I’m just going to assume you didn’t mean any ill will here and just had a selective reading of my post.
Yeah, remind me of what the name of the country is, again? I don’t know man, it’s just an acronym. Who cares, right?
Which Constitutional amendment was it that told the states specifically how to assign their EC Electors? Hold on, I’ll wait.
You might want to try looking up the Reapportionment Act of 1929, and verifying whether or not this is actually part of the Constitution or not.
I don’t think this argument has a leg to stand on (talking about the actual OP, not the various digressions that have predictably taken over the thread). By that logic, it seems to me that you could equally well argue that any district-based system of first-past-the-post elections is unconstitutional, and that therefore all Congressional delegations, State legislatures, etc, need to be elected by proportional representation.
Why is it that whenever someone wants to talk about “X”, somebody insists on bringing in “not X”? I suppose someone might make that argument, but I don’t feel compelled to do so.
What’s the distinction? If it’s not OK for States to allocate their EVs by the winner take all principle, why is it OK for States to divide themselves into districts which each elect a representative by the winner take all principle?
Imagine a State with 50 legislative districts, 10 of which are 100% Democrat and the other 40 of which are 51% Republican. Republicans will always lose the overall popular vote, but have a 40-10 majority in the legislature. That’s obviously unfair, but is it unconstitutional?
Seems to me that if we follow your logic, we absolutely have to say it is. Do you disagree, and if so, why?
Well, one distinction is that the reps elected from those winner take all districts all actually get to serve. If the folks in NY got to have Hillary as their president whilst the folks in TX got trump, that comparison would have traction.
Did you read the post he was talking about? The one where I was saying how it’s unfair that some states have a higher ratio of electors than others?
If I’m a Californian and I think it isn’t right that Wyoming has three times as many electors per capita as California does, how is my state government going to address that? Is the California legislature going to increase the number of electors California has? Is it going to decrease the number of electors Wyoming has?
How many states have the names of electoral college candidates on the ballot? I would think none of them except possibly the two oddballs that assign them by district. Therefore the vote is honestly presented as “which Presidential candidate should our state support” and the losing side is no more disenfranchised than the losing side of a Senate race.
All the electors who are elected in winner take all states get to serve as members of the Electoral College. I don’t see how that distinction holds. In both cases, we have a party winning the majority of votes, but not a majority of seats in the body being elected. Why is that OK in the context of a State legislature, but not in the context of the EC? Remember, if we’re saying that proportional representation is a “right” granted by the 14th Amendment, then State laws can’t deny that right to their citizens.
No, your State government can’t do anything about that problem on its own. But that isn’t what the thread is about. The OP is arguing for a change in how electors are apportioned within each State, which would make it less likely that the popular vote winner would lose the election, but wouldn’t fundamentally solve the problem that you are complaining about. His proposal could indeed be enacted by a State government acting on its own.
I support the OP’s proposal, but find the idea that it is Constitutionally mandated to be absurd.
As I’ve said - repeatedly - the problem is the amount of electors each state is assigned not the method they’re selected by. And states do not have the power to change the amount of electors they have.
As for your second point, I am aware of how the amendment process works. What happens if the majority of the House, the Senate, and the President enact a proposal for an amendment and it doesn’t get ratified by the states? It doesn’t become an amendment. So I guess “the majority of the House, the Senate, and the President can’t rewrite the Constitution” is true.
The United States of America. Which is one country. Not fifty countries.
I thought the name of the country was SOATAAEESAMETO -States Of America That Are All Equal Except Some Are More Equal Than Others.
At some point folks stopped saying “the United States are” and started saying “the United States is”. It was at that point that some of these old ways of looking at things kind of became moot.
Did you read it? Seriously, go back and look at post #83, WHERE I ADDRESSED THE EXACT ISSUE YOU’RE COMPLAINING ABOUT. Specifically:
Now I know you’ve read it because you quoted it in post #94, where you lectured me about my “limited knowledge about how the American government works”. You seem to still be of the impression that the above somehow requires a constitutional change. I’ve mentioned several times across several subsequent posts, that it does not. The constitution does not specify the current number of seats in the house of representatives, nor does it direct exactly the method they are allotted between the states. All it takes is a regular act of congress to increase the House size and change it to better equalize house representation for California. The Wyoming Rule, for example, would increase California’s seats in the House (and thus electors in the EC) by 13, and still leave Wyoming with only 1.
Yes. And that’s not what the thread is about. You might want to go back and read the OP.
Yamato was making other points besides the one you were making, which was off-topic anyway. Perhaps you misunderstood what he was talking about and what the subject of this thread is.
Sounds like a great topic for another thread. He was talking about how the state electors are apportioned based on the results of the election in each state. Which just so happens to be the topic of this thread. Let me quote the relevant part of the OP for you in case you missed it:
This is about how states allocate electors, not whether electors exist at all.
I’m not even sure what strawman argument you’re trying to make here. Who said anything about fifty countries? Like, when I make an off-hand comment about “all 50 states”, I’m supposed to always follow that up with “…joined together in a union, under a federal republic with dual sovereignty as expressly designed under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution” , or else I automatically get accused of being a foreigner?
It is 700,000 population per electoral vote in CA and 200,000 population per electoral vote in Wyoming.
Not everyone in each state can vote so the number of voters per electoral vote is less. 100 of the 538 electoral votes are not determined by population so population per electoral vote doesn’t tell the whole story and doesn’t mean that voters in Wyoming have more political power. CA has 55 electoral votes and Wyoming has 3. Since almost all states are winner takes all, no candidate is making 10 visits to Wyoming and ignoring California.
That’s another issue altogether (waiting for it). Candidates can safely ignore Wyoming and California because their electoral votes are in the bag and no amount of visits will swing them in either direction.
With a national PV, or a system that has that result, candidates will instead focus their efforts on the cities, not the farmland. Quite properly, since our government is of/by/for the people, not the dirt.
You got that from one of the historians on Ken Burns’ “The Civil War” series, right? Well, it’s true. Except that we *still *have people yammering about states’ rights and republic-not-a-democracy even today.
It’s a lot clearer to you than to me *what *the OP is arguing for, beyond the general notion that our Presidential election system violates the principle of equal protection, which it obviously does.
In the states where I’ve voted, I’ve never seen even the words “The slate of electors pledged to …” before a candidate’s name. Sometimes even the candidates’ first names are omitted. And I’ve never seen the name of even a single elector reported in the news, unless they’ve voted faithlessly.
What’s unclear about:
Nothing about the “general notion” of the election, but specifically how the states allocate electors. The “general notion” of the our Presidential election includes the EC, which the OP clearly states:
So, no, he’s not arguing about a “general notion”, but specifically about the way states allocate electors.
Understanding the OP is not rocket science.