Regardless of the Outcome, Five Electors Have Started The Process of Ending The Ridiculous

[TrollBuster9090]

Regardless of the outcome, five Electors have started the process of eliminating the ridiculous institution known as the Electoral College.

In Washington, two electors voted for Colin Powell, and one voted for a Native American leader. In Maine, one elector voted for Sanders.

Obviously that's not enough to stop Trump, but had enough other Electors written in other names, the decision would have gone to the House, and the House would have had to choose between Trump, Clinton, and Powell.

Regardless, as I said last night (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028379588 ), if any of the Electors changed their votes, it would set a precedent for Electors second guessing the voters. Something which NONE of the political parties are comfortable with. And this might actually put some credibility behind the idea of eliminating the Electoral College.

Lots of people wanted to eliminate it after the 2000 Election. There was talk that lasted on the cable shows for a couple of days, and then nothing.

What about this time? *Shrug*

[uppityperson]

1. WA, 2 voted Colin Powell, 1 for Faith Spotted Eagle. The only good thing I can see about this is

maybe we can get rid of the EC, like you said. It's being reported that the only faithless electors were democrats, no repubs.


http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/four-washington-electors-break-ranks-and-dont-vote-for-clinton/

In an act of symbolic protest, three electors voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and one cast a vote for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American elder from South Dakota.

[SlimJimmy]

2. 2/3rds of the Senate and the House, and 3/4ths of the states to ratify.

Do you HONESTLY think that will ever happen? Will the smaller, less populated states, ever give up that power?

[Abq_Sarah]

3. No, and why should they?

Particularly given the outright contempt shown towards our more rural brothers and sisters.

[treestar]

6. We should still try

that's how Rs are. They do not give up. Look at how long they have fought Roe v. Wade and how little hope they have of anything actually changing.

The smaller states might recognize the injustice to the larger ones. They'd still have the Senate and the filibuster. And the House is even weighted in their favor since it stays at 438.

And it is not 1789 when each colony was jealous of its own power and existence. People don't even know who their state representatives are. They can't claim they are so attached to their states.

[TrollBuster9090]

9. No, I don't think it will happen if people keep dismissing the idea out of hand.

But there are actually several options, some of which don't require a Constitutional amendment.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/nov/17/electoral-college-vs-popular-vote-could-states-a/

However, having said that, the small States don't actually HAVE any power. It's a myth that the EC system gives smaller, rural States a power advantage. It only gives an advantage to States where the vote is CLOSE. Close enough to be considered a 'swing state.' Any State where the vote is not close, whether large or small, is virtually ignored during elections.

[WillowTree]

14. I keep seeing people refer to that scheme.

Still don't see how it would ever happen because they would still have to get a significant number of the states that benefit most from the current, constitutional, system to agree to it. And once again, why should they?

[Lurks Often]

4. No, what they've started will likely result in many states passing laws to prevent what they did,

at least in those states that don't already have such a law.


A year from now most of these states will pass laws that will require the elector to cast their vote for the candidate that won in that state.

[treestar]

5. It could get more traction now because

this time the Popular Vote margin is pretty big and the incoming resident is sure to be a disaster. When things go wrong, the first thing we will be saying is Hillary should have been president, and but for the EC we would not be in the mess to be created by the Orange Moron.

[kelly1mm]

7. Please tell me the 38 States that will ratify getting rid of the EC (and more importantly WHY

they would if they are among the least populous?)

[TrollBuster9090]

8. First, it may not require a Constitutional amendment.

First, it may not require a Constitutional amendment. Not according to the State Pact people.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2016/nov/17/electoral-college-vs-popular-vote-could-states-a/

And secondly, it's a myth that the Electoral College system favors small, rural States. The only States that are favored by the EC system are states where the vote is CLOSE, regardless of whether they're small, large, urban, or rural. Presidential candidates spend all their time in SWING STATES where the vote is close, and ignore states where it is NOT close.

So, every NON-SWING State has a reason to support this, regardless of size or population density.

[Abouttime]

10. The national popular vote compact is the way forward

The NPV doesn't altogether get rid of the EC, the states have the option of voting for the popular vote winner. If the situation was reversed and our candidate won the EC but not the popular vote the states could revert to the electoral college vote. This gives us the best of both worlds.

[WillowTree]

15. I don't see it. See post #14 above.

[kelly1mm]

11. State Pact does not do away with the EC. The States are free to alocate their electors in any

way they see fit. The only reason we even have swing states is due to the EC and the (in general) winner take all system in the EC. If it was straight popular vote then the system would tilt more toward population centers. That may be a good thing for the people, but not for the states as entities.

[shadowrider]

12. Most people don't realize, or refuse to understand

There is not one "national election", determined by popular vote.

There are 51 separate elections that take place, with the popular vote winner of each getting the winner take all electoral votes of that election. In essence, it is decided by popular vote, but that vote is contained within the state. It's entirely possible for a candidate to win every single vote in New York and California and win the popular vote by 10,000,000, yet lose the electoral college in a landslide.

It does give smaller states a sayso in the election. Without it, campaigning would only be done in California, New York, Florida and Texas.

It seems to me that concept was lost on us in this election with several swing states ignored. That has to be corrected for us to win in the future.

It's the system we have, and it's what we have to live with.

[MrPurple]

19. No, electoral college does favor small states, bigly

California has 55 electoral votes with a population of 39 million

Wyoming has 3 electoral votes with a population of 580,000.

1 electorial vote in Cali = 790,000 people, 1 electoral vote in Wyoming = 193,000 people.

For California to be represented at the same level as Wyoming, they'd need 210 electoral votes, not 55.

Because a state's # of electoral college votes equals their number of House representative plus their number of Senators, a number of small states are overrepresented, and they're mostly Republican states. Washington, DC has more people than several states, but only gets one electoral vote because they have no Senators. They should get 3 electoral votes, like Wyoming, Idaho & Montana do.

[standingtall]

13. I don't see a single good thing about this

and it isn't nowhere close to ending the electoral college. All of the electors that defected we Democrats. I say to them thanks for nothing. With their useless protest votes. The only thing they managed to do was make the electoral college margin larger for Trump.

[WillowTree]

16. I think what they were really trying to accomplish is to challenge the constitutionality........

.......of the "faithless elector" laws, as indicated by the Colorado electors taking it to court. They might just accomplish that, but the Electoral College isn't going anywhere.

[MrPurple]

17. This would require a huge Democratic wave election, like FDR in 1932

To eliminate the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment and to pass that, the Democrats would somehow need to have large majorities in both houses of Congress and in state legislatures/governorships. We're so far away from that now that it's just a fantasy.

If Trump's fvck ups are bad enough for him to lose his base, maybe there could be a wave election in 2020, but unfortunately, with all the bogus media that he'll have supporting him and keeping his rubes on board, it's probably not likely.

[kudzu22]

18. The EC is here to stay

and I don't think there is a valid constitutional challenge to the faithless elector laws. States are free to choose their electors however they see fit. Before the Civil War, the legislature would usually select the electors, rather than a statewide vote.

All this is going to do is make the parties more careful about whom they choose as electors.