Posted on 11/29/2016 7:57:42 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Repeal the 17th, and ratify Article the First!
Wanna scrap the Electoral College? You’ll have to replace it with something else and only a moron would want it to be the popular vote because it would make a national recount a nightmare and open the vote up to one fraudster pumping 4 million extra (illegal) votes in one spot like California to overturn an election.
The only other FAIR system: One county/parish, one vote.
I’ll second that. Keep the system the way it is, or switch to a county-level system.
Of course, if the city of Philadelphia divides itself up into 200 counties, we might suspect them of gaming the system. But at least it would be obvious to all.
That’s a terrible idea. County sizes (both population and geographical) are functionally random, and a state could give themselves more votes by making more counties. Just look at this map to see how gamed the system would be from the start: http://www.freeusandworldmaps.com/html/US_Counties/US_Counties.html (especially compare AZ to NH or AR) and then picture what happens if states get rewarded for their county count. If you want to go apportionment go with the NH system of following the congressional map.
1 congressional district = 1 electoral vote.
Not perfect, but balanced by population.
Concentrated fraud won’t throw an entire state.
No, the county/parish system wouldn’t be that fair. Some states, like Texas, Georgia, and Missouri have lots of little counties while others have a few very large counties. The system to make the Electoral College a bit more “fair” would be to allocate an Electoral College vote for each Congressional District won, and each state’s other two EV for the winner of the state. I haven’t seen an analysis of this year’s election figured on that basis, but most elections it doesn’t change the outcome all that much. But it would encourage candidates to campaign in states like California, New York and Texas—states that aren’t currently swing states.
That’s the thing with the EC, there really isn’t anything that is better. The Founders knew that since we are living in an imperfect world, we must choose the mechanism that while imperfect, allows the least amount of harm.
I think the 24th amendment would make the original elector system debatable. It can be interpreted as granting a right to individual citizens to vote in an election for President. Granted, it says it can’t be abridged by a poll tax, but that doesn’t change that it calls the vote itself a right.
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is the way I would go too.
1 district= 1 EC vote
Can be modified for overall statewide winner = 2 EV(for senetors)
Rest of state goes by district
MUCH MORE FAIR SYSTEM—
My preference would be to have this implemented in conjunction with a very important change in the allocation of House seats: House representation should be based on the population of U.S. citizens, not on the overall population of a state. I believe California would lose 4-5 House seats if districts were organized this way. It makes no sense to have House districts where an enormous part of the population isn't even legally entitled to vote.
> 1 congressional district = 1 electoral vote.
>
> Not perfect, but balanced by population.
It already is balanced by population. And no gerrymandering either.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”
“and open the vote up to one fraudster pumping 4 million extra (illegal) votes in one spot like California to overturn an election.”
Agreed. And if you want an example, California is still pumping out votes even though it’s 3 weeks after the election to pad Hillary’s popular vote total. As a safeguard, the EC caps California’s Electoral votes at 55.
That’s a very broad interpretation of the 24th Amendment. It addresses barriers to enfranchisement of black Americans, as you noted via poll taxes, but never addresses the macro structure of voting in order to select electors who will in turn vote for a candidate.
I agree, and it is up to the states how these electors will vote.
My point was that if they vote as a group (winner take all) then it allows concentrated fraud to throw an entire state.
But it is up to each state how they deal with their electors.
I see what you’re saying. I’m not sure that congressional districts are the answer though. There are issues of gerrymandering and judicial interference.
I never trust a liberal judge to decide anything according to common sense.
Absolutely. The Progressives have been destroying our Constitution (which is unconstitutional) for over 100 years. We have to restore the Constitution to its original intent and purpose.
We could wind up with electors awarded based upon demographics.
If every LEGASLATIVE District would have an Electoral Vote assigned to it how would that work?. The win state take all approach is the only reason Democrats win. Look at an Election map based on Legislative Districts.
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.