The Real Electoral College Reform

American Thinker ^ | November 29, 2016 | Bruce Walker

[Kaslin]

The familiar whining about the popular vote in presidential elections and the implicit anachronism of the Electoral College ought to be turned on its head by constitutional conservatives. The greatest problem of politics and government in our country today is Washington, and the only answer to that problem is the restoration of true federalism, making state governments a vital player in national elections.

The Constitution conferred three special powers on state legislatures to make sure that the federal government was held in check: enacting constitutional amendments, choosing members of the Senate, and choosing the method of selecting presidential electors.

Until 1824, in every state of the union, it was the state legislatures who directly chose all presidential electors, which is the reason electoral histories show no "popular vote" at all until 1824, and even then, some states had voters choose electors, and some state legislatures chose the electors directly. Gradually state legislatures changed the method of choosing electors so that these individuals were directly elected by voters. As with the "reform" of having senators elected directly, the "reform" of having voters choose electors has removed the vital check states had on an overbearing federal government.

[Hieronymus]

Are you talking about the U.S. house districts or something else? The size of statehouses varies widely, sometimes even in the same state—NH is an extreme with something like 400 in the lower house, and around 14 in the state Senate.

[Oatka]

1 congressional district = 1 electoral vote.
Not perfect, but balanced by population.
Concentrated fraud won’t throw an entire state.

My thought as well, as previously expounded here and elsewhere.

Just check out PA with it's 20 ECs and 19 CDs: CD 1 and 14 represent Philly and Pittsburgh - the two that usually send the whole state into the Democratic column. If they are reduced to one each, it doesn't matter how many bogus votes they come up with, they can no longer sway the whole state. Even with gerrymandering, they are still stuck with one vote. Doing it this way gives the conservative rural areas a voice and breaks the back of the cities' power.

Worse yet, look at Nevada (^ EVs), where CD 1 controls the whole state. This is fair? (The meme to push when advocating the change)

[bankwalker]

Like I said, it’s not perfect.

The real problem is concentrated fraud that throws an entire state in a close election. It happened in 2012 where a couple of precincts in Philly had 120% turnout, zero votes for Romney, and all of the PA electors went to Obama. I remember hearing about similar scenarios in Ohio (Cleveland) and North Carolina.

Count the Electoral votes in PA, OH, and NC and compare to Romney’s and Obama’s 2012 totals. That’s how a presidential election can be stolen in just a few key precincts across the country.

[Ray76]

When a state is gerrymandered to favor one party that party will have more sway in the EC. I think inevitably ends in disaster.

[Ray76]

correction: I think that inevitably leads to disaster.

[OrangeHoof]

My proposal is tongue-in-cheek because Republicans would own the presidency in perpetuity the way the map is laid out now but it sounds “fair” to low-info voters.

I’d never expect the Dems to agree to it.

As to one vote per congressional district, the only problem is that the congressional districts themselves are drawn according to the census so all one has to do is rig the census.

[OrangeHoof]

See my reply #26. It’s very lopsided to Republicans for the time being. But it sounds fair. I’d never expect the Dems to agree to it. I’d just want to hear them rationalize opposing it.

[Publius]

I bring this to the attention of the Article V ping list only because the author mentions it as a possible remedy to his perceived problem.

The Constitution already permits the states to uitilize his proposed remedy, and a Convention of the States isn't necessary.

[TBP]

The legislatures could do that now. But they undoubtedly won’t.

However, should the Jill Frankenstien recount hold up any of the three states, the legislature may have to choose a slate of electors to certify.

[Ray76]

A problem with awarding electors by congressional district is that it is brittle. Whatever faction gained an early advantage likely would, through gerrymandering, eventually become the only governing faction... until violently overthrown. The purpose of congressional districts is to apportion the People’s representation in the House of Representatives, not to apportion electors.

[Wneighbor]

This article is the first I’ve seen mentioning using the Article V convention to impeach Trump. Have I missed this as part of the current agenda?

[Wneighbor]

My apologiea, I posted this on the wrong thread.

[Publius]

I caught the author in a number of mistakes and false assumptions. That was one of them.

If you look at the Constitution, impeachment is left solely to Congress. The purpose of a Convention of the States is to formulate amendments to the Constitution of 1787 and nothing more. A convention has nothing to do with impeachment.

A Convention of the States can propose an amendment that would abolish the presidency as we know it, but it can't impeach anybody.

[generally]

Exactly.

Watch how liberals operate. They whine and complain about any rule that doesn’t favor them. UNFAIR!!! Then they change the rule to favor them. Then when they still lose, the new rule (that they pushed for) is unfair and the fault of conservatives.

(Example: SAT tests were designed to move college admissions to a merit-based system instead of a crony/family/legacy based system. They were supposed to level the playing field and give blacks a fair shot at getting into college. When that did not happen, liberals fought against SAT tests and claimed they were biased against blacks and other minorities. But, “oddly”, they didn’t seem to hold back Asians.)

[Wneighbor]

If you look at the Constitution, impeachment is left solely to Congress. The purpose of a Convention of the States is to formulate amendments to the Constitution of 1787 and nothing more. A convention has nothing to do with impeachment.

Thank you for clarifying this. Sorry for my thread mix up.

As to *this* thread, I've heard complaints from election losers in every close election year. While I would like to be rid of the ability of large metropolitan areas to choose my president, I think our Founding Fathers did create an ingenious and far-thinking institution in our Electoral College. The idea of 1 vote per house district and 1 for each Senator was the basis for the EC. The solution of switching to 1 vote per Congressional district and 2 per statewide winner representing the Senate sounds good in this day and age EXCEPT FOR the nightmare of gerrymandering the rats would inflict.

[generally]

Good point.

You absolutely know that liberals would then create TONS of counties in high density liberal areas in order to get more votes.

[LeonardFMason]

“Are you talking about the U.S. house districts or something else?”

Congressional Districts.

[CGVet58]

one electoral vote by congressional district - LOVE this idea!

Really, you know all those references that say America is a slightly right of center Nation? Your suggestion would show this to be true.

the JG

[Oatka]

When a state is gerrymandered to favor one party that party will have more sway in the EC. I think inevitably ends in disaster.

Perhaps, but no matter how they gerrymander that district, it only delivers one EC vote and not the whole works.

[Oatka]

It’s very lopsided to Republicans for the time being.

IMO, it's lopsided for the Democrats, with their control over the Metro areas.

It would take a lot of time, which I now don't have, but it would be interesting to calculate the Electoral votes on that Congressional District basis and see what, if any, changes would occur.

It just bugs the Hell out of me to see the Metro areas always call the shots for the entire state. The people in the rural areas might not as well vote.