Doesn’t a change to the electoral college require a constitutional amendment?
Yes — and good luck with that, CommieRATs.
“Doesn’t a change to the electoral college require a constitutional amendment?”
Details...
A change to the electoral college itself, yes.
But how each state's E.C. voters vote? No.
"What is the Electoral College?
The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes.
Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.
Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.
....
Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote."
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html
Anyone reading this who is NOT in a border state, still think illegal immigration isn't that important?
You mean steenkin’ constitutional amendment
‘Doesn’t a change to the electoral college require a constitutional amendment?’
this doesn’t change the electoral college; electors will still cast votes to elect the president...what changes is the methodology behind alloting winner take all votes from the individual states, which requires no constitutional action...
This is appalling.
I am ashamed to admit I knew very little about this endeavor until the last few weeks, and even though I consider myself tied in politically though I don’t read newspapers or watch television, I had only heard passing comments about it, a faint echo. I had no idea they had that many states signed on, including my own.
This is appalling.
Maybe someone can correct me, but I have the distinct impression this has deliberately been run under the radar, which is the way Rats do things anyway. I had no idea this was this far along. 181 electoral votes is alarming to me.
I understand that this could ostensibly work in the favor of conservative Presidential campaigns as well, but in the same way things like gerrymandering and ballot harvesting are done mostly in leftist efforts to get by chicanery what they cannot get by an outright vote, this falls right into line with that.
There are two things that seem immediately apparent to me when I consider this effort:
1.) This is an end run by the Left around the Constitution.
2.) This has been done quietly as to avoid any national scrutiny of this.
Again, I am appalled by this. Living in a blue state, this is a repudiation and rape of my voting rights. It is not hard to understand why the Left wants this, as it has its foundation in large population centers.
It is clear that they are doing this in a reactionary mode against the the electoral college as it is currently constituted, simply because they lost. If the Left had won, you would not see this, end of story.
Now that I am aware of this, I have to find a way to oppose this. My opposition to this is not based on winning or losing elections. My opposition is based on the fact that my vote will now be the equivalent of having to jump off a bridge because a large number of stupid people jumped off a bridge.
This is even more destructive than the combination of loosening of voting procedures, harvesting ballots, voting fraud, and leftist litigation of elections.
> Doesn’t a change to the electoral college require a constitutional amendment? <
Not in this particular case. The Constitution gives the states great latitude in how they assign their electoral votes.
So if a state wants to give all its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, that would probably pass muster with the Supreme Court.
And the argument that this would disenfranchise the state’s voters...that argument is weak. Because the votes would still count towards the national total.
But a smaller state would be stupid to agree to this. Any national vote scheme would shift the power to the big states, New York and California especially.
Click-bait headline. Read the article.
Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.
Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.
Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.
US Constitution? You still talking about that old ‘charter of negative liberties”?
It’s kind of cute that you think we still have the rule of law or anything like that.
They are doingmit at the state level.
States determine the election processes. These states essentially change their laws to give all electors to whoever gets the most votes, turning it into a popular vote.
States set their own election,laws.
All i know is this ought to be the same basis to overturn abortion and gay marriage. States decide. Also for national gun rights and constitutional carry.
How does someone this dumb get elected.
Just keep the voter fraud thing going, we are not prosecuting or jailing anyone for this travesty on the American people the country and its founding. you will see in 2020
Did you read the article? If enough states legislatures vote to give their electoral votes to the majority...that would effectively destroy the Electoral College without any Constitutional amendment.
Someone needs to go to court to get this stopped, pronto.
The Electoral College prevents mob rule. The Communist-inspired Democrats know this, but will do anything to take over and destroy our country.
What we need is an Electoral College at the county level for each State to prevent the mob rule that takes place right now because a handful of counties dominate the state level elections. These counties are characterized by high crime, drugs, corrupt politics, and questionable voting records.
Implementing the Electoral College at the county level for each state will prevent the mob rule that is taking place today, and give the forgotten men and women of the country a voice in the electoral process.
Time for some lawsuits.
One would think.
But, the lawyerly wrinkle here is that the Constitution leaves it to the States to select their electors for the electoral college however they please. So the argument is that this is constitutional.
The Constitution also says that the States shall enter into no compacts with each other, unless with the consent of Congress.
Which, raises two questions. First, this is clearly an interstate compact. In the event of a Democratic Congress, could it be approved? And would it be subject to veto?
And second, is the obvious one that this was never the way electors were intended to be selected, not the way they have ever been selected. That would obviously wind up in the Supreme Court.
As to the outcome of that--who knows anymore?
What is clear is that the last fraud standing would control the election, and that the recounts could go on for YEARS.