āI think moving to a popular vote system is not without peril, is not without problems, itās not a simple one choice is all good, the other is all bad," he continued. "Itās a balancing act. But I think the balance has shifted, in my mind at least, and I think that we should go to a popular vote."
I donāt.
Not in this environment.
If the electoral college was established by statue, it would be unconstitutional due to one person, one vote.
1P-1V is two Trump Justices from being overturned anyway.
Yeahā¦the optics of this, from any Democrat, particularly Gore, are just too transparent. This is the team that lost by 1 point due to a 4th quarter field goal arguing that field goals should only count 1 point.
There are problems with the EC, but the chances of it going away are very small. It would require a Constitutional Amendment (good luck on getting the necessary states AND Congress critters to vote for that any time soon), and would be met with staunch resistance from the political-news complex which has an extreme interest in maintaining the electoral strategies that are used. People argue that the EC makes only a small handful of states battlegrounds, but at least there ARE battlegroundsā¦move to a national public election and the election resides in CA, TX, NY and FL forever.
My own views on it have more to do with correct the ā30,000ā problem. By artificially putting a cap on the size of the House, we dismissed the popular vote significantly. The ratio of population/electoral votes simply doesnāt hold up, which gives outsized influence to smaller states as a result.
Popular vote and Gore would have won. Popular vote and Clinton would have won.
The two examples in less than a generation that are out there say āpopular voteā is the way to go.
Mittens agreesā¦
http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/omywdcvfdfxx7o7ttmht.jpg
Trump loves their porcelain taco bowlsā¦
and thatās one of the reasons why I have a big problem with changing this system to an āup or downā measure.
I donāt want to take my chances on Trump finding out that there are more than enough Calif. Republicans and Libertarians who are willing to go his way.
Not me, no thanks.
n this is the same thing that i asked in āthe Hiveā
are you willing to take a chance on an electorate that are willing to go 3p or stay apathetic and take their chances?
not me
no sir
Yup.
Youāre about to see it fail to keep an actual tyrant for office.
Itās nothing more than a bit of political swag the party offers its faithful.
Right now, iām going with a #'s issue.
Iām willing to excuse '00, because who knew.
'16 was essentially an āall hands on deckā affair and folks knew what the stakes were and they still sat or voted 3p.
not me.
I donāt want to see whatās under that ālogā.
Iām in the same camp - itās that artificial ā435ā that causes all the problems. To be a true representative democracy, the number of Congressmen must increase/decrease along with the population - including in the District of Columbia. The side effect/benefit would be to mostly fix the EC, too.
Iād be okay with a system wherein EVs are granted according to percentages of the popular vote - as a few states do now - but that only works and is only fair if all 50 states do it.
Electoral College also has to go for another reason: I can very easily foresee a situation in which Trump/other Republicans lose the presidential election but then persuade/coerce/frighten electors to flip and put them in power. When the ethos of democracy fails, the mechanisms of democracy get abused. Gore is rightāAmerican democracy has been hacked.
DJ, I am a little confused when you sayā¦
this move to a national public election and the election resides in CA, TX, NY and FL forever.
Can you tell me why this is a bad thing? Iām confused because when itās stated like this, it gives off the impression that states vote as entities, which they do in the ECāHowever, in a popular vote, the concept of states voting would be removed, wouldnāt it? Isnāt that the point? It would come down the to the people in those states, would it not? And, if thatās where the majority of people in the country live, shouldnāt they have more say?
I know it will never happen, because itās the only thing keeping Republicans relevant on the national level, and it will never get through. but, I would like you to clarify why itās a bad thing if thatās what a true democracy is, and thatās where the people are. It seems youāre not just being a realist, which you areā¦but, it seems you donāt like the thought of it, either. Why? Iām asking because I respect your intellect and would like to understand, for the record. Not being confrontational.
ETA: @inversion feel free to chime in here as well.
But this works both ways. At present, only voters in about 10 states are addressed by campaigns. While conservative voices in California and New York would suddenly be entertained, so would lefty voices throughout the south, from SC to Texas. It is a much more equitable system where campaigns would have to address broad swaths of constituencies instead of hyperfocusing on Ohio, PA, Florida and NH.
I had a similar argument in The Hive about how a popular vote could solve this problem. My issue with that claim was that he leading the popular vote when the election mattered.
My issue with the abolish chatter is this.
Are folks really sure that a GOP backed Trump still couldnāt win a popular vote in '20? I donāt wanna find out.
And the result of the election could not be warped by showering attention/money on, say, those counties in the Rust Belt who apparently now hold the future of the country in their hands.
Thatās a scary assumption.
Would a proper (oh god) Democratic candidate get a bunch of his/her base to the polls in places like Texas? maybe.
Then I look at '16ās numbers and still nope.
Respectfully, we already know he can win in the current EC format, without winning the popular vote. And so did Dubyaā¦is the fear of the unknown worse than that? Also, I also believe that the EC may very well stunt the vote. If you are a republican here in Jersey, for example, why go out to vote, stand in the long line, and bother if you know the state is going blue overwhelmingly? Reverse it for Alabamaā¦and so on. If itās really āone person, one voteā, shouldnāt it be one person, one vote?
Iām not seeing what your complaint is here. That the electorate will vote 3p or stay home allowing a con-man or a fool to win the Popular Vote and take the White House? The Electoral College has already given us that twice, despite the con-man losing the Popular Vote by 2 million+ votes and the fool by 500,000+.