Getting rid of the electoral college

[Takket]

I posted this as a reply but wanted to branch it off into a full thread for everyone's thoughts.........

If we get a blue congress in 2021, we should take up an amendment to get rid of the EC...

Put some pressure on the GOP to vote for this. the public wants it gone. Even if it doesn't pass you can make the GOP go on record in favor of a system that allows them to literally cheat.

and i know people will say "the GOP will never support it because they need to cheat to win!" and yeah, that is probably going to be true in 2021...........

but they are facing some harsh realities in the coming years..........

They usually win florida by razor thin margins, but Florida restored voting rights to ex-cons that have served their time and the courts struck down deSantis's attempts at a poll tax. A lot of people angry about excessive sentencing targeting the poor and minorities in Florida and the poll tax are going to be heading to the voting booth this year.

MI and PA now have excuse free mail in voting options

Texas is pink and biden is leading in some polls. and you can bet a blue congress is finally going to get path to citizenship done meaning a LOT of people in Texas that are good enough to pick our crops, clean out hotel rooms and pay taxes, but not good enough to vote, are going to finally turn what in reality is a blue-disenfranchised red state to its true color possibly as soon as 2024!

and if Texas and Florida are blue, the GOP can't just sit around hoping to rig the electoral college anymore to rule from the minority, and it would probably be in their OWN best interest to do away with it and try to fight for the popular vote on the 50 state level...

I am hopeful.......

[Shermann]

1. May not need it

Absentee voting alone is probably enough to tip the polls to the left. Republicans can whip out their pocket Constitutions and bat down any electoral college reforms, but will find it difficult to tap dance around absentee voting in the midst of a pandemic.

[Demsrule86]

2. It will never happen and maybe shouldn't as small states will have little say.

Small states regardless of party will never agree.

[unblock]

3. i agree that small states won't go for it. an amendment requires 3/4th of the states

and that's well into the smaller states that would be dampening their own influence, so we're likely stuck with it, at least constitutionally.

as to whether it *should* be kept, no, i see no current logic in dividing up we the people by state boundaries and then saying that the people in certain states should have more influence than the people in other states. it may have made sense when the country was founded given that it was a compact among states, not a compact among the people, but it really doesn't make sense now.

in a close national election, voters in many states, such as california, effectively have no real say, because their state is a lock for one side or the other, so the election is decided by a handful of swing voters in a very small number of states. this really doesn't make sense. in a real democracy, in a close election, *everyone* should feel like they could sway the election by getting more people they know locally to vote.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

10. Small states are grossly overweighted in the US Senate. Ratify around them. . . . nt

[unblock]

4. the majority rule compact is the best way in practice to neutralize the electoral college

for that, we only enough states controlling a majority the electoral votes to agree to commit all their electoral votes to the result of majority vote across the nation.

this is not a "permanent" fix in that any state could back out of the agreement later, but it would lead to elections, and campaigns, where they look to win votes across the nation, instead of focusing solely on a tiny number of states.


if it holds up for a few election cycles and people get used to the idea, *then* an amendment getting rid of the electoral college might work.

[jls4561]

6. This is a very good point.

Constitutional amendments are difficult. I still hope the ERA passes in my lifetime.

[judeling]

5. More important is to expand the house.

The real problem is not that the EC is weighted towards small states, but that the government is.

[RicROC]

7. also the Senate

The US Senate is obsolete. Eliminate that too.
Or add two seats for each state to the House of Reps, voted on by the entire state after the Senate no longer exists.

[Polybius]

8. It requires a two thirds vote in the House and Senate, and 37 out of 50 states

It's too difficult.

[brooklynite]

9. The public doesn't want it gone...

The public doesn't much think about it. If asked if it should be replaced, they likely say "yes", but wouldn't insist on it as a policy position from someone they were voting for. And even we get control of the House and Senate, you'll never get 3/4 of the States to approve it.

[Bettie]

11. I agree that the EC is out of date

however, it CAN be fixed, but I doubt congress would go along with it as the fix would dilute their individual power

EC numbers are based on congressional representation.

Right now, by law (not the constitution) the number of congresscritters is fixed at 435.

If they were to lose the cap (yes, it would require more space), representatives could be allocated in a much more representative way.

Set a number as the maximum people per congressional district. So, large states would receive more reps, medium states might as well and congresscritters would represent fewer people, making them better able to serve their districts.

Ultimately, this fix doesn't require ratification by states and ensures that representation is more egalitarian.

[MurrayDelph]

12. I would prefer reforming the electoral college

to make it more representative.

1) Instead of 535 votes, let's make it 10,000.

2) It would be distributed to each state based on the number of registered voters they have. If a state (let's say California) has 10% of the registered voters in the country, they would have 10% of the electoral college representation.

3) If, in this hypothetical California, the Democratic candidate gets 75% of the vote, that candidate would get 75% of the electoral college delegates for that state.

This would allow secondary parties to have some representation, and would avoid the problem of just going with a nationwide total, which would tempt some states (let's say Alabama) to report more votes than they have voters.