Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#1 Since there it is conceivable to have a tie in the electoral college I would have no problem with the popular-vote then gaining the win. Otherwise I don't think so and I think in a week or two a lot of Dems will agree with me.
Posted by rjschwarz 2012-10-27 00:14||
#2 An interesting concept with some positive points. Would take a Constitutional amendment to do it properly.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-10-27 00:16||
#3 Amendment Smendment. If the prohibition, and repeal, went through the process then the health care act should have. Why forcing people/companies to purchase health insurance is not a form of Unfree Labor is beyond me.
Posted by swksvolFF 2012-10-27 00:38||
#4 Twenty nine votes, eh? Interesting to see the math behind that. I suspect that number is designed to fix certain imbalances in the current election demographics. Did I say 'fix'? I meant skew.
Posted by SteveS 2012-10-27 00:55||
#5 Don't buy into this, a Constitutional Amendment of the US Constitution, and 66% of the States agreeing; ? The State legislatures decide who is named elector by vote, with the Governors deciding the ultimate make-up of the electors based upon the popular vote. No chance for this election nor any other in the future.
Posted by Au Auric 2012-10-27 01:24||
#6 So why have states? A dozen + major metro areas will run the country which will, as we've seen, loot the suburbs and rural areas to feed their unending resource needs.
The Electoral College was a compromise between big states and small states to prohibit a few large states, with large populations, from basically taking over, giving substantial fodder to their opponents.
The depth of the historical illiteracy of our Congresscritters never ceases to amazes me. They all should have to take a test before the elections, not to preclude, but to amply demonstrate their ignorance.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-10-27 08:11||
#7 That should have been ...
The Electoral College was a compromise between big states and small states to prohibit a few large states, with large populations, from basically taking over.
The depth of the historical illiteracy of our Congresscritters never ceases to amazes me. They all should have to take a test before the elections, not to preclude, but to amply demonstrate their ignorance, giving substantial fodder to their opponents.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-10-27 08:13||
#8 I have a better way to 'fix' the problem: have every state divvy up their Electoral College votes the same way Maine and Nebraska do.
They do it by giving one vote to the candidate per congressional district won, and the two overall votes to the winner of the state.
So California, currently 55 votes, goes to Obama since he'll win the state 55%-45% by popular vote. But if you did it by district, Romney might win 15 to 18 districts, and the EV would be (say) 38-17. There's a big swing there.
Of course Florida, 29 EV, might end up 19-10 for Romney, and New York, 29 EV, might end up 21-8 for Obama, etc.
This would force candidates to spend more time around the country working areas that would flip districts to them, and less time in 'battleground' states. Heck, the concept of a 'battleground state' would melt away.
Campaigns would have to be truly national to win.
Posted by Steve White 2012-10-27 11:18||
#9 Congressional districts are proportional to population [60s era one man, one vote rule from SCOTUS]. As such, once again, one just has to focus on winning the districts which are massed in metro areas. The strategy would be to pander to the metro inhabitants which would then concentrate on less than a third of the states with most of those major metro areas.
Posted by Procopius2k 2012-10-27 12:09||
#10 Like the Romans did.
Posted by newc 2012-10-27 12:17||
#11 the solution to the electoral college problem lies in making it more like what the founders intended instead of less. it was not intended as a means for the people to select the president, but for the people to select the people who would select the president. how to do this is a problem we have had since 1796.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-10-27 12:45||
#12 It's probably very difficult to find better solutions.
It's true that a popular vote would make smaller, less populated states irrelevant.
But the current system gives way to much power to a few "swing states". This means that millions of citizens of New York or Houston can pound sand while a few hundred people in the boondocks of Ohio could decide the elections.
Posted by European Conservative 2012-10-27 15:16||
#13 Why not just give 16 trillion electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote?
Posted by Perfesser 2012-10-27 16:16||
#14 This is retarded. There is no need to amend the Constitution to fix this thing. Just change one law from 1929.
To make the Presidential election more closely correlate with the popular vote, then we need more House of Representatives districts. Just doubling the size of the House would have given us Gore and Kerry.
Would the Representatives be unhappy that their power was lessened by having to share with all the new members. Um, yah. That is why they won't fix it.
Only bitch about it at election time.
Posted by rammer 2012-10-27 16:25||
#15 The solution is to have a much smaller role for the president and a much smaller federal impact.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-10-27 16:26||