You're welcome to work on those issues.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Had Hillary won the Electoral College and not the "popular vote" ...
- Thread starter kandlekid
- Start date
You're welcome to work on those issues.
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
In Article II of the Constitution it leaves it to the states legislatures you dumb dunce.
Hey Ottootto, Trump won, Hillary lost. Get over it.
The National Popular Vote bill is state legislatures choosing to replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
In 2017, the bill has passed the New Mexico Senate and Oregon House.
The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.
16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
"The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,"
“The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.
Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.
In the 2016 general election campaign
Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).
Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country's population).
The Census Bureau clearly states that over 80 million people live in the top 10 metro areas (cities including the suburbs). This is over 25%. Your figure that 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities is pretty nonsensical -- when you look at how cities vote it is necessary to include the suburbs. And BTW - just the 10 largest metro areas voted over 70% Democratic in the 2016 election.
You keep re-posting the information above. It is not from the Census Bureau. I would like to see a citation link showing your direct source for the information. I expect that you are going to say your saw it on Facebook.
your point about the population being spread out makes my point. I remember my history and I remember reading... they did not expect or want a 2 party system. they did not want mob rule from a big city. (its relative.)
are you denying the founding fathers were dead set against mob rule.
why are we even having this argument.
you are being obtuse.
letting the states pick is a choice against a national popular vote.
Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.
Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us ruled by the mob.
Mob rule would be a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or mob ruled.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes
There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.
The Census Bureau clearly states that over 80 million people live in the top 10 metro areas (cities including the suburbs). This is over 25%. Your figure that 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities is pretty nonsensical -- when you look at how cities vote it is necessary to include the suburbs. And BTW - just the 10 largest metro areas voted over 70% Democratic in the 2016 election.
You keep re-posting the information above. It is not from the Census Bureau. I would like to see a citation link showing your direct source for the information. I expect that you are going to say your saw it on Facebook.
As you note, "Cities" are not the same as Metro areas, that include suburbs.
Cities are cities, suburbs are suburbs, and rural are rural.
Suburbs, 68% of Americans, do not vote the same as cities.
I break it out.
16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
I don't come by my analysis from seeing things on Facebook.
you are still being obtuse. the framework was chosen to avoid mob rule from the cities or population centers or tyranny of the plaurality or tyranny of the majority.
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
"A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones. "
Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.
The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.
The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.
The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.
----
so yes... being a Constitutional Republic to us meant that we agreed to a Constitution which provided for an election of the President with an electoral College and not a direct national election with a majority or plaurality winning. They did that for a reason.
You can argue all you want... or you can read the history. the decision to not have a direct popular election was a conscious choice.
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
"A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones. "
Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.
The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.
The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.
The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.
----
so yes... being a Constitutional Republic to us meant that we agreed to a Constitution which provided for an election of the President with an electoral College and not a direct national election with a majority or plaurality winning. They did that for a reason.
You can argue all you want... or you can read the history. the decision to not have a direct popular election was a conscious choice.
Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.
Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us ruled by the mob.
Mob rule would be a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or mob ruled.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes
There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the presidency.
Last edited:
you are still being obtuse. the framework was chosen to avoid mob rule from the cities or population centers or tyranny of the plaurality or tyranny of the majority.
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
"A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones. "
Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.
The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.
The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.
The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.
----
so yes... being a Constitutional Republic to us meant that we agreed to a Constitution which provided for an election of the President with an electoral College and not a direct national election with a majority or plaurality winning. They did that for a reason.
You can argue all you want... or you can read the history. the decision to not have a direct popular election was a conscious choice.
The National Popular Vote is not a direct popular election.
All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
The National Popular Vote we have now is not a direct popular election. that is true...
However. you are wrong when you say.. "The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected"
a direct election is prohibited by virtue of the fact we have an electoral college - per the constitution.
However. you are wrong when you say.. "The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected"
a direct election is prohibited by virtue of the fact we have an electoral college - per the constitution.
The National Popular Vote is not a direct popular election.
All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.
I willYou're welcome to work on those issues.
And you're welcome (and probably very willing) to oppose people like me because you would rather have massive voter fraud than the real will of the people just to further your cause.
The National Popular Vote we have now is not a direct popular election. that is true...
However. you are wrong when you say.. "The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected"
a direct election is prohibited by virtue of the fact we have an electoral college - per the constitution.
Elections with the National Popular Vote bill in effect would not be direct popular elections.
All of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods for awarding electoral votes that were debated and rejected