4 ms·

> crazy electoral college method for elections The Electoral College is not crazy; indeed, IMHO what we need is for the state legislatures to appoint their ele

by wtbob 11y ago

> crazy electoral college method for elections The Electoral College is not crazy; indeed, IMHO what we need is for the state legislatures to appoint their electors. What's crazy is the popular vote.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dragontamer 11y ago
Electoral College by design was supposed to fail. The creators of the Constitution never expected political parties to become a thing. The House of Representatives were supposed to elect our President, after the Electoral College became deadlocked. That was the design of the Constitution. The fact of the matter is, the Electoral College is NOT functioning as designed. But whatever, that's how the laws of this country work and we are a country of laws.
- mvymvy 11y ago
  The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states. The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter equally in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count. The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including 4 small jurisdictions, 3 medium-size states, and 4 big states. http://www.NationalPopularVote.com http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
  - tsotha 11y ago
    It will also probably be thrown out by the courts, too. Compacts between the states have to be approved by congress.
    - mvymvy 11y ago
      Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent. The U.S. Constitution provides: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state…." Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote: "Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States. "The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta." Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated: "Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…." In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote: "The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States" The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
      - tsotha 11y ago
        In other words, it's unconstitutional but the court is willing to ignore the constitution. Lovely.
vacri 11y ago
Perhaps I should have been broader with the criticism. Basically, it's a significant problem with the way US federal elections work that they basically enforce a two-party system. A nation of 300 million people that is somehow adequately represented by only one of two parties? Not allowing for multipolar politics is a problem with the constitution. Mind you, things like 'winner takes all' is a problem with the EC specifically.

by wtbob 11y ago

> crazy electoral college method for elections The Electoral College is not crazy; indeed, IMHO what we need is for the state legislatures to appoint their electors. What's crazy is the popular vote.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dragontamer 11y ago

Electoral College by design was supposed to fail. The creators of the Constitution never expected political parties to become a thing. The House of Representatives were supposed to elect our President, after the Electoral College became deadlocked. That was the design of the Constitution. The fact of the matter is, the Electoral College is NOT functioning as designed. But whatever, that's how the laws of this country work and we are a country of laws.

mvymvy 11y ago
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. The national popular vote winner would receive all of the 270+ electoral votes of the enacting states. The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter equally in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count. The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including 4 small jurisdictions, 3 medium-size states, and 4 big states. http://www.NationalPopularVote.com http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
- tsotha 11y ago
  It will also probably be thrown out by the courts, too. Compacts between the states have to be approved by congress.
  - mvymvy 11y ago
    Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent. The U.S. Constitution provides: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state…." Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can "not be read literally." In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote: "Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States. "The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta." Specifically, the Court's 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated: "Looking at the clause in which the terms 'compact' or 'agreement' appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…." In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote: "The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States" The National Popular Vote compact would not "encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" because there is simply no federal power -- much less federal supremacy -- in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
    - tsotha 11y ago
      In other words, it's unconstitutional but the court is willing to ignore the constitution. Lovely.

vacri 11y ago

Perhaps I should have been broader with the criticism. Basically, it's a significant problem with the way US federal elections work that they basically enforce a two-party system. A nation of 300 million people that is somehow adequately represented by only one of two parties? Not allowing for multipolar politics is a problem with the constitution. Mind you, things like 'winner takes all' is a problem with the EC specifically.