War on the Electoral College

[Pauls' Revere]

It will go to SCOTUS if it ever becomes active.

You think so? If it reaches 270 they would amend the constitution?

 

[Anti Globalist]

Getting rid of the electoral college will make it a lot easier for Democrats to win elections.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You think so? If it reaches 270 they would amend the constitution?

I don't think they will amend anything, I think they will attempt to use the agreement when it hits 270 and the "losing" candidate will sue.

SCOTUS should reject the agreement as unconstitutional.

 

[TomtheTinker]

Go ahead and end it. Hopefully the other 48 states outside of NY and CA will throw a big stink over not having the power they thought they did. The quicker people wake up the quicker this country heals.

Honestly I think the best thing that could happen is Bernie wins and the democrats take command of both houses of congress. They enact all the "reforms" from getting rid of electoral college to sweeping gun control and what ever else their delusional corrupted hearts desires. The left wont be able to help themselves from over playing their hand and it's the only chance we have for people to truly wake up.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Honestly I think the best thing that could happen is Bernie wins and the democrats take command of both houses of congress. They enact all the "reforms" from getting rid of electoral college to sweeping gun control and what ever else their delusional corrupted hearts desires. The left wont be able to help themselves from over playing their hand and it's the only chance we have for people to truly wake up.

Sadly, I think your right.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

I don't think they will amend anything, I think they will attempt to use the agreement when it hits 270 and the "losing" candidate will sue.

SCOTUS should reject the agreement as unconstitutional.

If the SCOTUS isn't stuffed with judges that agree with it.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If the SCOTUS isn't stuffed with judges that agree with it.

That's one reason we need to keep Trump.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

That's one reason we need to keep Trump.

Hypothetically speaking, what would happen if there was no Supreme Court?

Would they let 9 people stand in their way?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Hypothetically speaking, what would happen if there was no Supreme Court?

Would they let 9 people stand in their way?

If there was no SCOTUS there would be some other way to challenge its constitutionality.

If they want to secede over the EC I welcome that and if they uprise they can be put down with prejudice for trying to conquer the rest of us.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

If there was no SCOTUS there would be some other way to challenge its constitutionality.

If they want to secede over the EC I welcome that and if they uprise they can be put down with prejudice for trying to conquer the rest of us.

Assuming they have regard for The Constitution.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Assuming they have regard for The Constitution.

That's why I mentioned secession and uprising.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

That's why I mentioned secession and uprising.

If the EC goes, its over.

 

[Swordsmyth]

If the EC goes, its over.

Yup.

Lights out.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

I'm in favor of the Electoral College, wonder what Biden thinks about this?


https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/its-time-to-abolish-the-electoral-college/

Ways to abolish the Electoral College
The U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College but did not spell out how the votes get awarded to presidential candidates. That vagueness has allowed some states such as Maine and Nebraska to reject “winner-take-all” at the state level and instead allocate votes at the congressional district level. However, the Constitution’s lack of specificity also presents the opportunity that states could allocate their Electoral College votes through some other means.

One such mechanism that a number of states already support is an interstate pact that honors the national popular vote. Since 2008, 15 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which is an multi-state agreement to commit electors to vote for candidates who win the nationwide popular vote, even if that candidate loses the popular vote within their state. The NPVIC would become effective only if states ratify it to reach an electoral majority of 270 votes.

Right now, the NPVIC is well short of that goal and would require an additional 74 electoral votes to take effect. It also faces some particular challenges. First, it is unclear how voters would respond if their state electors collectively vote against the popular vote of their state. Second, there are no binding legal repercussions if a state elector decides to defect from the national popular vote. Third, given the Tenth Circuit decision in the Baca v. Hickenlooper case described above, the NPVIC is almost certain to face constitutional challenges should it ever gain enough electoral votes to go into effect.

A more permanent solution would be to amend the Constitution itself. That is a laborious process and a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College would require significant consensus—at least two-thirds affirmation from both the House and Senate, and approval from at least 38 out of 50 states. But Congress has nearly reached this threshold in the past. Congress nearly eradicated the Electoral College in 1934, falling just two Senate votes short of passage.

However, the conversation did not end after the unsuccessful vote, legislators have continued to debate ending or reforming the Electoral College since. In 1979, another Senate vote to establish a direct popular vote failed, this time by just three votes. Nonetheless, conversation continued: the 95th Congress proposed a total of 41 relevant amendments in 1977 and 1978, and the 116th Congress has already introduced three amendments to end the Electoral College. In total, over the last two centuries, there have been over 700 proposals to either eradicate or seriously modify the Electoral College. It is time to move ahead with abolishing the Electoral College before its clear failures undermine public confidence in American democracy, distort the popular will, and create a genuine constitutional crisis.

 

[DirtMcGirt]

I wonder if this will be on the Dems radar the next 4 years or just slowly chip away at the EC state by state

 

[Badnon Wissenshaftler]

I will admit that I am somewhat ignorant of the original intent of the Founders regarding the Electoral College, and have some reading to do. Surely, it sounds undemocratic, but the Founders didn't care so much for direct democracies, and their capricious and vacillating character.

To this point, however, I do believe that Founders found the office of President to be precarious, and only meant to be a figurehead and a final check on the powers of Congress. But the Constitutional caveat into which we currently fall is that the federal government itself was meant to be much less consequential than it has become. With such limited scope, Presidential elections should've been much less contentious.

 

[Voluntarist]

Quote from reference in OP

"It's a terrible system," said Paul Finkelman, a law professor at Albany Law School who teaches this year at Duke University. "There's no other electoral system in the world where the person with the most votes doesn't win."

None? How about the UK? Ask any voter in the UK who they they cast their vote for in the Prime Minister contest. None of them cast a vote for Prime Minister; they voted for their own candidate to be their specific Member of Parliament (MP) representing them in the House of Commons. Those MPs then choose the head of the executive branch (Prime Minister), just like Electors do in the United States. The difference between the US and the UK is that the US has two Congress/Parliament-type bodies (one for enacting legislation, another for choosing the President); whereas the UK does it all within a single legislative body.

=== Edited to add ===

FIRST EXAMPLE: 1951 General Election in the UK:
- Labour Party: 13,948,385 votes (48.8%)
- Conservative Party: 13,717,851 votes (48.0%)
- Liberal Party: 730,546 votes (2.5%)

The Labour Party won the national popular vote, but the Conservative Party won more seats in the House of Commons, and Winston Churchill (of the Conservative Party) became Prime Minister.


SECOND EXAMPLE: 2019 Federal Election in Canada:
- Conservative Party: 6,239,227 votes (34.34%)
- Liberal Party: 6,018,728 votes (33.12%)
- Bloc Québécois: 1,387,030 votes (7.63%)
- New Democratic Party: 2,903,722 votes (15.98%)
- Green Party: 1,189,607 votes (6.55%)
- People's Party: 294,092 votes (1.62%)

The Conservative Part won the national popular vote, but the Liberal Party won more seats, and Justin Trudeau (of the Liberal Party) remained as Prime Minister.