General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGinsburg wants to change the Electoral College
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she wants to change the Electoral College.
Asked at Stanford University on Monday night about what she would like to change, Ginsburg exclaimed, "the Electoral College!" She also decried partisanship and lamented the death penalty during her appearance at Stanford, according to the Mercury News.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ginsburg-wants-to-change-the-electoral-college/article/2614110#.WJn0lEaeU3g.facebook
Hear, hear!!!!
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)of whatever makes people live a really long time.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)What a great idea!
ProfessorGAC
(64,422 posts)Then there are no more winner take all states. That's even more undemocratic than the electors themselves.
DarleenMB
(408 posts)The election of the President of the United States is not a state-by-state referendum. It is a vote by ALL THE CITIZENS. So why on earth do people think that it should be "proportional?" Honestly, who cares how many people in California voted for someone versus how many people in Wyoming voted for someone else in a NATIONAL election? that's nonsense.
ProfessorGAC
(64,422 posts)How Is that democratic? 49.9% of voters don't get represented at all?
I don't think you understand what i'm saying. CA gets way more electors than WY and they should. There 40 times the people. But, a fairly big state like Ohio goes for "It" by a half percent over HRC and he gets 100% of the votes. It's why he won!!!
What the heck are you talking about with regard to proportionality not being more democratic than what they do now?
Then, the EC would actually be a buffer vs. a madman, because it would only take a few electors in each state to say, "no i can't in good conscience let this person be POTUS." In this last election, the number who would have to flip against HRC was a pretty big number so would have taken way too many "defectors". In fact, there would have to be no defectors from "it" because he would have lost a proportional EC vote.
Qutzupalotl
(14,230 posts)Each state runs their own elections. Not just for state and local offices, but federal as well. Changing that would require a constitutional amendment.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)now it is causing the very kind of damage it was meant to avoid
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Was intended to give slave states more power in government than their populations warranted.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)bucolic_frolic
(42,675 posts)Every form of social organization in every culture turns to its
wisest elders for guidance and direction
And we are led by the dumbest of all
randr
(12,408 posts)they will be able to convene for a Continental Congress and re-draft the Constitution to their liking.
Evil is as evil does.
IronLionZion
(45,259 posts)Scalia definitely did not believe in healthy living
mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)Hekate
(90,189 posts)mr_liberal
(1,017 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)"Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped.The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others."
redwitch
(14,933 posts)Be well Justice Ginsburg!