Constitutional Crisis: Colorado Dems Pass Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

[UsualName]

I will disagree -- if a popular vote was used to elect the President in the U.S. then the candidates would simply ignore most of the U.S. and only campaign in a small set of large cities. They would even bother to run commercials in most states.

I still don’t see your logic. We have a very weak voter participation rate because of the electoral college. Moving to a popular vote would drive up participation and would bring candidates into solid states for the other party to increase their total vote.

Your logic is flawed, a popular vote would open up the map and have democrats in rural areas and republicans in urban areas trying to get votes and thus having their issues at least heard by the opposite party.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

No, it does not. The states would vote. There would be 51 separate popular votes, and each state would allocate their electors proportionately based on that state's popular vote. This method would satisfy the intent of the Framers.

The smaller you make the voting areas , the more closely it represents the popular vote. States can apportion anyway they wish , but the intent of the Framers was for the states to put forth electors so as the states vote, not individual districts.

 

[UsualName]

No, it does not. The states would vote. There would be 51 separate popular votes, and each state would allocate their electors proportionately based on that state's popular vote. This method would satisfy the intent of the Framers.

This is the constitutionally prescribes method that would be used if there is not a decided winner by the electoral college. And no it would not satisfy the intent, it’s the back up plan to the intent.

 

[Tom B]

The smaller you make the voting areas , the more closely it represents the popular vote. States can apportion anyway they wish , but the intent of the Framers was for the states to put forth electors so as the states vote, not individual districts.

The ONLY difference that I proposed was changing the way the each state allocates their electors (state popular vote vs state winner take all). I did not propose allocating electors based on district. This method satisfies the intent of the Framers.

 

[UsualName]

The smaller you make the voting areas , the more closely it represents the popular vote. States can apportion anyway they wish , but the intent of the Framers was for the states to put forth electors so as the states vote, not individual districts.

Technically, no. We already have states that divide up their electoral votes by district. Specifically, Maine. Even though it’s a carve out.

 

[gwb-trading]

I still don’t see your logic. We have a very weak voter participation rate because of the electoral college. Moving to a popular vote would drive up participation and would bring candidates into solid states for the other party to increase their total vote.

Your logic is flawed, a popular vote would open up the map and have democrats in rural areas and republicans in urban areas trying to get votes and thus having their issues at least heard by the opposite party.

A popular vote for President would only serve to concentrate the campaigning to a small number of high-population crowded cities. The rest of the country would be safely ignored since effectively their votes don't matter in the election.

This is why the founding fathers wisely set-up the EC system to prevent the tyranny of the majority in the cities upon the rest of the population of the country.

 

[UsualName]

A popular vote for President would only serve to concentrate the campaigning to a small number of high-population crowded cities. The reset of the country would be safely ignored since effectively their votes don't matter in the election.

This is why the founding fathers wisely set-up the EC system to prevent the tyranny of the majority in the cities upon the rest of the population of the country.

You keep saying the same thing over and over about cities but you’re wrong.

In truth the electoral college was designed to protect slave states, this is the whole 2/5ths of a man clause. Abolitionists were not tyrants!

 

[Buy1Sell2]

The ONLY difference that I proposed was changing the way the each state allocates their electors (state popular vote vs state winner take all). I did not propose allocating electors based on district. This method satisfies the intent of the Framers.

I've made my point. Most folks understand it. Winner take all is the proper method, but states can do whatever they want.

 

[Tom B]

This is the constitutionally prescribes method that would be used if there is not a decided winner by the electoral college. And no it would not satisfy the intent, it’s the back up plan to the intent.

You are incorrect. The ONLY difference that I proposed was changing the way each state allocates their electors (state popular vote vs state winner take all method). This method satisfies the intent of the Framers. Currently, 48 states and DC allocate electors based on winner take all. Maine and Nebraska allocate electors by congressional district. So, currently there are two different ways that states allocate their electors.

For example, let's say the Texas popular vote is 55% for the Republican candidate, and 45% for the Democratic candidate. Currently, Texas would allocate all 36 of its electors to the Republican candidate. Under my proposal, Texas would allocate 20 electors to the Republican candidate, and 16 electors to the Democratic candidate.

 

[Tom B]

I've made my point. Most folks understand it. Winner take all is the proper method, but states can do whatever they want.

You don't understand my point. To each his own.