Posted on 10/19/2017 9:57:17 AM PDT by blueyon
A liberal-led push to overhaul the Electoral College could be moving from the op-ed pages to the courtroom, as a Harvard professor who flirted with a dark-horse Democratic presidential bid last year vows litigation to change the system.
Criticism of the Electoral College was resurgent in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss. Clinton recently said she wants the system "eliminated." The latest effort isn’t aimed at dismantling the structure entirely – but rather, the winner-take-all system used by 48 states in awarding electors, which ends up focusing presidential races on a handful of battlegrounds.
“With a winner-take-all, most of America is ignored,” professor Lawrence Lessig said in previewing his legal case – which, like any challenge to the Electoral College, faces a steep uphill climb.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
They need to read the Constitution.
Heads we win.
Tails you lose.
That’s how Leftists want the “law”.
I thought they were going to impeach Trump. Pence would take over & appoint Crooked Hillary VP, then Pence would resign & Crooked Hillary would be queen. Isn’t that the plan?
“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; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1
Seems pretty damned clear to me. Each state legislature is free to appoint their states’s electors in whatever manner they choose.
I know I saw results from the 2000 election that said that counting EC votes by congressional district + 2 for the winner of the state’s total vote still had Bush winning. Has anyone done something similar for 2016?
And, the Constitution gives the state legislatures absolute power to award electoral votes as they see fit, so I can’t see this going very far.
They should concentrate on making sure there is not one Illegal Vote Cast in our Elections.
If they can’t guarantee that, they have no business pushing the Popular Vote rhetoric.
I think that this is doomed to fail in court.
The Constitution indicates that states choose their electors. States are not required to choose electors by popular vote. Does everyone here realize that?
So since states are not required to choose electors by popular vote, or allocate them in any particular way among candidates, I don’t see how there is any legal case here.
Hmm. That means that the EVs in California and New York might be split instead of falling into the laps of the Dems automatically. Do they really want to contemplate this possibility?
Mathematical proof of the merits of the Electoral College - “Math Against Tyranny”.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny
All they need is a constitutional amendment.
:)
I think it would be hilarious if a judge actually let them prevail in nullifying what the constitution actually sez and then watch it go to the SCOTUS, which has motivation for keeping up at least a minimally positive reputation.
The “winner take all” is the most eminently fair way to resolve the Federal relationship between the states and the national government. What a pity that the Seventeenth Amendment took away the right of the various state legislatures to select the two Senators representing each state.
Proportional representation of each individual state has proved to be an instrument of mob rule. When polarization sets in, there is no way to resolve the differences.
I havent seen one, but given the concentration of her votes, and the fact that the GOP won so many House seats combined with Trump winning most of the states, I’d say he would’ve had a clean victory.
Yes, this is the same guy who came up with that cockamamie idea. He was on Tucker's show last night.
Did they find a judge in Hawaii who would take the case?
They can't. It's living and breathing....................
I’m pro-divying EC by district and matching the results to Congress. Of course that increases the power of gerrymandering which is a problem, but in the long run it’s a better system than whole state blocks. Proportional could be OK. Of course going to court for it is dumb, state legislatures have the power to decide, and they’re not under any compulsion to even open it to a vote (and some didn’t way back when). That’s the place to change it.
EXACTLY!!! Maine and Nebraska currently use the Congressional Districts +2 method for determining Electoral Votes. No need for a Constitutional Amendment to go to this method Nationwide. Just 48 legislatures with some sense and whatever controls the DC area...
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.