Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-26-2019, 04:17 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Ahh, I see. Yeah, given that only two out of 50 states have chosen to select their electors this way, I can't imagine all that many getting on board with an amendment to force the issue. Maybe if the numbers were flipped, and we had 48 states using a proportional system of some sort, and only a couple of hold-outs, maybe an amendment could be passed.
Yeah, the all-or-nothing scheme seems to be favored for some reason- I guess it's the idea that it tends to guarantee a clear outcome, because historically it's not like one party has been pushing for repeal, and the other pushing against.

I'm just thinking that not only proportional representation, but voting by district would be more representative- there wouldn't be wrangling about rounding up/down, etc... but you'd still have 100 electoral votes that would be all-or-nothing by state.

It seems like a reasonable compromise- the popular vote sounds like a great idea, but it totally ignores the fact that the States themselves are participants in the choice of government, which is a huge part historically of the US system of government. Beyond that, I suspect that EVERY single election would be some skin-of-the-teeth thing, with all the screechings about voter fraud, etc... that we occasionally see.
  #102  
Old 08-26-2019, 04:58 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,123
Just because only two out of 50 states do it that way right now, doesn't mean that such an amendment would be unpopular with the other 48. States don't want to do it unilaterally, because that'll decrease their relative power, but it might be OK when you're forcing everyone else to do it, too.

That said, such a system would also make it possible to gerrymander Presidential elections, which would not be a good thing.
  #103  
Old 08-26-2019, 05:18 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Personally, I like the idea of possibly amending the Electoral College to be chosen at the district level, and the senatorial votes apportioned by the statewide popular vote.

That way, it retains some of the small state weight, but isn't all-or-nothing at a state level.

So for Texas, we might assume that it would have gone 23/13 Republican/Democrat, with another 2 Republican votes, for a total of 25/13. Better than 38/0, but it also still gives Wyoming 3 electoral votes, rather than an absurdly minuscule 262,000 possible votes (number of registered voters in Wyoming) out of 157,300,000 registered voters nationwide.
No way in hell is this a good proposal. The districts are gerrymandered (with a few exceptions) to put as many Republicans in Congress as possible. If we adopted this, we'd never see a Democratic president again.
  #104  
Old 08-27-2019, 08:51 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
No way in hell is this a good proposal. The districts are gerrymandered (with a few exceptions) to put as many Republicans in Congress as possible. If we adopted this, we'd never see a Democratic president again.
Let's be real. Districts are used to ensure either a Dem or a Pub is elected. Even if the current status were changed so that one party couldn't favor themselves in redistricting we still wouldn't have a system with true proportional representation.
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #105  
Old 08-27-2019, 10:57 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Let's be real. Districts are used to ensure either a Dem or a Pub is elected. Even if the current status were changed so that one party couldn't favor themselves in redistricting we still wouldn't have a system with true proportional representation.
I agree. Look at the 538 models for different redistricting.

I'm starting to believe the best option is to just increase the size of the House by, say, 100 members, maybe 150. It brings elected representatives closer to their constituents, and makes the electoral college more representative of the whole country.
  #106  
Old 08-27-2019, 12:12 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I agree. Look at the 538 models for different redistricting.

I'm starting to believe the best option is to just increase the size of the House by, say, 100 members, maybe 150. It brings elected representatives closer to their constituents, and makes the electoral college more representative of the whole country.
I would like to start by having a true proportional representation (viz. no districting) to represent the voters. In my state that would probably give a 3(D) / 2(R) / 2(I) split. Otherwise you just have more of the same you have now.
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #107  
Old 08-27-2019, 12:53 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,748
One compromise that falls between the current system and a full on popular vote would be to change the structure of the electoral college by providing that states only get the same votes as they have Representatives. They get nothing for their Senate two seats.

Smaller states like North Dakota would kick, since it would reduce them from 3 votes to 1, but proposing a constitutional amendment along these lines might start a conversation about the role of the Electoral College, the over-representation of small states under the current system, while balancing against the basic fact that the US is a federation of states, and each state should have a minimum guaranteed vote with respect to the presidency.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #108  
Old 08-27-2019, 02:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
One compromise that falls between the current system and a full on popular vote would be to change the structure of the electoral college by providing that states only get the same votes as they have Representatives. They get nothing for their Senate two seats.

Smaller states like North Dakota would kick, since it would reduce them from 3 votes to 1, but proposing a constitutional amendment along these lines might start a conversation about the role of the Electoral College, the over-representation of small states under the current system, while balancing against the basic fact that the US is a federation of states, and each state should have a minimum guaranteed vote with respect to the presidency.
You don't need to propose an amendment to "start a conversation". We are having a conversation right here. The first sticking point in the conversation is: what's in it for small states? Why would Wyoming and North Dakota and Alaska want to support it? It looks like you're asking them to give something up and get nothing in return. That's a negotiating tactic that's unlikely to lead to agreement, to put it mildly.
  #109  
Old 08-27-2019, 02:41 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They tried everything they could think of to overturn the 2016 results: recounts, persuading electors to go faithless, objecting to the certification of the vote, etc.
I don't recall the Democrats engaging in any recounts. I remember Jill Stein trying to do it but, to be fair, if not for her no recounts would have been necessary. Nor do I recall any attempts to persuade electors to "go faithless". I, personally would have liked to have seen that or at least having them place greater faith in the country itself. And it could have happened if Hillary had instructed "her" electors to cote, instead, for a rational Republican like, say, John Kasich. Then see if any Republican electors would follow suit. Think of what the country could have been spared.
  #110  
Old 08-27-2019, 02:45 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
They tried everything they could think of to overturn the 2016 results: recounts, persuading electors to go faithless, objecting to the certification of the vote, etc.
Cite? Cite? Cite?
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #112  
Old 08-27-2019, 04:14 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So that was Stein, not Hillary.

A few celebrities.

No one officially objected. In every election a few people want to give speeches. that's not that same thing as a real objection, and note ...." with Biden gaveling them down for failure to follow the rules.".
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #113  
Old 08-27-2019, 05:03 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So that was Stein, not Hillary. ...
It was Stein, with the help of a bunch of foolish Democrats to fund it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
... A few celebrities. ...
They certainly weren't the only ones, just the most prominent example I could recall. This article says:

Quote:
... thousands of protesters converged on state capitols across the country Monday, urging Republican electors to abandon their party's winning candidate.
This article says:

Quote:
Donald Trump won last month’s presidential election. But many liberals and progressives are still clinging to one faint, almost-certainly-doomed hope that he can be blocked from the presidency — through the Electoral College.

...

Essentially, some Democratic electors pledged to Clinton — including several Bernie Sanders fans — want to block Trump from becoming president, because they view him as unfit for the office.

To this end, they’re arguing that electors should now, for the first time in centuries, take on their original intended role of making up their own minds to choose the president.

In the days after the election, the idea was tossed around that perhaps Trump electors could be convinced to vote for Clinton, since she had, after all, won the popular vote.

But it quickly became clear that that was a nonstarter. The electors pledged to Trump are generally staunch Republicans or conservatives who strongly dislike Clinton and do not want her to become president.

So a new idea emerged: Perhaps some Trump electors could be convinced to ditch him and vote instead for a Republican politician who wasn’t even on the ballot — someone like John Kasich or Mitt Romney.

This is the pitch from a group of electors calling themselves Hamilton Electors, in reference to the wildly popular Broadway musical. (Just kidding, they’re referencing a Federalist Paper in which Alexander Hamilton says that the Electoral College should be an “intermediate body” that’s less exposed to the people’s “heats and ferments.”)

So the Hamilton Electors — all but one of whom, so far, are Democrats pledged to vote for Clinton — are saying that they’re willing to defect from Clinton and cast their votes instead for a Republican alternative to Trump, and they’re urging Republican electors to unite with them.

The idea has caught fire in liberal social media circles...
Even the Colorado elector that's at the center of the court case that is the impetus for this thread, Michael Baca, wanted to vote for another Republican in a convoluted scheme to try to deny President Trump the office he won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No one officially objected. In every election a few people want to give speeches. that's not that same thing as a real objection, and note ...." with Biden gaveling them down for failure to follow the rules.".
No one had their objections sustained. The article says "House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiples states". Sure, they're mostly incompetent fuckwits so their objections were ruled out of order, but like a lawyer saying "Objection!" and a judge saying "overruled", the objection was still "a real objection".

The article conclude with "But at the end of the day, despite the objections, Trump's election was certified by Congress."
  #114  
Old 08-27-2019, 07:59 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,123
He didn't want to deny Trump anything that he won. At that time, Trump hadn't won anything, because the election hadn't happened yet. He was trying to prevent Trump from winning, by persuading people to vote for someone other than him.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017