Posted on 02/05/2018 9:04:48 AM PST by SunkenCiv
Article II of the Constitution gives states broad authority to decide how their electoral votes are selected and divided among the candidates. In 48 states, the candidate who gets the most votes wins all of the state’s electoral votes. But the Constitution doesn’t require that rule. Maine and Nebraska have implemented district- by-district voting. One electoral vote goes to the winner in each congressional district, and the remaining two electoral votes are awarded to the winner of the statewide popular vote.
Assume, however, that a state enacts a law giving all its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. And assume further that the law says it will not be effective unless enough other states pass the same law to yield a total of at least 270 electoral votes. That would be perfectly valid under Article II. It would force a majority of electoral votes to be cast for the national popular vote winner -- without amending the Constitution.
But is it a good idea? The Framers meticulously crafted an electoral model that reduced sectionalism and reinforced minority rights. Instead, popular voting would favor regions with high voter density and large states over small. "One man, one vote" may be the rallying cry of a democracy; but that is not our form of governance. We are a constitutional republic; political outcomes are not always determined by majority rule. For example, it takes two-thirds of Congress to override presidential vetoes, approve treaties, impeach a president, or expel a member of Congress. Imagine if NPVIC had been operative in 2004: George W. Bush would have received all of California’s electoral votes even though John Kerry trounced Bush statewide by 10 percentage points.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
“Sure. Each State should only get 2 electoral votes, same as the number of Senators.”
Yes, and while we are at it, repeal the 17th Amendment. The Sovereign States, as they were meant to be, with Senators elected by the state government and representing ONLY their State, and members of the House representing ONLY the constituents of their State District.
Good grief! It’s so simple.
Absolutely. The current method violates the very nature of what a Senator is supposed to be.
No!
Changes to how states conduct voting is not the business of the Federal Government except by amending the Constitution.
IMHO the Constitution contemplates that there would be a difference. With the hope that the states would select wise Electors.
Yes. Leftists only count as 3/5ths of a person.
By going with the national vote, they would be, in effect, using out of state voters to decide their own election.
So even though the “legislature can decide”, that doesn’t mean they can simply say some like, “We’ll do whatever Hawaii does”.
Sure, eradicate the urban hot-spots.
I know who cares what a foreigner thinks, but from my perspective as a Canadian is that it is a great system. Its only fault is that prior to the Gore-Bush debacle, we didn’t know anything about it. We just thought the US vote was a popular vote. The uninformed here are trying to do away with our system of electoral ridings, which our ancestors saw fit to give us. And replace with some popular vote monstrosity. The purpose of the system Britain gave us is responsible government, and that is what the system encourages.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.