And also by the way, I though hard about whether to put this in the Pit or GD. It appears I chose incorrectly.
I absolutely HATE the electoral college and winner-take-all states. It means that if 50% of my fellow Minnesotan don’t vote the same way I do, my presidential vote counts for exactly NOTHING. What is there good about that?
I see people saying that if the whole state doesn’t go as 1 block, that politicians won’t bother visiting/courting the state. And this is different from the current system now how? Minnesota has had candidates/running mates/spouses dropping in all the time for the last couple of months. You know what they do? They hold an invitation only meeting with a bunch of people that already support them, all in an attempt to get the local news organizations to give them coverage.
I say it’s long past time that my vote count, all of the time, not just when I agree with my neighbors.
By this logic, if 50% of your fellow Americans don’t vote the same way as you your presidential vote counts for nothing.
Not at all, because the electoral college has virtually no effect on the number of states a candidate needs to win.
**Article II, Section 1:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors…**
You are correct. The legislature has plenary authority to direct the appointment of electors. However, if the legislature (via the state constitution) allows a citizen referendum to determine the manner and decides not to interfere, then that is their choice also.
Notice that it says may direct. It doesn’t say they aren’t allowed the option to delegate their authority to the voters of their state.
But they would actually then have to so delegate the authority. Colorado on the face of it does not appear to have done so. The initiative backers are attempting an end run around the Legislature and the Constitution based on the Colorado case law. I don’t think it will hold up if it passes, if not because of the legislature issue then because of the attempt to apply it to this election.
Well, the legislature is responsible for creating the initiative process (or at least for leaving it in the state constitution), right? In effect, they’re delegating their power to the voters.
Interesting idea. However, the legislature can’t delegate power that isn’t theirs to delegate. The general initiative process in the Colorado statutes or constitution can’t override the federal Constitution. If the federal Constitution doesn’t allow the state to delegate its power then whatever action the state might take (or not take) is irrelevant.
I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to consider an initiative, proposed and passed in accordance with the process laid out by the legislature, to be “such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”.
The number of states does affect the electoral vote, because each state starts with 3 electoral votes, no matter what. Thus Wyoming, Alaska and North Dakota, together get 9 electoral votes for their 1,776,599 (combined) citizens, which is the same number as Colorado’s 4506542 citizens(www.census.gov).
I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Currently, a candidate only needs to win the electoral votes from the 11 largest states to become President. Defenders of the electoral college say that it’s necessary in order to get candidates to focus on other states, but if we eliminated the electoral college, candidates would need the votes from the 10 largest states - a difference of only one state. That’s what I call virtually no effect.
Well, there’s some effect. It’s possible to draw up a case where a candidate wins the EC vote but loses the popular vote by a considerable margin. Imagine winning the slimmest majority in the 38 least-populous states for the EC win, and getting no votes at all in the 12 largest states. The popular-vote margin could be immense. By my own rough calculation, a candidate could win with 65 million well-placed votes, defeating a candidate who gets twice as many, or more.
Then again, if the orbital mind-control lasers zapped about two thousand state legisators, the U.S. could be constitutionally amended out of existance tomorrow.
I don’t agree that this would be a bad thing. The fact is, that the winner would be receiving votes in every state and in every county. The fact that when you draw the arbitrary lines of states, effectively gerrymandering the resuts, and you get “majorities” in more of those states, doesn’t bother me.
It’s Ohioan.
Well, if it passes, that’ll be the question for the court.
I can’t find a cite for this, but the last time this was studied was in the Clinton White House. (Now GOP-partisan) Dick Morris crunched the numbers and calculated the largest margin someone could lose the popular vote and still win a majority of the electoral vote was 7/10 of 1%.
And the whole premise is silly to start with. Big states like CA & NY are never going to vote 99% for ANY candidate- or even close to it.
What this will do then is force the candidates to not give up on ANY state- they must camapign in them all. Even a state running 70% for their opponent means that there is maybe 10% undecided- and that means the difference between winning 30% or only 20% in that states.
Smaller states have a teeny advantage in that their Senators count for more- thus each voter has a bit more clout. Thus, even the dinky states will get attention.