You’ve advertised your “plan” to eliminate the EC on several threads on this board and, as far as I can tell, have failed to convince a single person that it a) is a good way to eliminate the EC or b) would have even a snowball’s chance in hell of being implimented. And this includes many anti-EC folks. What makes you, then, think you could convince enough state legislators to go along with it? I’m not saying that the number of people you get to agree with you is a judgement of your idea’s goodness, but it certainly is a good indication of it’s practicality.
I don’t recognize that my behaviour needs improvement. I have not resorted to personal insult on this threat, while you have.
Without having to delve into legalelse, that simple search would show that legal challenges to federal withholding of funds are fairly widespread and commonplace. Your plan would face similar challenges, and you have no constitutional argument to defend it. Since the casting of electoral votes has always been a matter for the several states to decide, on what basis do you think trying to force them to cast EC votes a certain way would go unnoticed and unchallenged?
Well, as I recall, you need a two-thirds majority in three-fourths of the state legislatures so, yes, a minority (one-third plus one for each state, one-fourth plus one for all states) can block amendments. If you want to propose a plan which bypasses this, go ahead.
I’m surprised I have to clarify this. True state equality only exists in one place: the U.S. Senate. The EC system gives each state votes based (roughly) on the size of its population, plus two. The small states, therefore, have a slight advantage. The reason I think this is desirable is that it discourages presidents from pandering to large states while dismissing small ones as irrelevant.
Well, when it is questioned by two-thirds of three-fourths of the state legislatures, you may have something. Until then, you have nothing.
Okay, I’ll say it flat out: your plan is arguably unconstitutional. I refer you to Article II, section 1, clauses 2 and 3 of the U.S. consitution, which describe how the states may choose their electors, and the procedures by which the electors vote. How they vote is clearly under control of the individual elector. You’re proposing a classic “wag the dog” scenario in which the federal government puts pressure on the states in order to get them to form a particular federal government. Imposing outside pressure (from any source) on state electors is a fairly gross violation of that state’s rights, not to mention the electors’ rights to freely vote.
If you can get an amendment altering these clauses, whereby elector votes are automatically granted to the popular vote winner (and at that point, would it be even correct to call them “elector votes” instead of “coerced rubber-stamps”?), go for it.
Doesn’t this kind of coercion lead to slipperly slopes in which individual voters can be forced to “comply” or face penalties, like the withholding of tax refunds or social security payments? In the face of such coercion, wouldn’t the states be inclined right then and there to abolish the presidency altogether, or least seriously alter theelction process? If anything, I can see them passing an amendment that says “The Federal government exists at the sufferance of the several states, not the other way around, and the selection process of the President will be placed firmly in the hands of the several states.”
Well, until someone comes up with a plan (or amendment) that cancels yours. You might be upset but, hey, life goes on.
Well, fortunately, your plan has not been put to a practical test, nor do I see any such test happening anytime soon. You only have theory it will work, and I have theory that it won’t. Since you’re the one advocating a change, the evidentiary burden is on you, and I’ve gone through your various links and arguments and remain unconvinced.
And though majority opinion has no weight in an argument of fact, I daresay you haven’t convinced anyone on these boards, so it not simply a matter of my stubborness or, as you said earlier, my lack of balls, a spine, or moral courage.
Because the states exist as semi-autonomous entities within the U.S., and becuase many Americans feel an emotional affinity for their home state comparable (or possibly greater) then their affinity than the nation as a whole, and since it’s worked more-or-less for 200+ years (putting aside 1861-1865), what’s the impetus to change it now?
Well, I could cut-and-paste a section from a census table showing that about half the U.S. population is concentrated in nine of the states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and any one of the following: New Jersey, Georgia, and North Carolina). Each of these, I trust it is obvious, have most of their population concentrated in major cities (hence “densely populated urbanized states”, or if you prefer a simplified term: “states with big cities”), and thus you could acheive a majority vote with these states, regardless of the results in all the others combined. Sure, it’s unlikely that all the voters in these states will support a single candidate, but there is no law against it, just as there is no law against the top eleven electoral-vote states supporting a single candidate, making other EC votes moot.
In the 2000 election, just to be specific, the popular-vote winner of the above listed states:
California: Gore
Texas: Bush
New York: Gore
Florida: (debatable, though Bush got the electoral votes)
Illinois: Gore
Pennsylvania: Gore
Ohio: Bush
Michigan: Gore
New Jersey: Gore
Georgia: Bush
North Carolina: Bush
I find it clear that Gore won more of the high-population states, but fewer states overall.
What antics would those be? All those times I insulted you personally? Oh, wait, that wasn’t me, that was you.
Since you offer cites when asked, I’ll ask you to cite any time in this thread when my “actics” were inappropriate. I will not accept any further nitpicking on what “urbanized” means as an antic.
Why are you scarequoting the word “plan”? Do you doubt that my plan is a plan?
I am a bit disappointed in the lack of positive feedback my plan has garnered here. Part of it I think can be attributed to the board itself. “Me tooing” isn’t encouraged and we are a skeptical lot. Were we more representative of the general populace of the US I would be more discouraged. I think another part of it is where we are at as a nation right now. I don’t believe my plan can be implemented right now. When the next wave of reform sweeps through, that will be the time to move ahead.
You go ahead and dig up a legal argument against my plan and I will defend it or, if necessary, admit I was mistaken. Until then this is just supposition.
** First off, there is no force. States do decide how to assign their electors. My plan would just offer them incentives ( millions of 'em ) to assign them based upon the nationwide popular vote. And I do expect to be challenged. I just don’t expect that the challengers will have a leg to stand on.
Your memory is faulty. Constitutional amendments, once proposed by a 2/3 majority in both Houses of Congress or by a convention called by 2/3 of the states, must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. That ratification, depending upon how Congress submits it to the states can be by the state legislatures or by conventions within each state. There is no requirement for a 2/3 majority in a state legislature.
And I have proposed a plan to reform that process but we seem to have enough trouble with the matter at hand.
If the states aren’t equal in the EC then why are you bringing up state equality in a discussion of the EC?
With a PV states, big or small, have no vote at all so a candidate would have no interest in pandering to any. A candidate would have an interest in appealing to all Americans. By contrast, under the EC the only votes that can help a candidate are those that put him ( and hopefully someday “her” ) into the lead in a state. In the next election the Dem nominee won’t bother appealing to Texans, for instance, because Texas will vote for George Bush. Similarly Bush doesn’t need to appeal to New Jerseyites because Jersey will go Dem. This argument is a loser for EC afficianados. Districing, of any type, creates key states or districts. Sure the EC encourages candidates to appeal to some Americans; those that live in the key districts. A popular vote instead encourages them to appeal to ALL Americans.
I have read the Constitution. Note that the third clause of that section has been superceded by the 12th Amendment. As it happens, it is a matter of some dispute just how independent the electors really are. Over half of the states have “faithless elector laws” on the books binding electors to vote for the ticket determined by the election in that state. The constitutionality of those laws is doubted by many though, including myself.
Faithless electors aren’t usually a problem though because independent minded people aren’t nominated. Slates of electors are chosen for their loyalty. I propose no change in the manner that electors discharge their duty. The only difference would be in who gets chosen. My plan is to choose electors pledged to the candidate with the most votes nationwide instead of the most votes in that particular state. Since my plan puts no pressure on the electors it can’t violate the Constitution in that manner. What else you got?
No. The plan does not place any requirements upon individuals. Only states.
** I don’t know how the states would react but the plan won’t pass without a majority of Congress. With that much support a contrary amendment is unlikely. Amendment would be their only option because states can’t nullify federal laws. That issue was settled before the American Civil War, back during the Jackson Administration.
It isn’t obvious to me that each of those states has its population concentrated in big cities. I grew up in Michigan and live in Penna and between them they have three major cities. Even counting the surrounding metropolitan areas of Detroit, Philly, and the 'Burgh I bet that’s somewhere around half of the population of those states. There are plenty of rural folks in these states. I used to be one. But whatever, I won’t quibble about the definition so long as we keep the original argument in mind: you are arguing that under a PV a candidate can concentrate on certain areas and ignore everyone else.
So your argument is that a candidate can ignore everyone else because it is possible they will get every single one of the votes in these nine states? You are seriously putting that forward? Because I tell ya, I gotta think the campaign manager that tried to float that idea would be out of a job. It’s ridiculous. No one gets all the votes in a contested election. What is the single highest percentage of the votes a candidate has ever gotten in one of these states? 65%? 70%? Sheesh!
It’s very common for posters to say “what so-and-so said”, or “I agree”. I see no evidence of a bias against me-tooing. Happens all the time, coming from all types of posters.
Posters on this board are, I believe, more open to new ideas than the general public. Do you think they are not?
Somewhere in here is an evasion of some kind, suggesting the lack of support for the plan is not a sign of the plan’s weakness, but rather a sign of the board’s weakness. Trouble is, the rhetoric (i.e. “where we are as a nation right now”) defies easy parsing.
By the way, I am definitely not representative of the general populace of the U.S., so I guess any discouragement you’re feeling is not my fault.
Anyway, if the OP’s original question (if anyone still remembers it) comes to pass and the 2004 election is as contentious as 2000, I’ll expect to see a “highway funds for EC votes” plan underway in early 2005, along with numerous other EC-reform proposals. I can hardly wait.
Constitution, Article II, section 1, clauses 2 and 3, for starters. Clause 2 says each state selects their electors, and clause 3 describe the voting procedure. Until you amend this to say “the electors will vote that way the federal government insists”, you don’t have constitutional backing.
I realize I should have pointed this out much much earlier, but since I never believed your plan had a chance of being implemented, it seemed moot.
An incentive would be “we’ll give you more highway funding if you play ball”, while a punishment is “we’ll cut your highway funding unless you play ball.” If you’re going to try to change it now, at least don’t insult our intelligence by claiming the two are equivalent.
Well, there’s always Constitution II-1-2 and -3. I’d recommend the challengers start there and move onto the 10th amendment.
Granted. So you need one-half plus one support in three-fourths of the state legislatures (or an extremely unlikely constitutional convention). So the implementation of your plan has moved from the astronomically improbable down to merely ludicrously improbable. Congratulations.
The reason I brought it up is that I consider states a better selector method than individuals in this particular case. The higher-population states have more electoral votes, but the smaller states have a slight advantage in power. That doesn’t seem unfair in the least to me when selecting a president, for reasons I’ve already explained and will mention again shortly.
Ah, but given the financial and time restraints on a campaign, it’s in the candidate’s interest (in a PV system) to restrict his visits to dense concentrations of people, i.e. cities. The slight electoral edge given to small states means it is in the candidate’s interest to travel, if only briefly, to those small states and adapt their concerns into his platform.
You don’t have to be an “afficianado” to favour the EC, and in every election, some states are “given” as favouring particular candidates, especially the home states of those candidates.
Now, it was downright amusing to see Gore lose Tennessee (his home state) and Arkansas (Bill Clinton’s home state) in 2000, but to me that just shows that he didn’t have much appeal in the South (in fact, he didn’t win any southeastern states at all). Had the popular vote been the system in place, Gore might have won, but it’s clear that a large segment of the America was at best lukewarm about him.
Does it? I’d have thought districting declared each district independent, with equal voices. Under a districting plan, the candidates are encourged to promote compromise positions in contentious districts, to win over undecided voters. They can get into micro-issues much more so than trying to sell themselves to an entire state. In any case, campaign strategies will adapt and evolve, as they always have. Further discussion of what some future candidate might say in some places seems pointless.
Well, if it was possible to appeal to ALL Americans, you wouldn’t have a two-party system. You’d have one party that appealed to ALL Americans and no incentive to even change it.
Since pleasing all of the people all of the time is impossible, though, candidates have to try to appeal to most of the people most of the time (or at least every fourth November). If you know of a magic formula making it possible for a candidate to appeal to ALL Americans, I’m sure the major political parties will pay you big money for it.
Unless your copy is different than mine, I disagree. The 12th spells out procedures for deciding what happens if no-one gets an EC majority. The federal government only steps in after the states have had a chance to settle the issue, without interference. The first sentence of the 12th, though, starts:
They vote. They don’t face coercion to rubber-stamp a candidate as directed by the Federal government under threat of having their state financially hurt.
A few anomalies have popped up in the last 100 years, but for the most part, electors vote in line with the popular vote within their state. It seems a satisfactory enough system in that despite numerous challenges, no radical nationwide reforms have been ratified (because not enough people wanted them badly enough). Indidividual states have altered their rules, though, notably Maine and Nebraska. Numerous other states have reforms under consderation (most of them involving districting or, more rarely, proportionality). In any case, the constitution gives control of the electors to their home states. Within those states, the issues are argued, but can you cite a Federal challenge to how a state chooses and manages its electors?
This is interesting, I’ll admit, but I think it it incredibly unlikely that any state will appoint an elector who has not pledged to follow the wishes of that state. I find it to be so unlikely, in fact, that the only way to get a state to comply will be to force it to do so, and that application of force will require a specific amendment (which I finds similarly unlikely).
Well, once you can convince states to act against their own interests by compelling them to appoint electors who are not loyal to their own states, it seems only a slippery-slope ride to me to start “managing” (in the name of the greater good) Senate, Congressional, Gubernatorial and eventually local elections.
A “majority of Congress” doesn’t constitute “that much support” for an issue of this importance, and I daresay any such attempt by the feds to interfere with state electors would be met with the fastest-passed amendment in the history of the Union, affirming in no uncertain terms that electors appointed by a state will answer only to that state and no outside agency whatsoever. Personally, I think this is already pretty clearly defined within Article II (and supported by the 10th amendment - unless the constitution specifically grants control of the EC to the Federal government, it remains reserved to the states), but I guess it wouldn’t hurt for the states to declare that this particular issue is permanently theirs.
Hey, if you’re free to claim the top eleven EC states can control an EC election, I’m free to claim the top nine PV states can control a PV election. My ridiculousness is only a proportional response to your ridiculousness.
And I see you didn’t offer any cites of my “antics”. Colour me shocked.
It seems to me that “me-tooing” is discouraged. I don’t have any evidence, no. I could be wrong. If you care to investigate it a poll in IMHO would prolly work. The might be a good place to seek opinions of my plan as well. I leave you to it.
This is in response to my request if you could produce any of the legal arguments you claimed were easily found via Google. The legal arguments in question supposedly were against denying federal funds to states. This argument has already been dealt with above. I won’t be dealing with it again below however since my reply would just be repeating what I already said. I am bored with playing ring around the rosy with you. If you happen to say something new I will respond. When you insist on repeating arguments that have already been addressed I may just ignore you. So ( strictly for example ) I won’t point out yet again that my plan doesn’t require a constitutional amendment or that I have never claimed that regional dominance was likely under the EC only that it was more likely than under a PV. I’m hoping this will make things much simpler. This way I hope to avoid repeating myself quite so much.
This is semantic quibbling and not even over the word in dispute. What I am objecting to is that the states are forced to comply. They are not. They are given a choice.
Care to elaborate on your belief that any of these parts of the Constitution would invalidate my plan?
A candidate doesn’t have to travel to a place to appeal to someone. Simply by adopting positions that someone agrees with would make them more appealing. To put it another way, where the candidate stands on the issues is more important than where they physically stand when they talk about the issues. Through the wonders of modern technology people still learn about stuff that happens in other places. The main reason politicians travel around is because local media feel obligated to cover local events so a speech that would garner no publicity if it were given elsewhere gains them publicity in that locale.
Also lets note that the EC does NOT encourage a candidate to expend energy appealing to “small” states, unless they are contested. Bush and Gore didn’t waste time in Wyoming or Utah in 2000, for instance, because those states were already going to give their electoral votes to Bush. It is the lucky people in the battleground states that garner the attention.
This causes the EC to further prejudice our elections. The hometown candidate has an edge. Since votes only count when they are in the majority or plurality within a state this means that some candidates such as Clark and Edwards and advantage over others like Lieberman, Kerry, and Dean simply because they live in states which are likely to go Republican.
You are being confused by the Electoral College. Gore had plenty of appeal in the South. He got millions of votes in those states. Just not more than Bush in any one of them so he didn’t get any electoral votes. We don’t know how many votes he might have gotten if the election weren’t decided before the polls even opened in some of those states.
In theory perhaps. In the real world districts usually lean one way or the other. A district is more important the more balanced it is. Once it is tilted one way or the other it can be ignored because it has already been conceded to one side or the other.
** I agree, unsurprisingly since this is exactly the point of the quote you responded to. The problem remains that SOME people are being appealed to because they live in key districts while the rest of us are not.
You are misunderstanding the use of “appeal” here. As Merriam-Webster puts it ( among other things ) it means not just “to arouse a sympathetic response” but also “to make an earnest request” As an example: I have appealed to you to stop repeating discredited arguments but you didn’t find that appeal appealing.
** Note that the clause under contention starts out exactly the same way as the 12th Amendment. The 12th is a replacement for the other clause. And yes, it does seem we are using different copies. I suggest you find an annotated copy such as this. Then you would get all kinds of helpful info such as Note 8: “This Clause has been superseded by amendment XII.”
You got the “slippery-slope” part right. This is a slippery slope fallacy.
I don’t think Congresscritters would vote for such highly visible legislation as this without support in their district. And most Americans favor the abolition of the EC.
Now it is my turn to point out how difficult it is to amend the Constitution. Why should the majority allow an amendment that biases the system in favor of the minority?
I’m trying not to color you. I’m trying to concentrate on your arguments. But I will cite, if asked. Please quote the remarks you wish cited. And please quote them in context, the entire paragraph will do.
Well, in that case, I can sort-of declare victory for the status quo, since I’ve managed to blunt your arguments and reduce this to a simple repetition of the points.
You’re just backing off from your earlier statement, when it was challenged by Milum and myself:
In this case, the “federal authority” is a complete fiction. Your plan has no chance of being accepted by the states because you are expecting the state governments to act against their own interests. If it ever came to pass, it would have to imposed on them by the federal government, and if that happened and an attempt was made to put the states “in their place” by force… well, it should make for an amusing fireworks show, from a safe distance.
Electors are selected by their home states. The home states, naturally, want electors that will reflect that state’s wishes. The home states, naturally, will not appoint electors who won’t reflect that state’s wishes. Putting external pressure on a state to affect how an elector votes comprises interference in that state’s authority. The state government will be upset, to say the least, because if their electors aren’t under their control, what’s the point in having the constitutional right to select them?
What encouragement there is, is certainly higher under the EC than under a PV.
Confused? Hardly. The EC worked as it should, and since Gore couldn’t carry a majority in any of those states, he got no electoral votes from that entire region. Had he campaigned a little harder in the South, he might have carried some or most of these states: Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia (all decided by margins of 10% or less, and not counting Florida as a special case). Those states comprise 55 electoral votes, and were worth pursuing, but c’est la vie.
I don’t even know what this means. Are you implying conspiracies in these states to rig the election? Got any evidence?
This is truly comical coming from you, since your plan to bypass the EC is a theory that has no chance whatsoever of gaining approval in the real world. There are numerous constitutional initiatives to alter or abolish the EC, none of which require coercion. Maybe you should hitch your wagon to one of them.
Well, surely being a voter in a district makes you at least (if not more) significant than living in a state. Heck, you can write to a candidate and say “My grassroots friends and I are organizing support for your campaign in our district. We know that our state overall has mostly gone for the other party historically, but this particular area has voted with your party frequently (figures attached) and if you were to come here and address some of our specific problems (list attached), you could win over many of our undecided voters and get our district’s electoral vote.”
Such a letter, supported by voting statistics, could make your district interesting to a candidate who otherwise would have written off your entire state.
No, you are misinterpreting all the times I said that rhetoric doesn’t prove your argument. If you’re going to use a homily like “appeal to ALL Americans”, you can expect it to be challenged as irrelevant. No candidate in history has ever appealed to ALL Americans (even George Washington, who got all the electoral votes in his elections, must have had critics here and there), and no candidate ever will. It’s certainly possible to appeal to MOST Americans, though even appeal doesn’t automatically translate into votes.
Well, that should only reinforce the idea that electors are controlled by their home states, an no-one else.
Petty nitpicking. The Amendment replaces clause 3, but only changes the sections that detail how the federal government should handle cases after no clear winner of the electoral votes is found. The changes have no effect whatsoever on the electors’ abilities to vote as their states direct. No passage was added saying the federal government could punish states whose electors didn’t vote a certain way (crucial to your plan). In any event, clause 2 remains completely unchanged, and the states can still appoint electors as they choose.
I’m now waiting for the moment when you declare that I am taking this subject “too seriously”. After all, a person who can use a cutesy phrase like “congresscritters” is clearly more relaxed than one who doesn’t.
So? Let them get an amendment if they’re so eager about it.
Funny, I thought protection for minority opinion, even individual opinion, were kind of what the constitution was all about. As to this specific case, had the smaller states not been given an edge, many would simply have not joined or stayed in the Union at all. You can’t really ask someone to play at a disadvantage, because eventually they’ll just quit the game and go home.
Anyway, it’s good that your constitution is hard to amend. If you want an example of an amendment that was passed without regard for the consequences, look at the 18th, which had to be cancelled (in less than 15 years, mind you, so it’s not like a new generation with different values had arisen) by the 21st. Had it been possible to pass amendments quickly, all kinds of crazy ideas might have been implemented after Election 2000.
Now, if you want to start from the position that states no longer matter, and gradually eliminate that level of government between the feds and the citizens, popular-vote elections would be a good way to start. But so long as many citizens happen to like their home states, expect fierce resistance.
That’s not exactly what I meant by “color” (well, “colour”, actually), but I’ll just mention some of the things you’ve said in this thread:
[ul][li]That I was wallowing in ignorance (I’m not).[/li][li]That your plan angered me (it doesn’t).[/li][li]That I was a coward (I’m not).[/li][li]That I was using “antics” (okay, sometimes I did, but more often I didn’t).[/li][li]That your behaviour was on a higher level than mine (it isn’t).[/ul][/li]
This is a classic pattern of using ad hominem attacks in order to provoke an attack in response. If I started insulting you personally, would you consider that a victory, or something?
Consider yourself asked to provide cites for any of the above assertions (except the antics one, which I’ll concede on the basis of my Jefferson/Hemmings reference, though it was really more sarcastic than antic).
Well, it’s been well over 24 hours since anyone posted, but before this thread dies, I’d like to summarize it, if I may, especially since I put more effort into it than I normally do:
Under the terms of Article II, Section 1, clauses 2 and 3 (the latter having been replaced by the 12th amendment, though not in a manner significant to this thread), the states choose “electors” to participate in an electoral vote, deciding who will be president. The states get as many electors as they have congressional districts, plus two for their senators. This two-vote extra is the same for all states, and thus gives small states a slightly disproportional advantage.
With two exceptions, the electors from a particular state all pledge to cast their votes for whichever candidate wins the majority in that state. The electors face penalties if they vote otherwise. The two exceptions, Maine and Nebraska, allow an elector representing a particular congressional district to vote with that district’s majority, rather than the state majority. Since inception of their districting plans (Maine in 1972, Nebraska in 1996), neither state has ever split its electoral votes.
The plan proposed by 2sense, as far as I can tell, is for state officials to pledge electors not to vote in accordance with the state majority, but with the national majority. In effect, this would decide the presidency by a national vote. Though this plan is technically legal, I suppose, it remains unclear to me why any state official would go along with it. Part of 2sense’s plan, however, is that the federal government could force the states to comply, though how they justify this legally also remains unclear, since interfering with a state’s vote (or punishing them for voting a particular way) must be analogous to interfering with or punishing an individual’s vote.
There are numerous initiatives in the individual states to change how their electors vote. Most of these proposals opt for a districting plan, while some suggest proportionality - if a candidate gets 40% of the votes in a state, he gets 40% of the electoral votes. There are a few national initiatives to amend the constitution to abolish the electoral college altogether. They may yet succeed, but I personally doubt the incentive is strong enough to get the necessary 34-state support.
If Election 2004 has similar problems as 2000, and (for example) Bush stays in office by winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote, I expect more intiatives at the state and federal level will be created. How many will pass, if any, I cannot say.
For the most part, the situation simply isn’t unpleasant enough to force a change, and though there may be survey results claiming that most Americans dislike the electoral system, not enough of these Americans are making their dislike clear to their state officials. Until they do, I predict the electoral college will remain firmly in place.
It’s a free country; you are free to believe whatever you wish.
No, I’m not. You are conflating 2 seperate statements. I have stated that the states must acknowledge federal authority, if necessary by force. I have not stated that the states will be forced to assign their electors based on the nationwide vote because they will have a choice. My plan is to give them reasons to make the right choice since they can’t be forced to do the right thing as things stand now.
You have provided no reason to believe that states would rebel against my proposed federal law which is, I note, in the interests of many if not most of any state’s residents.
** A state is made up of people. People who will have differing opinions of the EC and my plan to shortcircuit it.
That is their choice.
On the contrary, that’s how diplomacy works. You give the other guy reasons to go along. Force is when you no longer respect his independence and you just take what you want. The states have no authority over federal expenditures.
You have convinced me! We should get rid of the electors.
Only in special circumstances. How about you actually deal with my argument that the EC is prejudiced in favor of contested states rather than simply in favor of “small” states?
The rest of your reply doesn’t address your confusion. You claimed that Gore didn’t have much appeal in the South becuase he got no electoral votes. I proved you wrong by pointing out that Gore received millions of individual votes in those states.
It means that Gore didn’t waste time in some southern states for the same reason Bush didn’t. These states weren’t “in play”. Candidates concentrate on battleground states, as I have said over and over.
I will explain one final time. An appeal such as this would only appeal to a candidate if there is a chance to turn the district. ( Notice the differing meanings of the word “appeal” in the sentence. The word doesn’t always mean the same thing. ) If a district is in play it will merit attention. If it is not a key district it is insignificant.
Non sequiter. And highly ironic. This doesn’t address the question of why the majority would agree when asked by the minority to play at a disadvantage.
Why did it take 15 years to repeal the folly of Prohibition? Because the Constitution is hard to amend. It works ( or doesn’t ) both ways.
I was criticizing your behavior hoping it would improve. My goal was for you to take responsibility for your words and start to argue honestly. I’ve discontinued because I have given up hope that you will.
To reiterate, I will back up any assertion on my part. I will explain whatever comment you wish if you simply quote the paragraph that contains the statement. I want to see it in context becaus in many cases, if not most, I suspect that the paragraph itself will provide all the explanation necessary. I suspect that’s the reason you have failed to quote me.
Well, there’s nothing new, there, so I’ll just address a few of the sillier points:
Well, except in the sense that the paying of taxes by citizens of those states made federal expenditures possible in the first place. Having the federal government declare “your electors didn’t vote the way we want, so your highway transfers are reduced by $50 million” invites a state response of “your interference in how our electors vote is not the way we want a federal government to behave, so our citizen’s federal taxes are hereby reduced by $50 million. If our states don’t get honest representation, we’re not submitting to taxation, either.”
Your plan could only be implemented with the voluntary consent of the states, and I still don’t see any reason why they should give it. Any attempt to impose it on them invites major dissent and constitutional challenge.
Sure, but for every vote Gore got in a southern state, Bush got at least 1.1. If he couldn’t swing a state’s majority, he loses that state. Since no national popular vote was in place, them’s the breaks.
And that was a major mistake by the Gore campaign. I cited a list of southern states where the margin was 10% or less. If they don’t qualify as “battleground” states, who does? Heck, even a strong campaign to increase voter turnout in some Democrat-leaning neighborhoods in those states could have given Gore an EC victory. He blew it.
I don’t believe you. I think your goal was to try to anger me, but that failed. Or possibly you just got angry yourself and lashed out. In any case, there were moments in this thread when your logic escaped you.
Well, just to increase your overall wrong-ness, here goes:
I argue the points that are worthwhile. Does this mean I lack balls? Ever argue with a female poster, by the way?
I don’t happen to think moral courage, or any kind of courage, is required to make a reasoned assessment of the value of the electoral college. What’s the difference between moral courage and the other kind, anyway? If you’re not accusing me of cowardice, are you accusing me of immorality?
Campaigning in the densely-populated areas of the nation would end up being the major strategy of a popular vote election, sinply because it is easier (and more rewarding, come vote time) to address the needs of a bunch of city and suburban dwellers than get into the problems of people in the less-populated agricultural states.
Anyway, your statement indicated I lack a spine. Is that an accusation of cowardice, or merely a suggestion that I should improve my posture?
In any event, it becomes clear to me that when your juices really get flowing on this topic, you’ll rather casually throw out accusations when you meet resistance. If you ever present this plan to your congressman (I strongly suggest you make it more presentable, since as far as I can tell, you haven’t been able to convince anyone here of its merit), please be careful not to refer to your potential opponents as no-balls, spineless cowards. If you do, you may find yourself rather hastity escorted from the building.
