Jamie Raskin: electoral college is a 'danger to the American people'

[marmar]

(Guardian UK) Recent reforms to the laws governing the counting of electoral college votes for presidential races are “not remotely sufficient” to prevent another attack like the one carried out by Donald Trump supporters at the Capitol on January 6, a member of the congressional committee which investigated the uprising has warned.

In an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation, the Maryland House representative Jamie Raskin on Sunday renewed calls echoed by others – especially in the Democratic party to which he belongs – to let a popular vote determine the holder of the Oval Office.

“We should elect the president the way we elect governors, senators, mayors, representatives, everybody else – whoever gets the most votes wins,” Raskin said. “We spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year exporting American democracy to other countries, and the one thing they never come back to us with is the idea that, ‘Oh, that electoral college that you have, that’s so great, we think we will adopt that too’.”

After Trump served one term and lost the Oval Office to Joe Biden in 2020, he pressured his vice-president Mike Pence to use his ceremonial role as president of the session where both the Senate and House of Representatives met to certify the outcome of the race and interfere with the counting of the electoral college votes.

....(snip)....

“There are so many curving byways and nooks and crannies in the electoral college that there are opportunities for a lot of strategic mischief,” Raskin told Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan, adding that the institutions which prevented the Trump-fueled Capitol attack “just barely” did so. ................(more)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/26/jamie-raskin-electoral-college-danger-american-people

[Skittles]

1. it had a purpose long ago

now it is simply being used as a tool to alllow losers to "win"

[Rebl2]

7. Absolutely!

[Gore1FL]

8. The purpose was to extend the 3/5ths rule to presidential elections.

It never served a good purpose, but as you point out, it serves none now.

[former9thward]

17. That is not true.

Its purpose was to give smaller states a voice in elections. The Founders felt politicians would avoid the concerns of smaller states if all they needed to do was get votes in the bigger ones.

[Gore1FL]

19. The 3/5 rule made the slave states larger for this purpose as a side-effect.

I'm pretty sure they knew the implications.

[former9thward]

20. Should slaves not have been counted at all?

[Gore1FL]

21. No. The 3/5 rule did not afford them representation. It only gave the slave owners more power.

Their pro-slavery vote had more representation in the House and therefore, the electoral college. It made things worse for every slave.

[progree]

22. True. The non-slave holding states wanted slaves to count zero, the slave-holding

states wanted slaves to count 100% for purposes of determining representation in the House and EC. The larger the counted population, the more representatives and the more EC votes.

Slaves couldn't vote, and so non-slave-holding states argued that they then shouldn't be counted for purposes of how many reps and EC votes a state is given.

They compromised at 3/5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise

Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

[former9thward]

25. The Census counts everyone in a state no matter their status.

Including people who can't vote. Prisoners, non-citizens, children. All of these give a state more power in the House and the EC. Should the Census not count those people?

[musclecar6]

2. I completely agree

Just use the popular vote and be done with it.

[ProfessorGAC]

3. 2016 Proved That The EC...

...does the opposite of one of the stated purposes for it.

Another camp was dead set against letting the people elect the president by a straight popular vote. First, they thought 18th-century voters lacked the resources to be fully informed about the candidates, especially in rural outposts. Second, they feared a headstrong “democratic mob” steering the country astray. And third, a populist president appealing directly to the people could command dangerous amounts of power.

With state laws binding electors to the popular vote winner for that state, they cannot/will not do #3.
Where were the convicted electors of conscience in '16. They voted 100% electoral votes for the stares TFG won.
The system is broken.

[roamer65]

4. The Constitution in many ways has become a political "straitjacket".

It is definitely stopping progressive reforms desired by many regions of the country.

Gun reform and electoral reform come to mind immediately.

[iluvtennis]

5. + agree with Rep Raskin. Why is the Presidential election the only one that uses EC. Popular

vote should decide the presidency. EC is simply a way for rethugs to cheat their way to the presidency.

[BlueJac]

6. Not Democratic....

Most votes doesn't always win.

[DeeDeeNY]

9. 5 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote

Made worse by the fact that they're lifetime appointments

https://factpac.org/66-of-supreme-court-justices-are-there-in-spite-of-public-opinion/

[CTyankee]

10. Oh, Jamie, can you be our first Jewish President?

[thatdemguy]

11. This wont be very popular

The EC like gerrymandering is not liked by those whom it does not help. I have read a lot of posts here complaining about the gerrymandering in florida, but have not seen anyone here complain about it in maryland or mass or cali.

If the tides where turned and it helped a Democrat win I dont think you would hear a single complaint about it here.

I completely understand why it was done, the United States is not designed to be a direct democracy. It was designed to give the minority a voice. Think about all the smaller groups that would not a voice with out it. That includes woman, LGTB and black and brown communities. Just imagine if the the repugs could just out vote everything that was done for civil rights via a majority, for example the first 2 years of rumps presidency.

[progree]

14. Do you really think the EC benefits women, LGBT, POC?

I completely understand why it (apparently the EC -Progree) was done, the United States is not designed to be a direct democracy. It was designed to give the minority a voice. Think about all the smaller groups that would not a voice with out it. That includes woman, LGTB and black and brown communities.

As it is now, the EC, like the Senate, magnifies the clout of the less populous states. Those also happen to be, for the most part, red states. I don't see any benefit to women or the minorities you describe. Unless I'm not getting what you were trying to say.

[thatdemguy]

23. Your not getting what I say

Also I am not strictly talking EC.

Example would be in a direct democracy ( with no filibuster ) god forbid the repugs get the pres, 51 seats in the senate and large majority of the house and wanted to over turn all the protections for transgenders. And they controlled the scotus they decided to say there is only 2 genders and by law it has to match chromosomes.

They could do this, no filibuster to stop em, no scotus to say they cant do it. But as it sits now even a few senators who are for transgender rights can stop it.

This is why the country is not a direct democracy, including the EC. Its why there is checks and balances. You also need to remember the constitution was written that the state legislators picked the senators, it was supposed to give a "voice" to the states not the the people. So the EC was the vote of the people via the representative count, and a voice to the states via the count of senators. Which happened to be the popular vote of that state.

It protects us from the whims of a majority, but it also should mean that congress is supposed to work together for the better of the country but the dysfunctional status of congress is not working right.

[Stuart G]

12. K & R

[soldierant]

13. Five Words:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

That is the only way we are going to get there. No attempt to amend the Constitution will succeed until the NPVIC demonstrates that the natin will not fall apart if the populr vote is the decider. And it will probably take more than once to get it through enough heads to write and pass the Amendment.

My state has signed on. Has yours? We don't need that many more.

[former9thward]

18. One word: Unconstitutional

Article One, Section 10 U.S. Constitution

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.

States can't make compacts with each other without the agreement of Congress. Congress has never agreed to the NPVIC and so it can't be enforced no matter how many states sign on. It remains an academic exercise.

[thatdemguy]

24. While this is a nice thought, what happens when

it goes into effect and you get a presidential candidate who wins 51% of the popular vote, but does not win a majority in say California or Pennsylvania and that states EC votes go to that candidate?

Would you really want a deathsantis to get Californians EC votes just because he won 51% of the national popular vote?

[progree]

15. And when Moore v Harper is decided in June, then what?

[MichMan]

16. Over half the states have laws requiring electors vote for the popular winners in that state

That seems to contradict the idea of the popular vote compact that compels them to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Even if it goes against their own statewide popular vote.

States agreeing to join the Popular Vote Compact are going to have to repeal those laws first