smaller states

to give up their power?

Yeah, that's going to happen.

[Yeehah]

19. No, I'd like the bigger states to strong-arm the smaller states,

if necessary, to improve democracy and government in the USA.

It's the right thing to do and anyone who is against the right thing to do should be strong-armed. Or maybe we should just say "fuck it" and allow our government to become more and more anti-democratic until there is no more democracy to save.

[dware]

22. You are not going to get the smaller states to agree to this,

no matter what the bigger states do, and I would be opposed to using blackmail, which it would be, to force them to give up their power, now if you want to call that undemocratic, then so be it.

Hell, it wouldn't even make it out of the Congress, you'll never get 2/3rds of the Congress to agree to such an amendment, much less 3/4th's of the states to ratify such a change.

You would have better luck with this.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[Polybius]

37. It won't even get to the states

No Republican in Congress is gonna vote to repeal the EC, nor should they. They would be signing their own extinction.

[Turin_C3PO]

42. It's never going to happen.

You can accept that or not but it’s not going to change. Both progressive and conservative small states would never agree to it.

[Statistical]

12. NPVIC

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be a stepping stone of sorts.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

It doesn't "get rid" of the EC but it does make it largely moot. Maybe 20 years down the road of the EC being moot it will be less controversial to remove it completely.

[treestar]

62. They don't. Even the House is disproportional

Republicans have held it when they received nationwide fewer votes than Democrats. It ought to be made proportional, which could take less than a Constitutional Amendment.

[LakeVermilion]

13. Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota

have 8 senators and only 4 representatives. I suggest that the four of them become one state: Dakota with 2 senators and maybe 3 representatives.

[Polybius]

41. While states have broken up, no states have ever combined

Is it even legal?

[Dr. Strange]

65. Article Four of the Constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Four_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_1:_New_states

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

States can theoretically combine by consent (although Congress has to approve as well). But states can't be forced to combine with other states.

[progree]

15. I'm from a smaller than average state, but I'm for getting rid of the electoral

college, as well as the gerrymandered Senate, because I don't think that (in the case of the Senate) 16% of the population should have half the senators, and thus have more than 5 times the clout on a per-person basis than the other 84% of the population. Even though I'm one of the lucky 16 percenters. But then I guess that's because I'm a progressive.

Just like I think Black Lives Matter even though I'm white. Just like I believe in more progressive tax system, even though I'm rich by most standards. As a progressive I look at the bigger picture of what's right, rather than how much clout my little dick state has.

[wryter2000]

18. Thank you

I am so tired of posts that make it sound as if we wave a magic wand and...poof...gone.

It would never get to the states. It wouldn’t get out of the Congress.

[Alex4Martinez]

20. Can we at least get rid of "winner take all"?

As it absolutely disenfranchises large numbers of voters.

And discourages turnout.

Every single time.

[In It to Win It]

28. ...and then consider who draws the lines for the congressional districts

That incentivizes gerrymandering even more than normal. The GOP would stack each congressional district for each EV in a way that minimizes Democrats votes for the Electoral College.

[treestar]

64. Yes and that maybe would not need the Amendment

Or take out the 2 for the Senate for each state. Or add EV that go to the popular vote winner (I've seen 50 proposed).

[roamer65]

21. Eventually this disparity will break up the country.

[backroadblast]

23. right wingerz will never go for it

its the only way they can win an election on a national level.

[In It to Win It]

26. The only way for Republicans to get rid of the EC is to make it impossible for them to win with it

Last edited Mon Nov 16, 2020, 01:18 PM - Edit history (1)

If Democrats all of a sudden take their biggest prizes, being Texas and a swingy Florida, they’ll get on the bandwagon.

The EC is only used for the presidency. Make it impossible for them to win, they’ll back getting rid of it... which I don’t see this happening in the near future.

[Polybius]

39. It almost happened in 2004

If Kerry had won Ohio, he would have been elected President while losing the popular vote.

[In It to Win It]

44. Sure, but the losses have to happen continuously.

Ohio has to be a safe Democratic state, Texas has to be a safe Democratic state and so on.

The states that they rely on to win the EC can’t be safe or swingy for them.

[treestar]

63. Righties always rag on how

CA and NY would "elect the POTUS" in a popular vote, which, mathematically, is BS. But then they don't realize that NY is 4th in population, behind TX and FL.

Turning those states blue indeed will make the right amenable.

[In It to Win It]

66. I've always thought that theory was bullshit

It assumes that there are no republicans or so little amount of republicans in each of these states.

There are a large amount of Republicans in California and New York. There are probably more Republicans in these two states than most of the GOP stronghold states combined. Each election cycles the Republican votes in these states are wasted and these voters go ignored. Without the EC, these people's votes can actually go to a candidate. Instead, in each cycle, EVERYONE'S hopes are pinned on a few swingy voters in OH, WI, MI, PA, and FL.

[Bettie]

48. If we can't get an amendment passed

go with losing the cap on the House. It gets some of those smaller states more representation, makes gerrymandering harder, and gives reps more manageable district sizes.

It also makes the EC more representative of where people live.

The down side is that each rep's personal power is decreased, which might keep some from voting for it.

[Kaleva]

55. Won't happen 'cause the folks who want it gone make no effort to get rid of it.

You'll see the occasional post on social media or someone may answer a poll question about it but that's about it. No mass marches, no sit ins, no peaceful civil disobedience. Nothing at all of substance which suggests that very, very few really want to get rid of the EC.

For inspiration on how to accomplish a goal, look at the examples set by Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Malcolm X ,Cesar Chavez and others. Don't follow the examples of those who may talk tough but do no more then post on social media, answer a poll question or occasionally e-mail a congress critter. That will guarantee failure.

[Steelrolled]

58. There is a somewhat similar situation in the EU

for the very same reasons as the US. It was history repeating itself.

For example, Luxembourg has 8 times as much as Germany, per capital (but don't pity Germany, they manage)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_in_the_European_Parliament

[apnu]

60. If Texas ever flips blue, the GOP will caterwaul for ending the EC.

[moonscape]

67. When Texas turns, Republicans will have trouble with

both the EC and the popular vote.

[apnu]

68. Exactly.

The GOP hold on national politics is because of Texas and Texas alone. If they lose that, the whole game changes for them. The Democratic party, say what you will of it, is already in the game of popular vote and multiple paths to EC victory. We live in reality now, the GOP clings to the EC. The second it become a liability for them they will make so much noise to destroy it, most of us will be saying things like "I hate to agree with the GOP but the EC has to go"

We, here at DU, have been saying that since the site was founded, but like most things in American politics, we are at the mercy of the conservatives. Until they become a regional party in the Sun Belt, we will have to put up with them.

But when Texas flips, the GOP's hand will be forced. They will have to re-think how to win w/out Texas which means both winning the popular vote and finding a path to electoral victory that doesn't include both Texas and California. Which I think is impossible. So their only option will be to chuck the EC and try to win on popular vote.

[treestar]

61. Delaware would; it approved the compact

and you don't know how it would be in the future. We are too instant gratification. People started movements that didn't pan out in their lifetimes. It's our duty to the future to get rid of this anachronism, and to do all we can in our lifetimes.

[The Revolution]

76. Repeal Reapportionment Act of 1929

Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929. This doesn't require an ammendment. Increase the house to a number more in line with other democracies as well as the founders' original intentions. This helps with unequal representation in the EC and the house, though not with the senate.

https://wheresmyfuckingmoney.com/2020/05/repeal-the-reapportionment-act-of-1929